Talk:Cyclone Larry/Archive 2

Cat 4
I believe that Tropical Cyclone Larry made landfall as a Category 4 tropical cyclone on the SS hurricane scale because if you look at the UNISYS track, Larry was a Category 3 over land. Also, it was rapidly intensifying up to landfall, so its winds were most likely in the 115-125 knot range. Further qualifying my argument is the very low barometric pressure, which with the Holliday-Atkinson wind-pressure relationship corresponds to approximately 125 knot winds. If you have any questions, feel free to drop by at my Talk page. By the way, if Larry's track shifts north, it will be in the very balmy waters of the Gulf of Carpentaria, and go look at TC Ingrid last year to see what could happen.Omni ND 14:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, while it may not be a Category 5 on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, it's at least a Category 4. If you look at the damage the cylone's caused and then relate it back the SS Hurricane Scale, you'll see that a Category 3 would not normally cause that much destruction. --Storm Horizon 02:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 915 mbar would be a record low in the Atlantic (if not the world) by a slim margin for a tropical cyclone that never reached Category 5 SSS status (Hurricane_Opal is the record holder in the atlantic). So while it is conceivable (but very unlikely) that Larry was only a Cat4 on the SSS, it is inconceivable that it was only a Cat3. — jdorje (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The sustained wind of 108 knots may be a ten minute average of winds, 1 minute average winds are used in the atlantic basin an may produce at least 140-150(cat 4) system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.214.198.1 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 21 March 2006

I agree with jdorje. Watching Larry strengthen while heading towards Queensland made it feel like Hurricane Camille! 915mb is indeed EXTREMELY LOW for a Category 3 storm. Hurricane Katrina holds the current Atlantic record for lowest pressure at Category 3 (920mb), but that was AFTER reaching peak intensity. Category 5 hurricanes usually reach that intensity for the first time around the 920mb mark, but often lose it again while lower (Wilma was still at 894mb when she dropped back to Category 4!). Larry on the other hand was an small, intensifying cyclone like Andrew so there's no way it peaked at Category 3. Pobbie Rarr 04:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Cat 3
Larry was a cat-3 on the Saffir-Simpson scale, and a cat-5 on the Australian cyclone scale. The sustained winds were estimated at 115 mph (1-minute average) by the U.S. navy's Joint Typhoon Warning center, which corresponds to a 3 on the SS scale. Australia's Bureau of Meteorology estimated the sustained windspeed higher, at about 118 mph (10-minute average), which converts to a 135 mph one-minute average (1-minute average windspeeds are higher than 10-minute averages). So, using the Australian estimate, it would be a cat-4 on the Saffir-Simpson scale. But that doesn't count. No official source is going to tell you that it was a cat-4 on the SS scale, because that is an American scale and it uses American wind estimates, which make it a cat-3.


 * The SS scale is used by Americans, but it doesn't mean that a measurement taken by Americans is more valid than a measurement taken elsewhere, and it is ignorant in the extreme to suggest otherwise. It is flawed logic to state that the local Australian estimate of the wind speed "doesn't count".--Jeffro77 08:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Australia estimated that it had maximum gusts of 180 mph, which has nothing to do with Saffir-Simpson category.

And it had a minimum pressure of 915 millibars which would suggest that it was fairly intense, but central pressure also has nothing to do with Saffir-Simpson category. The SS scale is based solely on 1-minute average sustained wind speeds. Hurricane Katrina was a cat-3 at landfall with 125 mph winds and a central pressure of 920 millibars. Damage done by the storm also has nothing to do with SS category.

And, final P.S., even if the 108 knot (125 mph) windspeed reported at Innisfall happens to be true, which would make the Joint Typhoon Warning Center's estimate too low, it would still be a cat-3 on the SS scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.139.22.42 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 21 March 2006
 * Well, if the BOM actually gave the 135 mph one-minute average, that would be an official source and that would qualify it for Cat 4 status. The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale isn't American, it's sanctioned by the WMO, which is an international body. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 22:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, they didn't, they gave a 118mph 10-minute average. There is no definite conversion from one minute to ten minute average windspeeds I know of. NSL E (T+C) at 00:30 UTC (2006-03-22)


 * According to the BoM, a 118mph 10-minute average (102.4 knots) does in fact qualify has a Category 4 on the SS scale.--Jeffro77 08:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I already have an article (American) claiming it was Cat 4. It's right [here. However, as you stated earlier, newsgroups are not an authority on the matter, are they? As for my friend [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]], well what can I say to you? You have gone against all sound logic and called me a liar because I can't confirm 10km/h of sustained wind. I'm unsure if you even know what logic is. To you, it's all cold hard data, with stupidty thrown in for free. Your level of intelligence sickens me. You've also failed to note the case for central pressure, which was on par with most Cat 5 storms. What you're proposing is this:

"A cyclone that brought about more than the effects and damages of a typical Category 4 storm and that had the Central Pressure of a typical Category 5 storm, is in fact a mere Category 3, simply because it's confirmed/measured sustained winds were 5 knots below the "cut-off" for Category 4."

For the rest of you: SS scale uses 1-minute averages. A 1-minute average of 200km/h was RECORDED about 30km north of where the cyclone crossed. I understand this is 10km/h less than the cut off for cat 4 (as stated above), but at least it puts estimates and what-nt to rest. Further, I'll leave the rest of my argument to logic, that is, if you have any.

Listen to me very carefully. Beauty may fade, but dumb is forever. '''TydeNet 02:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC) '''
 * Wow. One more of those outbreaks will get you a free ticket to the penalty box. We also need to cite something, not just conduct original research. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 04:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why must you be so ignorant. If you're so concerned about it then why don't you verify the facts for yourself? And I have already made citations, you're just not bothering to check them out. Where are YOUR citations, Mr Weekend Wannabe? Please, give me a break here, this was a Cat 4 SS Storm. Look at the table long and hard my good man. For the last time, what you're proposing is this:

"A cyclone that brought about more than the effects and damages of a typical Category 4 storm and that had the Central Pressure of a typical Category 5 storm, is in fact a mere Category 3, simply because it's confirmed/measured sustained winds were 5 knots below the "cut-off" for Category 4."

Go ahead, expolit your admin rights, it's all you're good for. TydeNet 05:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked 31 hours. NSL E (T+C) at 05:53 UTC (2006-03-22)

I agree with TydeNet's reasoning, though the attacks were uncalled for. I think this should be reviewed; it definitely looks like a Category 4 to me. PH34R 06:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wind observations in Australia are a 10-minute average from the standard height of 10 metres. A 1-minute average is roughly 10-12% higher than that. Therefore, I think it should be a category 4. In fact, BoM is equating a weak Australian category 5 to a USA category 4.

However, I don't agree that gusts frequently exceed 280kph. TCWC Perth always warns that wind gusts can be a further 40 percent stronger than the averages given in high seas warnings. The gust stated in cyclone advice is just to catch the mass attention. Though I won't say gust is never >40% above sustained winds, I found that, in most cases, gust won't reach that value.

Let's take Clare as an example, the estimated maximum winds (10-minute average) near the time of coastal impact were 140 km/h gusting to 195 km/h. (Note that 140*1.4=196) However, the highest recorded wind gusts was just 142 km/h at Karratha. Momoko
 * (edit conflict) The problem is that we just cannot go analyzing data, because that would be conducting original research, prohibited by policy, and that is one of the three innegotiable content policies, the other two being the neutral point of view and verifiability (which by the way states that the onus of providing sources falls to the user who is trying to introduce the information). If we are going to call it a Category 4, then we need something reliable to back it up. It's as simple as that. I was listening to his argument, but there is no need to call another volunteer an idiot, especially since there a storm that is just 5 knots below being notched up one category in intensity is a fairly common occurence. That is what got him blocked. That said, the conversion link is from a reliable source, so I'll bump it up the notch. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your understanding. As a Meteorologist I'm happy with the outcome. All the best, PH34R 06:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

ARRGH I JUST GET SO UPSET OVER CONFLICTING DATA!!!!!!!

Why are we acting so childish? I like the way it looks right now, listing the category on both scales in the infobox. Australians use Wikipedia too, and if the Australian BOM has decided to issue public advisories using their scale, then the Australian measurements take precedent over what the Americans would have measured. Where did they get these wind measurements from, anyway? Is there an Aussie counterpart to the Hurricane Hunters? And isn't it possible that if an Australian plane did go into Larry, it wasn't obsessively trying to find the highest sustained wind vector it can like the Hurricane Hunters do; they probably didn't take the time to find the highest sustained winds, just the highest gusts, since that's what they base cyclone intensity off of.

And gusts DO matter. Hurricane_Celia was only a rapidly strengthening 125mph Cat3 - with 180+ gusts.

--SomethingFunny 08:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If you observe what BoM did in the past, they care about 'highest sustained winds' more than 'highest gusts'. As you can see, there are more sustained wind measurements than gusts measurement. Innisfail measures sustained wind, but not gust. The estimated gust is just a figure roughly 40% above sustained winds and is often not supported by measurement. Momoko

The fact of the matter is that a Category 3 on the SS scale does not at all overlap with a Category 5 on the Australian scale. The Australian Category 5 can only be validly equated with either Category 4 or 5 on the SS scale. The entire argument on this talk page is based on two 17-year-olds who have decided that American readings are superior to the local official Australian weather bureau's readings for a cyclone that happened in Australia. The statistics on the only cited page to support the suggestion of Cat 3 are inconsistent with the Australian statistics which are undeniably the most reputable source of data in this case. The only reason Cat 3 is still there is because one of the young lads blocks anyone who removes it.--Jeffro77 10:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A user expressed concern that my reference to age might have been an 'attack'. Far from that, my reference to their youth was intended to express latitude in my judgement for their tenacity to enforce contradictory information in the article. If age is eliminated as a factor, there is less justification for their actions. The final point is that it is simply impossible for a cyclone to simultaneously be a Category 5 cyclone on the Australian scale and a Category 3 on the Saffir-Simpson Category scale.--Jeffro77 11:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the problem. This is about an Australian cyclone. We should therefore use the Official Australian statistics. No question. It is as simple as that. That does not however mean that a conversion cannot be added for all the people who come from a different area if their scale translates differently, but that is an entirely separate issue. Xtra 12:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with including the conversion to the other scale either, however the fact remains that the data presented by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology indicates a Category 4 cyclone according to the Saffir-Simpson scale.--Jeffro77 12:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the 'diputed' tag to refect the point of contention so that it doesn't look like the whole article is in dispute (it is afterall only a relatively small side issue!). Given Momoko and Jeffro's observationsobservations that an Aust Cat5 cannot at the same time be a SS Cat3, can we all agree that the dispute is settled and that the dispute tag can be removed? -- Adz|talk 13:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * From that page, "The demarcation points are not precise - this table is intended to provide a rough comparison only." Again, unless wind readings are found, we cannot claim that the storm was Cat 4 when all measurements of sustained winds claim otherwise. Unless an Australian (or other) authority states that the storm was Category 4, we cannot extrapolate the data on our own to state that it was Category 4. I know it is pedantic, but we must follow WP:NOR. — Cuivi é  nen , Wednesday, 22 March 2006 @ 17:52 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a rough comparison only, but it also comes from an official source, and the table states that it really isn't in the borderline either. Actually, at this point, what's needed is something to prove that the cyclone was SS Category 3.
 * And also, to everyone: remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and as such, it is not within our scope to actually decide if a storm was Category 3 or 4. We can only report what is being reported. The problem a few sections above is that no one had provided an official source. Now that it is provided, the problem is gone. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 21:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The claim for Category 3 is based on flawed logic. Here is an analogy that demonstrates the issue here. Person A weighs a box, and finds it to be 10kg (approx 22lb). Person B, who is no-where near the box, estimates that the box weighs 15 pounds (approx 7kg). An observer then dogmatically asserts that 15 pounds must be correct because they are more familiar with pounds than kilograms.--Jeffro77 21:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you got the idea that was the issue. At first, nobody knew there even existed a conversion from wind gusts and/or 10-min sustained wind to 1-min sustained wind.  Then we got a source that said that Larry was Category 3, and went with that first, until it was contradicted and eventually superceded by other sources that say it's a Category 4. --AySz88 ^  -  ^  23:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that most people agree that we should go with the conversion table from the Australian BoM's FAQ; can we remove the tags and such now? --AySz88 ^ -  ^  23:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Our single source for Category 4 intensity is a news website with no credibility whatsoever, especially since they are contradicted by more mainline sources such as CNN (See here). While the Australian BoM provides a conversion scale, they note that it is no way a serious conversion, merely a rough estimate, and the data they actually provide does not warrant Category 4 status unless it is converted using an uncertain scale. If we are to draw any conclusion, it should be an agreement to disagree and perhaps not include the SS Scale category at all unless someone from a meteorological institution makes a decision. I beg the people on this page to read WP:NOR. — Cuivi  é  nen , Thursday, 23 March 2006 @ 01:11 (UTC)


 * User:Cuivienen claims that the news site stating Cat 4 is invalid, though the source given for Cat 3 is merely a blog containing inaccurate data inconsistent with the Australian BoM, based on estimates made overseas (hence my analogy above). The pressure and windspeeds of Larry as recorded by the Bureau of Meterology are compatible with a Category 4 cyclone on the SS scale (and this has been attested to by a meteoroligist in this forum). It appears to be an issue of pride that some want Cat 3 to remain in the article.--Jeffro77 08:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, this isn't a point of pride. This is upholding a Wikipedia policy. If you read the CNN article I cited, it provides a sustained windspeed consistent with Category 3 on the SS Scale. Now, I am not saying that it was definitely a Category 3, but you have no real evidence or citations that it was Category 4, only original research. "Compatible with" does not a Category 4 make unless you make extrapolations - which is original research. — Cuivi é  nen , Thursday, 23 March 2006 @ 17:46 (UTC)


 * Mr Cuivienen, you're the only one here disputing the inescapable truth. Please review this link and let me know your response. You seem to be hounding people; "Larry was 5 knots short of a Category 4 over a 10-minute average", when it is known that a 1-minute average (for the SS scale) wind measurement is typically 10-12% higher. I stress that you visit that link. This is a matter of logic, not original research. It would be a pity if the entire Meteorological world were to encounter your argument before you let it go. This is NOT an attack, but please reconsider your concrete statements. PH34R 02:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly is the inescapable truth? If you're saying that the storm was a Cat4 SSS, then I will dispute that unless you have a reliable measurement.  If the 915 mbar reading is correct, I'd say there is a 90% chance that the storm was a Cat5 SSS. — jdorje (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 915 mbar is not a reading, but an estimation. The pressure of tropical cyclones in Southern Hemisphere is similar to that of Northwest Pacific. 915 mbar is not low enough to support a Cat5 on SS scale. Momoko


 * We are all Wikipedia editors. We are all held to Wikipedia standards. WP:NOR is one of the policies here, and I do agree that as long as it is speculative (10-12%, for example, isn't even a definite answer!) it is original research. Please note your rights to fork and leave. NSL E (T+C) at 02:37 UTC (2006-03-23)

How strong Larry actually was?
No high seas warning was issued in between 271800Z and 280000Z. However, Larry was upgraded to a category 5 in this period. I wonder how strong Larry actually was.

The bulletin at 271800Z said that the DT based on EIR eye pattern varied from T5.5 to T7.0 and averaged at T6.4. The 10-minute sustained winds was estimated to be 100 knots. It sounds a bit too low as T6.5 corresponds to 127 knots and 127 knots*0.871=110 knots.

I think the intensity at landfall was a bit higher as the pressure dropped further from 920 to 915. As wind speed was measured at 108 knots, should Larry's intensity be around 110 knots? Adding 40% to 110 knots, it would be 285.2km/h (~290km/h) so my best guess is 110 knots (10-minute average). Momoko

Windspeed: a broader problem
So are 1-minute winds *never* measured for Australian cyclones? If so, does that mean every storm in the basin or area needs scrutiny? Cyclone Tracy claims to be a Cat4 on the SSS, but something I read a couple days ago says it's actually Cat4 on the Australian scale; UNISYS shows it as a Cat1. Do we need to go through this same process of argument for every storm in that basin? — jdorje (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's true that 1-minute winds are never measured for Australian cyclones. All wind records are either gust or 10-minute average sustained winds. Momoko

A Local Opinion from someone who was there
I have started to form the opinion after reading here that some people are skeptical about the wind speed factor and dont want to accept that Cyclone Larry was a Category 5 system even on the SS scale simply because there wasnt the damage and loss of life associated with Hurricane Katrina.

Although I am not in Innisfail itself I still live in the affected area and got to see and feel first hand the effects of Cyclone Larry. Where I live near Cairns was on the northern side of the system and homes all around where I live were badly damaged by falling trees. Many large trees with massive root systems were also uprooted.

I have also spoken to quite a number of people about this dispute in the past few days and everyone I have spoken to all confirm that the wind speed was 280kph+ for several hours!

On the Atherton Tablelands winds were reported to have reached 320kph! Some people around the world dont seem to understand why there wasnt the loss of life and damage like that inflicted in Hurricane Katrina, but there are several logical reasons why noone was killed and why only 50 residents were injured in Cyclone Larry:

1. Australians around Innisfail and other parts of North Queensland have endured many cyclones and are not complacent to threat like this one. Residents generally following warnings and cyclone advices very seriously. Locals also work every year to ensure their property is free of anything that can become airborne and cause damage or injury when the cyclone season arrives.

2. Stringent building codes in Australia require homes to be built to withstand the minumum catergory 3 cyclone following Cyclone Tracey in 1974. Most damage to new homes in Cyclone Larry was caused by falling trees.

3. There wasnt the storm surge threat to residents living in low lying areas like in the Mississippi delta associated with Larry. Flooding killed most people in the disaster in New Orleans after a sea wall (levee) collapsed from what I understand.

I personally have endured 4 cyclones that were Catergory 3 systems and Larry made them look very mild in comparison. Many locals who have endured other cyclones have all said they were never so scared in their lives as they were during Cyclone Larry. M_noble


 * That's exactly the point - it is an opinion. No original research covers opinions. NSL E (T+C) at 02:55 UTC (2006-03-23)


 * Mr NSLE, quite frankly I'm getting bored of your links to policies. I'm a Meteorology student. You're a 16-year-old (possibly 17) administrator of an Online Encyclopedia. Tell me now, who is the more qualified of the two to decide the intensity of the Cyclone Larry system? Tell me, Mr. NSLE, which of these is the more accurate? An accurate opinion/logical argument with first-hand accounts and/or sound Meteorological reasoning, or an inaccurate statement based on concrete policy? It is my opinion that either we all agree Larry was Cat 4, or we remove any links to the SS scale on the entire page. It is not my intent to defame you; however, I can see this being deleted and my account being subsequently blocked (even though this would be a breach of policy). As we must adhere to policy, so must you. All the best, PH34R 04:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good tap job avoiding what he said. We need to be able to cite things. A personal report is not a citable source. Please read WP:CITE. --Golbez 04:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * While one personal account should never be considered a 'citable source', multiple eye witness accounts should have some bearing on the genuine facts surrounding Cyclone Larry. If you have been watching the Australian News like I have you would have seen and heard the testimonies of many local residents. You would have also heard the testimony of Bureau of Meteorology officials who also made a mulitude of public statements about the severity of this system. --M_noble
 * Eyewitness accounts are important for damages, and we can have quotations from locals regarding the level of destruction. However, the general public - and meteorology students - are not reliable sources of information about windspeed or strength. Given that the blog cited below is written by a meteorologist, I would trust it over a self-proclaimed meteorology student - no offense to you, PH34R. — Cuivi é  nen , Thursday, 23 March 2006 @ 17:57 (UTC)


 * The blog cited contains numerical data that is demonstrably wrong, as it is inconsistent with the actual data collected on location by the Australian Bureau. An 'expert' who gives wrong information does not ennoble the erroneous data.--Jeffro77 22:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wunderground ("the blog") cites 118 mph winds. That is consistent with the Australian BoM's data. I do not understand where you get this claim of inconsistency from. I hate to sound snarky, but you really need to educate yourself about meteorology before claiming to know better than editors who have put together an extremely detailed trove of information on tropical cyclones here on Wikipedia. — Cuivi é  nen , Friday, 24 March 2006 @ 02:09 (UTC)


 * Well, looks as though my block has finally expired. My apologies to Cuvienen and Titoxd for my incivility. I'm quite tired of this argument, frankly, I've found it's no use putting forward all the logic in the world when adherence to redundant policies is the norm. The link to the BoM page was convincing anough for an admin to change it to Cat 4, however others disagreed on principle, not logic. While it's a shame, I've decided I no longer care whether the public is deceived as to the strength of the cyclone, so long as some of us aren't. As for PH34R, I agree with you entirely. Administrators should follow policy and avoid using their power to their advantage in an argument. TydeNet 00:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

A blog as a source countering information from an official indepentent government agency
Since when is this an acceptable referrence? Xtra 13:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I raised the same issue earlier, which resulted in NSLE misusing administrator powers by blocking me for 15 minutes.--Jeffro77 13:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * AGF. NSL E (T+C) at 01:01 UTC (2006-03-23)


 * NSLE, you can't take controversial actions as an administrator (such as controversial blocking) and then hide behind 'assume good faith'. It may well be that you thought you were doing the right thing, but as an administrator, you should be prepared to discuss and justify your actions (see:Blocking policy controversial blocks - right towards the very bottom). Throwing up a three letter acronym (AGF) is not good enough.
 * Your blocking of Jeffro could be construed to have been "blocking to gain an advantage in a dispute". As an admin you should know this and you should have asked another admin who hadn't been involved in the issue to intervene. I believe that you should also have taken this step before blocking TydeNet above. I have raised this with you previously however you chose to delete my message from your talk page and responded with a brief reply which didn't address all the issues I had raised. AND proceeded to put a notice on your talk page saying that you would delete any messages you saw fit. These are not the actions one would expect from an open and accountable admin. You also removed messages from another user who had raised similar concerns.
 * In the case of TydeNet's blocking, while I agree that TydeNet shouldn't have resorted to personal attacks, I think the timeframe was excessively long to say the least, and I believe that due process wasn't followed - namely I think that whether Titoxd's 'warning' actually constituted a warning is questionable.
 * I feel that your actions in relation to (a) the blocking of both Jeffro77 and TydeNet, (b) your removal of messages from your talk page concerning the use of your admin privileges, (c) the degree to which you are prepared to discuss your actions with other users all deserve scrutiny.
 * I believe that you need to demonstrate that you are capable of exercising your admin privileges responsibly and make a commitment that you will do so in future. It is not in the interests of wikipedia to have unaccountable admins running around without following due process. Hiding behind "please assume that I blocked somebody in good faith" is not good enough.
 * I would have posted this comment on your talk page however you have protected it from editing because you want to go on a wikibreak. You have however continued to make edits to this page and other pages in that time. While you have invited me to email you (and I will when I'm on a PC I can email from), I feel that it is appropriate for dispute resolution be be conducted in the open where it can be done with a degree of accountability. Please feel free to reply on my talk page (or move it to your own talk page) if you wish, as I recognise that this isn't the best page on which to be conducting this discussion. -- Adz|talk 08:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: I note that you have moved selected parts of the talk page, including this section, to the Archive, but as I think it is an ongoing discussion, I have moved it back to the talk page. -- Adz|talk 08:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the blocking policy explicitly states: "sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute."--Jeffro77 08:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Seconded. I've had numerous gripes about NSLE; he is not conducting himself in a manner most would deem appropriate for an administrator. He is also setting a bad example for other administrators and users. Cuivienen isn't helping the issue by making such bald-faced statements about the Cat3/4 issue as if they were concrete facts. I respect their adherence to policy, however I think there is a point where the enforcement of such is impractical. Both have gone beyond this point. TydeNet's outrage, while understandable, was uncalled-for, I agree, but blocking him also diverted attention away from the case he was making and subsequent controversy made the argument stray from its topic. Truly a shame. PH34R 09:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, I haven't done anything to any of you. At the risk of sounding whiny, I will say that I have been the target of slander and attacks while being the voice of reason in supporting a Wikipedia policy. Those of you who have come here and decided that you are correct, and that Wikipedia policies do not need to be followed must reevaluate your actions. Wikipedia is verifiable and does not allow original research. We must have citations for any facts included in the article, citations that explicitly state the facts rather than allowing extrapolation - which is original research. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia. Thank you. — Cuivi é  nen , Thursday, 23 March 2006 @ 17:51 (UTC)


 * Just for the record Cuivienen, my issue isn't with whether the cyclone was Cat3/Cat4 and I have tried to stay out of that debate.
 * I do agree that wiki policy needs to be followed: sources need to be cited, no original research etc. No arguments from me there. My issue has been with administrators not following wikipolicy (namely WP:BP) and being unwilling to be held accountable for their actions. I just wanted to clarify this so as not to get tarred with a broad brush. -- Adz|talk 00:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

STOP !
Enough with the pointless and offtopic disscusion about who blocked whom and the rights and wrong about blocking, personal attacks and all that other nonsonse because it not going to get us nowhere fast and its wasting another whole talk page! Storm05 20:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah but we do still have to figure out how strong the storm was. "unknown strength" is okay for the moment but I'm sure there is a way to find out. — jdorje (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem seems to be that the Aust Bureau of Meteorology doesn't collect or publish data that lends itself to comparison against the SS Scale. Because editors can't agree whether that data can be extrapolated to corespond to data that does correspond to the SS Scale without consituting original reseach, it seems to me that we can't rate the cyclone on the SS Scale. I think the only solution is for the info-box to say 'unknown'. -- Adz|talk 03:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The BoM does provide a conversion table at http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/wa/cyclone/about/faq/faq_def_2.shtml, but it's not specific to this case and disagrees with media reports. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  04:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of that. That's what I was refering to when I mentioned extrapolating data. The Aust Met Bureau measures ten minute wind speed averages, whereas the SS Scale relies on 1 minute averages and that means that the scales can't be compared unless the data is recalculated. Some editors argue that recalculating or extrapolating the data consitutes original research, which means we don't have consensus. See the Archives at the top of this page. -- Adz|talk 05:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand; that same page converts 10-min averages to 1-min averages too. It might originate from an extrapolation, but it's one provided by the BoM, so for us it's more like plugging something into an equation. --AySz88 ^  -  ^  05:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My comment on this remains the same: if that is the case, how come every other southern hemisphere cyclone has known windspeeds? Is Larry really the only articled storm that has unknown 1-minute sustained wind speeds? — jdorje (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For other articled storm in hemisphere cyclone, we don't have measured 1-minute sustained wind speeds as well. JTWC's "estimation" often can't reflect the truth. If you've read JTWC best track data of Tracy, you will be very surprised! Momoko


 * I have read the JTWC best track on Cyclone Tracy. It is shown in the track map on the article page. Like most of the southern hemisphere best track info, it does not show at all what I would expect. — jdorje (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitive answer
I found a conversion factor for 10-minute mean windspeed to 1-minute mean windspeed here, another here (cached here), and another one here. They range from +12% to +15%. This means that the reported 10-minute windspeed on Innisfail of 125 mph converts to a 1-minute mean of 140-145 mph, making the storm a category 4 at landfall. This link has conversions between the Australian scale and the Saffir-Simpson scale, and plugging in the official Australian estimate of 290 km/hr gusts gives a 1-minute sustained windspeed of 150 mph- also category 4. The anemometer at Innisfail was likely not located exactly at the location of maximum wind. So the storm had 1-minute sustained winds of 140-150 mph and was a category 4 on the Saffir-Simpson scale. If there are no objections, I am going to edit the article accordingly. --172.128.150.124 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The NHC suggests a 1.12 conversion factor (for 1-minute versus 10-minute sustained winds), then goes on to say it's not very accurate. While I don't object to using the conversion, I would like to see something better. — jdorje (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. It seems like what we need to do- and by 'we' I mean someone else because I don't feel like doing it- is contact a meteorologist at Australia's BoM and ask them what they think about the situation.  --172.149.97.136 01:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think BoM is making it even more confusing by giving a range for the sustained winds and gusts. It seems that they are considering a downgrade to category 4. Also, they didn't mention the 108kt sustained winds in Innisfail, perhaps they are figuring out if the observation is reliable. Momoko


 * Seven News had a special about Larry and there was a section about finding out how strong Larry was. So far specialists (forgot what kind) have collected signs from Innisfail and are going to test them to see how strong the winds were. Hopefully in the next month or so we will know once and for all just how strong Larry was and what category he belongs to. Nashy-Bear 09:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Momoko, could you insert a source on the basin dependency of the minimum central pressure of tropical cyclones for the same maximum wind speed? 62.201.85.135 15:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Most sources make the comparison between the pressures of TCs in Atlantic and NW Pacific and agree that the background pressure in Atlantic is higher causing the pressures of TCs higher. However, I can't find any sources specific to Australian TCs. At least, without stating the pressure difference, the comparison gives an illusion. To me, it is quite meaningless at all to compare minimum pressure of a Australian TC using the Atlantic scale. Momoko

Why is there such a big fight over was it cat 3 or cat 4, on the Saffir-Sampson scale? Compare this with the debate on Hurricane Emily in the Atlantic. The NHC discussion most relevant to that debate said "flight-level winds of 153 kt. The standard adjustment of this value to the surface would yield 138 kt... or just above the category 5 threshold". This is a comparable situation to Larry, the supporting evidence for the higher SS category relied on a standard formula. The NHC officially classified Emily as a cat 4 storm, despite this evidence and the community on here strongly believed it was a cat 5. It was only when the TCR was released that Emily was officially a cat 5 storm. Now this strikes me as very similar information to Larry, the only definitive readings we have indicate a cat 3. This is contradictory with the 'standard conversions', but so was Emily being a cat 4. This suggests to me that we can only call it a cat 3 storm on SS, despite the likelihood that it was a cat 4. Until we have the equivalent to the NHC's TCRs (I guess the Australians are responsible for that?) we cannot say for sure.--Nilfanion 17:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there was no official BoM word at all that it was Category 3 on the SSHS, only that Jeff Masters listed it as such (and I went with it), but Masters has in his latest post called it Cat 4, so I think we can be pretty confident (with two sources now) that it's Cat 4. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  23:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know, I'm not prepared to start a fight here (again) it's just if we had done with Emily what we have done with Larry, Wikipedia would have recorded it as a cat 5 all along (incorrectly). As the BoM do not offically label storms on Saffir-Sampson, we can probably do the unofficial conversions ourselves freely. By the way, there is a probable self-reference in Jeff Masters blog, because with the way he links to here, he might well be using WP as his source, so I don't think we can use it as a second source. --Nilfanion 23:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I found this: BoM Brisbane's report on Larry. It has a table with this in it "290 km/h from N-NNE with gusts to 310-320 km/h"; that suggests Larry was borderline category 5 on Saffir-Sampson. And that is the "official" data. What do we think? --Nilfanion 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If the BoM uses ten-minute speed in observances and advisories I think their TCRs would also use 10-min speeds. NSL E (T+C) at 01:20 UTC (2006-04-25)
 * But if thats true it would mean 1 minute speeds are even higher than that, the lack of a major difference from the gusts confuses me. I'm not sure if that page is the TCR, or just a presentation of the data, without official status - that wind report is estimated.--Nilfanion 11:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the Jeff Masters blog, at the bottom, many of the posts on his blog criticizes the quality of this article. Storm05 15:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Question of spelling
I'm assuming this article is in British spelling as well as that "Defence" is the British spelling as well...right? Just checkingDr Denim 02:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes that is correct, Most spelling involved with Australian Issues and everyday lives are pretty much British Gertzy, 10 June 2006.

Category Correction.
Larry's SSHS category should be at Cat 5 standard which i have just changed. The SSHS scale puts a Cat 5 system at < 920mbar/hpa, and Larry was at 915hpa. which clearly is Cat 5 Aus and SSHS scales.

If Larry was 925hpa and at Cat 5 standard however, then maybe the SSHS scale would be Category 4 standard. Don't care what US meteorologists say, I think the Bureau of Meteorology is capable of handling and measuring the size of a storm. Gertzy, 10 June 2006.
 * Pressure has little to do with SSHS categorization, or the Australian category for that matter. Hurricane Katrina was Category 3 at landfall in Louisiana but its pressure at that time was 920 mbar. All that matters for SSHS category is windspeed. I don't doubt the BoM can measure as competently as the NHC they just use a different system to the Americans, which makes direct comparison tricky.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Todo
Track map, longer intro, and upgrade to B-class (I think). íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 14:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * More todo includes a preparations section and more impact. Any aftermath (aid, for example) should be in the aftermath, not in the impact section. A track map would be nice, too. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did they call it Larry?
Does anyone know why they called it Larry? They get there names so that they can identify easily what one it was but why did they call it Larry?
 * Because they have an alphabetical list ready to name the storms. Pobbie Rarr 18:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What happened?
I did some simple editing and it went funny? Auroranorth 12:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Larry Forum Report
AussieMark of Storm2k was kind enough to give me a link to this 35-page report on Larry and its local effects. --Core des at 06:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Peak Gust Wind Speeds
In the third paragraph of "Storm History", it says:

From an estimate of winds speeds needed to fail simple structures a damage survey of buildings in the Innisfail region estimated the peak gust wind speeds (referenced to flat open country at a height of 10 m) across the study area to range from 180 kph to 230 kph.

Should the units be 180 mph to 230 mph? According to the first paragraph, the peak gusts are supposedly about 320 km/h, which is about 200 mph. If the numbers and units are correct, it shouldn't say 'kph' anyway, because the correct way to abbreviate kilometres per hour is 'km/h' or 'kmh-1', never 'kph'. Therefore, I'd think it should either say 'from 180 km/h to 230 km/h' (which seems way too low), or 'from 300 km/h to 370 km/h' (and a top gust speed of 370 km/h seems too high, although it might have happened). Also I find the sentence containing the words 'estimate' and 'estimated' to be a bit confusing.

How about:

Using the technique of comparing damage done to buildings in the Innisfail region to the approximate wind speed needed to cause failure in simple structures, the peak gust wind speeds (referenced to flat open country at a height of 10 m) across the study area were estimated to range from 300 km/h to 370 km/h.

220.253.85.165 06:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Oliver