![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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 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)
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.
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
Characteristic | Saffir-Simpson Cat 4 | Cyclone Larry |
Central pressure | 920-944 mbar | 915! mbar when landfall made |
Potential damages | "More extensive curtainwall failures with some complete roof structure failure on small residences. Major erosion of beach areas. Terrain may be flooded well inland." | 55% of all buildings in Innisfail damaged. Entire banana crop and some of sugarcane crop demolished. Rooves stripped of countless buildings; some buildings flattened entirely. Extensive flooding. Universal power outages, sewage system fails. Airports closed for the day. |
Storm surge | 4.0–5.5 m | 5.0m |
1-minute average sustained winds | 210-245 kph | 200km/h confirmed. Otherwise unknown, with gusts frequently exceeding 280kph. |
Conclusion | Larry is indeed a category 4 cyclone at the very least, unless we are willing to ignore important factors for the sake of 10km/h of confirmed sustained wind. |
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 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)
"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)
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. [1]
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
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)
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'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 observations observations 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)
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
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
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
Since when is this an acceptable referrence? Xtra 13:04, 22 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'm assuming this article is in British spelling as well as that "Defence" is the British spelling as well...right? Just checking Dr Denim 02:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
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.
Track map, longer intro, and upgrade to B-class (I think). íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 14:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
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?
I did some simple editing and it went funny? Auroranorth 12:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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 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)
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.
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
Characteristic | Saffir-Simpson Cat 4 | Cyclone Larry |
Central pressure | 920-944 mbar | 915! mbar when landfall made |
Potential damages | "More extensive curtainwall failures with some complete roof structure failure on small residences. Major erosion of beach areas. Terrain may be flooded well inland." | 55% of all buildings in Innisfail damaged. Entire banana crop and some of sugarcane crop demolished. Rooves stripped of countless buildings; some buildings flattened entirely. Extensive flooding. Universal power outages, sewage system fails. Airports closed for the day. |
Storm surge | 4.0–5.5 m | 5.0m |
1-minute average sustained winds | 210-245 kph | 200km/h confirmed. Otherwise unknown, with gusts frequently exceeding 280kph. |
Conclusion | Larry is indeed a category 4 cyclone at the very least, unless we are willing to ignore important factors for the sake of 10km/h of confirmed sustained wind. |
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 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)
"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)
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. [1]
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
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)
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'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 observations observations 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)
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
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
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
Since when is this an acceptable referrence? Xtra 13:04, 22 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'm assuming this article is in British spelling as well as that "Defence" is the British spelling as well...right? Just checking Dr Denim 02:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
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.
Track map, longer intro, and upgrade to B-class (I think). íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 14:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
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?
I did some simple editing and it went funny? Auroranorth 12:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.