# Talk:Cyclone Monica

I'm sorry but this barely deserves its own article. Any thoughts? TydeNet 06:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Have now listed it for deletion. TydeNet 06:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Why? Please state your detailed reasons for deletion. Considering the even falls within a number of Wiki categories, to consider deletion seems to be premature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.226.159.104 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC).

Actually, the creation of this article was premature. Monica was not a notable cyclone yet. The deletion, at that time, was appropriate. -- 199.71.174.100 17:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it Tydnet.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.159.85 (talk • contribs) 
Standing WP:WPTC policy is for active storms which are like Monica was on April 17 to be merged into the appropriate season article. They get their own article when they become significant not before, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Nilfanion 14:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This AfD has to be defied. (Sorry. Hope I'm doing the right thing) Cyclone Monica is now Category 5 and threatening Gore Peninsula. -- 199.71.174.100 04:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
How ignorant is that. Why do people bother putting up an AfD if they don't even bother following the actual progress of the cyclone. Monica was a Category 5 and possibly was one of the strongest cyclones in history in the southern hemisphere. It's been downgraded to a storm now, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a category 5. Orichalcon 04:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's okay. No one on 17 April knew. Just too early. -- 199.71.174.100 05:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, I missed the date. Orichalcon 05:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has nothing really on the dvorak analysis technique.  But, my question is: is Monica the only cyclone ever to be put at T8.0 by dvorak analysis? — jdorje (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

According to this article, Typhoon Tip (1979), Typhoon Angela (1995), and Typhoon Gay (1992) all reached 8.0. Typhoon Ivan (1995) and Typhoon Joan (1995) were also rated 8.0 [1], and a few agencies also put Hurricane Linda at 8.0. [2] --Coredesat 08:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
From what I can find, no Australian cyclones have ever been rated T8.0 in Dvorak analysis, although I'm sure someone with a better background could prove me wrong. --Coredesat 08:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Judging from this perhaps an article on the Dvorak technique would be useful at some point? (could have a list of Highest T-numbers per basin?)--Nilfanion 08:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Somewhere else it was said that STY Angela had the highest Dvorak number ever. The thing is, central pressures depend heavily from ambient mean level sea level pressure, and these vary from location and time of year. Thus, it is rather pointless argue about whether Monica was 877 or 879mb, because it's all estimates and we have little or no actual measurement data about South Pacific and Indian Ocean storms and we don't know how well they conform to scales developed for West Pacific or Atlantic. JTWC uses WPac scale for all storms at its' AoR, which tends to lead lower pressure estimates than those given by regional meteorological services. For example, Zoe was estimated as 879mb by JTWC and 890mb by Fiji. --Mikoyan21 00:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The latest BoM warning gives "gust of up to 220km/h" in the Darwin area, this would be comparable to the intensity of Cyclone Tracy. It seems like Tracy and Monica will be like Hurricanes Camille and Katrina, the later storm being weaker at landfall but far larger. If so thats not a good omen for the inhabitants of Darwin. --Nilfanion 11:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes - being in Darwin at the moment the situation was quite frantic throughout the day today, most people have stocked up on food/water/petrol, evacuation shelters opened about an hour and a half ago. I'll try to update the page with details, at least until the power goes out.. --Baronjonas 11:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

When can we expect confirmation on this cyclone's lowest Sea-Level Pressure? Who's responsible for making the final decision? Orichalcon 13:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The responsiblity is the Australian BoM's (unless the WMO takes offence maybe). The final figure will come out in the TCR, which is likely months away. The Australian's seem to have been very conservative on Monica's peak pressure, but their figure is the official one (unfortunately). --Nilfanion 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The infobox, and the official statistics on other pages, should have the official number recorded, that would be the 905 from the BoM. However, mention on the page should be made of the other numbers. CrazyC83 15:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I truly think that we should mention the different pressures. RQSTR 12:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone clarify (here as well as on the article) whether this cyclone is Category 4 or Category 5? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The first box is current status category 4; the second is the maximum category 5. Monica was a category 5 at its peak (on both scales) and it is currently a cat 4. --Nilfanion 19:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing the doubt. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
More confusion that the peak strenght was 250km/h in the BOM website so that will make it a very intense Category 4 but just under Category 5 strenght. ([Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale]]). Now someone edited it to 290 km/h in wikepedia which i think it's the most accurate reading... Irfanfaiz 07:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I know this is a current event but we should do better at writing it as a past event.  Wikipedia is not a news source.  Terms like "have been evacuated" just aren't good; there is no reason not to say "were evacuated" here.  The "current storm information" and "emergency information and assistance" sections will obviously have some current events in them, but preparations and impact sections should for the most part cover things that have already happened so they can just use the past tense. — jdorje (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I just added the information about Maningrida. Margie 21:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Some yahoo edited that info and screwed it up: identifying kts as mph, changing the minimum pressure, claiming the airport stopped transmission at the height of the storm rather than 1 1/2 hours later (which was probably due to power failure), misquoting an ABC news article "couple of houses I saw were devastated" into "Maningrida was devastated" (actually damage appears consistent with Cat 1 winds) http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200604/s1623602.htm ...I had to fix it back.  Here is the actual data (should remain there a day or two more before they resume ops) if someone can cut and paste it into the article:  http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDD65151/IDD65151.95142.shtml
If it should happen again here's the info:
Monica made landfall to the northwest of the community of Maningrida, an Aboriginal community of 2600 people. Maningrida is located just inland in a river estuary. Maningrida Airport observations documented a maximum wind gust of 80kts (148 km/h) and a minimum pressure of 986.4 mbar at 18:31 (0931Z) on April 24th, and stopped reporting at 20:02. There was roof damage to a school serving as a shelter and to several other buildings.
Margie 19:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Margie, I added the information on Maningrida's devastation. I did say that this was the observation of one witness. I also took into account observations like "pockets of the community suffered serious damage in the cyclone" and "I saw some families that were doing it pretty hard with roofs all around them". As for your comment "damage appears consistent with Cat 1 winds", are we talking about Cat 1 on the Australian scale or Cat 1 on the Saffir-Simpson scale? I've been through a Cat 1 Australian scale cyclone, and the local school didn't lose its roof and the sewerage system certainly didn't fail.
I also added that the weather station at Maningrida Airport failed during the height of the storm. The wind was still gusting at close to 140km/h one minute before the station failed. You don't consider this to be "the height of the storm"?
Finally, Wikipedia defines vandalism as "any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to negatively impact the encyclopedia". This was never my intention. I find it a little harsh that you referred to my edits as vandalism. QazPlm 23:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi QazPlm.  Damage sounded equiv to SSHS Cat 1, although winds of that intensity were not recorded at the airport -- 50kt sust winds (10-min avg, converts to 56kts 1-min avg for US) are short of the 64kts required for SSHS Cat 1 (the highest gust, 80kts, was equiv to Australian Cat 2).  Remember also that damage can seem higher if buildings are not built to a hurricane code.  
The reporting at the airport stopped 1 1/2 hours after the peak of the storm (check the barometric pressure readings and the wind readings, which both maxed at 6:30pm).  This was likely due to power failure, and there were likely no higher readings than the 6:30pm ones, as the storm was moving away from the area.  The implications that the weather station "failed," which may not be correct (it may be fine, but may not have power), or that it was at the "height" of the storm, both imply damage that may not have occured, or that the highest winds were not measured and were still to come, which is clearly not the case if you look at the data.  Actually the airport station is just fine, as they just started reporting again today, about an hour ago (27/01:00 local time).
All of the changes made exaggerated the intensity or the damage, not the other way around.  I never said the word vandalism.  I think the main thrust of my comment centered around the importance of being accurate and sticking to known data.Margie 16:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the exact location of this cyclone? I live in Tampa, Florida, a part of the world which is frequently subjected to minor damage by hurricanes (wind, rain, downed power lines, etc). I want to know exactly where this storm is and where it is headed so I can know what to do. Thank you. Later!!! 70.124.132.176 22:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, do nothing? The cyclone is inland over Australia - about 10,000 miles west-southwest of Tampa, Florida...--Coredesat 22:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thank you. Later!!! 70.124.132.176 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The JTWC now lists the remnant of Monica as having a fair chance of developing over the Timor Sea in the next 24 hours. Once over water, Monica has a very good chance of redeveloping into at least a cyclone of hurricane intensity.Omni ND 11:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. Looks more likely that it will make landfall again before being able to become anything more than a weak tropical storm. If it turns out into the Indian Ocean, though, it could restrengthen. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 25 April 2006 @ 17:05 UTC
The low is expected to track southward, so the chance of regeneration is not very high. Darwin forecast it to deepen to 995 hPa only. Momoko
Regeneration is no longer expected. --Coredesat 07:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it a wikipedia standard to put all Cyclone wind speeds in mph, given that this article is based around an australian phenomenon, I would think that the speeds would be more appropriate to be given in kmph first followed by mph. Ansell 01:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, km/h with mph in brackets. NSLE (T+C) at 01:25 UTC (2006-04-26)
Just to note -- the Australian Bureau of Met lists wind speeds in both km/h and knots.Margie 17:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If knots and km/h is the standard then make it that, but I dont see why mph has to be included as a third digression from the two accepted local standard units. Ansell 01:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Km/h are given primacy as that is what Australian readers understand. Mph is given so American readers understand. In the Atlantic storm speeds are given as mph first then km/h, despite the NHC issuing in knots. Knots (or Nautical miles) shouldn't be used in any storm article as most people do not know what they are.--Nilfanion 01:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, in reply to the original comment; the Wikipedia guideline is to use the unit system more commonly used in the region of the article, for articles that talk about particular regions or events; however, it is always recommended to keep the other system (whether it is metric or Imperial) right next to it in parentheses. Knots are left in so the reader can compare the data we used to derive the other measurements. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought we didn't keep knots in? Looking at Hurricane Dennis, say, no mention of knots there, and the basis of the numbers is the TCR which solely uses knots.--Nilfanion 10:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Could we get a track map into the article for this storm? I myself find it rather difficult to picture the path of the storm completely just through the article WotGoPlunk 01:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

They're much harder to make than one would think; Jdorje needs the position and intensity data from the best track (or the advisory data) from the BoM, so if you have a few links that point to them, he might do it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
There's a track map here: http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/sevwx/nt/nttc20060417.shtml if someone wants to add it. Orichalcon 07:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Crown copyrighted. NSLE (T+C) at 08:14 UTC (2006-05-1)
They can copyright that map. But there's nothing stopping someone from making their own tracking map based off the information. Orichalcon 08:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The track map in the article now is from JTWC data and not BoM data, there are differences.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't really need to be Australians, but there is one part of the History section that says "later that day", when its actually the next day (I think the confusion stems from UTC vs. local time). Can somebody please take a look at that and remove the {{contradict}} template. Second, there is a number in the Impact section in parentheses, "0931Z". I don't know what that is, could somebody clarify? (Somebody fixed that part, good job.) Finally, if anyone sees anything in the present tense, take it out unless it really is happening now! J. Finkelstein 21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC), updated 05:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Most of the residents of Northern Territory were evacuated or located in shelters, mainly in Nhulunbuy. The town escaped significant damage because the storm track was well offshore.[11]"
The Northern Territory is an area of some 1500km plus by 500km plus and Monica , for the most part skirted the northern coast. I have changed "Most of the residents of the Northern Territory" to "Residents of some remote communities on the north coast of the Northern Territory"
There remains numerous items in this article that requires updating which I will look at later --Wabat 02:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

NT has the vast majority of its population along the north coast, changing back because of this. Come to think of it, the actual "evacuations" weren't that common except in the remote communities, others just went to local high schools for the night, which isn't major. Ansell 10:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In this article it says "it [Monica] strengthened and became the strongest tropical cyclone worldwide so far this year.".  Well, is it?  According to list of notable tropical cyclones its only the second strongest this year.  Maybe the article should mention the unofficial estimates, and something like "if unofficial estimates are beleived, Monica was the strongest cyclone so far in 2006". Jamie|C  10:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that uses official estimates; Typhoon Chanchu and Cyclone Glenda are the only other candidates I see for most intense, and neither was. —CuiviénenT|C, Wednesday, 24 May 2006 @ 00:25 UTC
I don't know where the "Some Meteorologists say that Monica was the Single Most Impressive Tropical Cyclone the world has Ever seen" went, but it is VERY True.....and The top 1 min. speeds were at least 190mph+, and I mean just look at all the pictures of her, she's insanly "Perfect".  This article makes this storm look like every Cat 5 storm out there when in fact Monica could have been the Most Amazing Cyclone In Recorded History.....  FreeSledder
WP:CITE, end of story. NSLE (T+C) at 02:15 UTC (2006-05-30)
Yes, I was wondering where all the debate has gone - at one point, I thought that people were saying Monica could have been been the most powerful Cyclone/Typhoon/Hurricane ever recorded. The infobox says the minimum pressure is disputed, but the article doesn't mention the dispute. Iorek85 01:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Added the dispute in the storm history. Mentioned the 879 and 869. CrazyC83 23:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
IBTrACS put's Monica's pressure at 898, which would officially make it the most intense cyclone in this region. Potapych (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Except [3] BoM has it at 916 hPa Jason Rees (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Link doesn't work. This one might be an average, but others (like Tracy) definitely aren't treated that way at IBTrACS. The database on BoM's website is a mess of errors. Reports also tend to come out before they revise their estimates. Potapych (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not interested in changing the article, but what is the norm for converting in this case? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gavirulax (talk • contribs) 15:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

The conversion factor stated in the literature is 1 min windspeeds are 14-15% higher than 10 minutes. In the case of this storm, they actually correspond nicely.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Gavirulax 11:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Monica/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jason Rees (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Source 12:Needs changing.
"According to the JTWC, Monica had a minimum barometric pressure of 879 hPa (mbar), ranking Monica as the strongest storm recorded in the southern hemisphere."
This needs changing to reflect that its tied with Zoe according to the JTWC for the strongest storm recorded in the southern hemisphere. PER [4]
Sorted via IRC. Passing GAN Jason Rees (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Talking about pressure by JTWC is meaningless, as JTWC just uses a strict wind to pressure scale for all tropical cyclones. Moreover, JTWC switched to a new scale in 2007, making pressure of strong tropical cyclones higher.
Monica formed in 2006 so its lowest pressure is 879hPa by JTWC. If it were born in 2007, its lowest pressure would be 907hPa by JTWC. Could you see the difference? -- Meow 03:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

So? Just because the JTWC's scaling of TCs changed the following year, doesn't mean that a 2006 TC should be adjusted to suit the new scale. Same applies to the category system for TCs when the category scale gets adjusted, it doesn't effect TCs before the system was put in place and EF scale when it was changed from the F scale for tornadoes. Bidgee (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Meow, Bidgee, the JTWC pressure for Monica is worth noting since it is very close to Typhoon Tips lowest pressure, it also provides an interesting comparison to the BoMs pressure estimates of 916 and 905 hPa which are dependent on which wind-pressure relationship you use. However we can not note the pressure that Meows as come up with, since we need a source to tell us Monica was X etc.Jason Rees (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
That’s totally different. Tip’s is based on an aircraft observation, but Monica’s JTWC pressure is just from their Dvorak wind-pressure scale. -- Meow 14:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cyclone Monica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514174851/http://environment.gov.au/parks/publications/annual/06-07/pubs/financial-summary.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/publications/annual/06-07/pubs/financial-summary.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

See discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)