Talk:Cyclone Larry/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cat 4

message: 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)
thread_title:  Windspeed: a broader problem 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Category Correction. 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why did they call it Larry? 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peak Gust Wind Speeds