Talk:Cyclone Monica

message: 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)
replies: text: It's okay. No one on 17 April knew. Just too early. -- 199.71.174.100 05:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyclone Monica]] (Obsolete)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 , and a few agencies also put Hurricane Linda at 8.0.  --Coredesat 08:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dvorak 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comparison to Tracy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I truly think that we should mention the different pressures. RQSTR 12:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pressure 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing the doubt. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current events 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Location 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rebirth of Monica? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Units

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  Help from Australians needed 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Preparations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is an accurate conversion from 10 min sustained winds to 1 minute? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  JTWC pressure 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: See discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of the MDPI source