24-02-2015 03:46 PM - edited 24-02-2015 03:49 PM
Why is Bureau of Met manipulating data re Cyclone Marcia ?
They said it was a Cat 5 cyclone, yet all the wind speeds, sustained and gusts show that it was only a Cat 3.
In addition, the pressure level never got down to a Cat 5.
And regardless of the better building codes compared to Darwin/Tracy in 1974, the damage was no where near a Cat 5.
For a start, the trees still had leaves on them. In all the Cat 5 cyclones in the last 30 years, no trees had leaves
left on them.
In addition, "Data for Middle Percy Island has disappeared from the BOM site, but Jennifer Marohasy kept a copy.
(I’m sure the BOM will be grateful!)..."
Have a read of this.
IN ADDITION
It seems some of the media outlets wewre dissapointed that the damage wasn't worse. That was the impression I got.
Almost like Disaster porn.
Any comments ?
24-02-2015 06:09 PM - edited 24-02-2015 06:10 PM
Yes 2 large cyclones at once is unusual, so is the extreme cold and snow in the US ATM Maybe all the snow iis really from a snow machine. Lol
global warming means extreme and unusual weather, not just warmer temps though 2014 was the warmest year so far on record
on 24-02-2015 06:14 PM
Maybe the data from cyclone Marcia was damaged or lost as ithe cyclone crossed the island. Isn't that possible?
on 24-02-2015 06:16 PM
I think I'm going to have to bring out the laughing smiley again.
on 24-02-2015 06:26 PM
on 24-02-2015 06:38 PM
Was anyone in eBay in Darwin when Cyclone Tracy went through? I was and believe me it was as bad as it could be. Early Christmas Eve the cyclone went back out to sea, sighs of relief were heard all round and then everyone got on with Christmas Eve parties.
But it came back in and only 1 person had stayed back at the bureau, & it was he that got the news out to the rest of Oz
Quote 1 "By the time it made landfall, Tracy was packing ferocious winds, with gusts officially estimated at up to 230 km/h—the Bureau’s anemometer at Darwin Airport reached 217 km/h before it was wrecked by flying debris".
Quote 2 "While the official estimate holds maximum wind gusts of about 230 km/h, reconstructions of the night have placed the winds at the Radio Australia transmission station at Charles Point, near where Tracy made landfall, as high as 300 km/h".
http://media.bom.gov.au/social/blog/625/remembering-cyclone-tracy-lessons-from-a-perfect-storm
I was living in a Darwin suburb at the time and we weren't hit as bad as other places but it was bad enough. We all got evacuated, I went to my sister in Perth but returned to Darwin when we were allowed and no I was NOT a child at the time with bent memories.
Were there leaves still on the trees? yes, some, but only in the less hit places.
Was there any power or clean water? nope.
Was there looting? oh you better believe it, my place had next to nothing left in it when I returned with my kids.
Did the Navy do the clean-up? yes some of them did but it was mainly the Army that did the dirty work.
Was the death toll only 60 - 90 people? NO! it was much higher than that but no one will ever know the true number
So vicr, just shut your mouth, you weren't there so you don't know - believe everything you read do you? what a fool you are - Sandra
on 24-02-2015 06:49 PM
on 24-02-2015 09:17 PM
@vicr3000 wrote:
Two Cat 4/5's at once, one much further down south than normal.
Same as manipulating (removing) inconvenient temp data, the higher temps now can be made to look more extreme.
I am not saying it is a conspiracy (re the Cyclones), just seems weird when they had actual AND ACCURATE wind data coming in that they forecast it as so high.
Remember, this Cyclone passed directly over an Island just off shore that had accurate wind readings so it's not like they were guessing.
If no Island had been there, then I would understand guessing a bit
but factual data, hard to refute.
'
When dataset was slightly changed there was logical reason given. The BOM does not change figures for non scientific reasons.
on 24-02-2015 09:22 PM
on 24-02-2015 09:40 PM
@gleee58 wrote:The BOM does not change figures for non scientific reasons.
So, iis it ok to change figures for "scientific" reasons?
How very conveniant.
on 24-02-2015 09:43 PM