Why is Bureau of Met manipulating data re Cyclone Marcia ?

[vicr3000]

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.

http://joannenova.com.au/

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 ?

[vicr3000]

I was watching both regularly.

[poddster]

Could it be so that the modified data supports the global warming scam?

Oh yes, it is now "Climate Change" how convenient

[vicr3000]

Eventhough there has been approximately $30M of damage to the Rockhampton area alone, thankfully, the damage from Cyclone Marcia was not quite as bad as it could have been. Many people who have experience cyclones first hand have been surprised that a Category 5 cyclone like Cyclone Marcia did not cause as much damage as normally expected when it hit land, then proceeded down to the Rockhampton area as a Category 3. Did the Bureau of Meteorology get it right ?

This morning I spoke with Research Scientist Jennifer Morahasy from CQ University about the issue and she told listeners that BOM observations taken during the cyclone seemed to indicate that it was less intense than a Category 5 cyclone when it hit the coast and not Category 3 when it went over the Rockhampton and Yeppoon areas.

Listen to our discussion here: https://soundcloud.com/grantbroadcasters/jennifer-morahasy

[debra9275]

I think they're claiming that it's some kind of conspiracy, lol

[lurker172602]

I reckon my friend in Rocky was quite happy it was a 3 when they were prepared for a 4 or 5.

This would have to be one of the dumbest "let's complain about a public service/govt department" threads ever!

[vicr3000]

I was glad to watch the wind speeds and see that they were a lot less than what a Cat 5 was.

So likewise.

[debra9275]

Our friend too Lurks,he said the place is a mess, trees and iron sheeting everywhere, but he's ok. Next some people here will be saying it never happened at all, lol.

cyclones often weaken a bit as they cross land, thank goodness

[vicr3000]

Re weakening, did you see that Marcia weakened a little bit but Cyclone Lam Dropped down to a 1 and then a Low very quickly.

[debra9275]

Can you tell me what advantage it would be to the BOM to pretend it was going to be worse than it was? I just heard on the news $50 million damage, that's bad enough imo

[vicr3000]

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.




'