I would have thought that it was better to err on the high side so that people were more than adequately prepared. As it turned out, there was still major destruction, but apparently no lives were lost. Had the forecast been for only a category 3 cyclone, the result may well have been different, so I say, "Well done to the BOM" despite what the nitpickers might say.
David

I can understand "erring on the side of caution" before the cyclone hit land, but surely the record should be accurate after the event? Inflating the severity of cyclones does nothing but instill a false sense of security in people. They now believe that a Cat 5 is not as bad as they thought, so the next one forecast will not bring any sense of urgency as a real Cat 5 should.

I must say I agree with the author. I'm by no means an expert, but I noted the same things as she did and was wondering what the bureau was seeing that I wasn't. While I can understand the bureau's fear of media overreaction if the storm turned out to be enormously destructive and they had erred on the low side, the author makes an excellent point about "the boy who cried wolf" effect.

On a more positive note, I thought the emergency services did well and the Premier handled herself well in not going over the top, although I do wonder just what role a politician has in presenting disaster warning information of this type.

Thanks Jennifer

As usual, your articles are timely and logical. The 1918 Mackay cyclone (Central pressure 928 mb) happened within the lifetime of many Australians, and one can be sure larger events will occur within the lifetime of those now living. Science is ill-served to fiddle the figures for whatever reason. Mankind will have to cope with much more than has yet been experienced. We need to diversify our production centres, we need to have a cyclone-resistant port to provide an outlet for the abundant resources of North Queensland. Surely this event where the BOM predictions were consistently inconsistent is a wake-up call for an examination of the vulnerability of our major export ports, and the need to open up a wonderful natural asset, Port Clinton. Cyclone resistant housing and infrastructure needs a prosperous economy for establishment. Yet our punitive tax system and nanny-state policies are roadblocks in the pathway to progress. May I recommend as a starter a check of the website <http://like2percenttax.com.au/>

Whether it is bushfires or cyclones, the authorities have to be exact and honest or the people they have to warn start not trusting the warnings "oh they always get those things wrong" - and that could be disastrous.

Jen's sounding more and more like she trying to get a job on Fox news or world news daily. Facts just don't matter for this lady.

Jen's working on the thin edge, that her better's have better manners than her and will use the proper forums to correct her mistakes and dismiss her ravings

For those interested in what Daniel Smith wrote go here https://www.jcu.edu.au/cts/ and look for the link to the document.

Remember most readers will have the same level of expertise as Jenifer, but if you would like to fully understand then email a relevant expert, i'm sure they would be happy to correct any misunderstandings of the work and field in general.

Lots of experience with cyclones have you Cobber?

I have sailed through three in small boats, sheltered boats in creeks in another few, had a few on land, & closely followed the development of every one for years.

With just that experience it was pretty obvious, blind Freddy obvious actually, that this thing was no cat 5 cyclone.

The damage at Yeppoon was very minor, considering the decrepit state of much of the older housing, built as it was as weekenders for cow cockies & cane farmers, 50 years or more ago.

It was so obvious that I had a bet with my son that the thing would be cat 2 or 3 when the actual wind speeds were read by instruments. We now know that was the case. What the hell is the BOM doing spinning cyclones.

As someone said, when we do get a real 4 or 5, the devastation & deaths will be massive, if people believe this was up there.

Do some research, before you start blowing your mouth off mate. There is an extensive photographic record of the results of real 3 & 4 cyclones, & a few 5s. Have a look, then apologise for your foolish post.

Actually Jenny, the radio reported recorded wind gusts at the centre, of 295 Kilometes per hour, so according to your numbers, we were approached by a category 5 Cyclone!

Just be glad that the eye of the storm and the most destructive winds missed your place and apparently your bananas; albeit now sadly bent ones.

As things stand the only one needing a very public dressing down just happens to be you, and only because you have very ably presented misinformation, with the sole purpose of scoring a king hit on some of your (climate change)foes?

But then misinformation, particularly around climate issues, seems to be your particular forte, doesn't it Jenny?
Rhrosty.

Cobber,

You need to clarify… which facts did i get wrong? Also, Daniel Smith's preliminary report indicates damage consistent with Cat 2 or 3?

Rhrosty,

Yes, the radio and media generally were reporting all sorts of nonsense… including quoting inaccurate BOM tracking maps and advice. But the actual surface observations, from instruments (rather than computer models) indicated that the maximum wind gust before landfall (on Middle Percy Island) was 208 km/hr. Max wind gust at Yeppoon reached 156 km/hr. So, nothing like the 280 km/hr expected with a Cat 5.

Jenny, it's impossible to measure the eye of the storm outside the actual eye, which may have been quite narrow and maybe just missed the critical instruments you seem to rely on?

And it's so unlike the ABC to get it so wrong, or not check their facts!

For mine, if the ABC reported central wind gusts of 295 kilometres per hour, then that is what the bureau of meteorology weather satellites where recording and reporting! Lets not shoot the messenger!

And possibly superior information than that gained from possibly damaged land based instruments. One would expect a lot of debris at the centre!

If between those reports of 295 kilometre wind gusts at the centre and the landfall, some of the steam left the storm, we can all be thankful! Even so, nowhere is there any actual evidence as you seem to propose, of quite deliberate inflation!

Besides, there are reports of some serious destruction, where the actual eye crossed the coast; and then brought some of us a drop of badly needed rain. It's an ill wind.

Thankfully, you as a Queenslander, will have considerable experience straightening bananas; albeit, I have yet to find a perfectly straight banana on any shop shelf. You're falling down on the job here Jenny. Rhrosty.

Ms Marohasy is not a Meteorologist; yet, argues that the temperatures that the Department of Meteorology have been tampered with. It is suggesting that BOM commits fraud; it is no different than suggesting Biologists; for example, commit fraud. Which naturally is wrong.
Cyclone Marcia was listed as a Category 5 storm but was downgraded to a Category 4. Many homes were destroyed and we are lucky there were no fatalities.
I'm sure those who had property severely damaged would not be pleased with Ms Marohasy's comment.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/cyclone-lam-and-cyclone-marcia-twin-severe-storms-a-first-for-australia-20150220-13jycu.html

Rhrosty please get your facts straight before arguing mate.

The eye passed over the full official weather station on Middle Percy island.

Jennifer is giving you the actual figures recorded by that station.

Some of us have considerable personal physical experience of cyclones. We have a damn sight more than the BOM staff in their capital city offices.

We have been involved in the clean up after minor blows like this one, & a few that were somewhat more vicious. Many of us know what the damage of various strength cyclones looks like, because we have experienced it. A big cat 4 leaves only broken sticks in places like Yeppoon.

With one we had been in the eye, [flat calm], for 6 hours before the bureau finally realised they were reporting local storms on the northern edge of the eye as the eye. If you want to explain how the eye of a cyclone works, please do it at the BOM. Very few, if any of them have ever seen one, except on radar.

Yes, 6 hours after we had phoned them & told them they finally figured it out. It was a 60 mile diameter eye. Stop considering government staff are the font of all knowledge, & realise those dealing with theory all their lives should try to learn from those with genuine experience. It might help get them out of their incestuous love affair with models, & closer to the truth.

WTF?
I am used to listening to and overhearing blokes talking about how they have been through a cyclone.

Often I hear comments such as “it was nothing”, “don’t know what all the fuss was about”, and “I drank half a bottle of rum and slept through it”.

Typically when pressed for more detail the story is obviously made up bravado as the eye of the cyclone passed 250km to the north or south of the story teller.

Sensible people who have taken a direct hit from a cyclone rarely offer comments to others except to advise others about what type of precautions to take.

Sensible people will continue to listen to the BOM reports and will be prepared accordingly.

You know WTF, I have found that it is common for someone who accuses others of lying is usually proven to be speaking from experience of their own behavior.

Has, you are another one happy to rely on computer modeling to locate the eye and its track, but then dismiss the figures they seems to present?

You simply can't have it both ways.

Credible reports put us in the path of a category 5 cyclone, that was thankfully downgraded to a category 4, before it crossed the coast, and a little further north of the projected path?

Which possibly infers it was also a little north of the aforementioned island?

Which would possibly explain the different readings?

Even so, no case has been made to support inflation, deliberate or otherwise!

Perhaps if Jenny were prepared to name names, and provide some/any credible evidence to support her arguably wild allegations, those she critiques, might be able to find some legal redress via the courts?

It's simply not good enough to rubbish the reputations of some very committed professionals, who as usual, supply to the best of their ability and budget, life saving information!

Perhaps you might care to stand in for Jenny and supply the names of people seemingly charged with rank incompetence by Jenny? Who for mine, should put up or shut up.

Inferring incompetence just doesn't make it so!
Rhrosty.

WTF?

Hasbeen,
If you want to self-exclude from my classification of a sensible person by all means do so.

Pretty typical comment thread on OLO I'm afraid. Various anonymous trolls accuse a respected scientist of making up facts that the trolls could check, if they could be bothered risking being wrong or didn't just have an agenda.

But instead they all play the person instead of the ball. One even referring to the author as "Jenny" when she quite clearly refers to herself as "Jennifer". I hesitate to say it is sexism (I bet he doesn't do it to his "mates") but it is certainly disrespectful and meant to diminish the person.

The facts in the article are undeniable, and the BOM has to apologise, withdraw, and probably terminate someone's employment.

I've seen the results of a Category 5 cyclone in Darwin, almost 40 years ago. Suburb after suburb of demolished houses. Brick two storey units where the top storey had been blown off.

People tell me similar stories about Yasi. There was nothing like that here. And we know why - because it wasn't like that, and the BOM's own data bear that out.

Makes me sick that so many of the commenters on this site are activists who have no interest in the truth, but just want to spread disinformation because it suits their political agenda, and they don't care who gets hurt in the process.

If it wasn't so they'd argue about the facts.

No Rhrosty, I was watching the radar picture, which showed the eye most distinctly. In fact I have never seen a radar show such a distinct eye previously. You could even see the coastline in the eye as it crossed.

Incidentally you had best have words with the UN. Their UN GDACS alerts page warning calls it a cat 3 cyclone. This may be one of the few occasions when the UN actually told the truth about something.

If you want to see the truth, pull up some pictures of Darwin after it's cat 4 blow, & then some of Yeppoon now. That will definitely convince any fair minded person of the truth that this is a con job. They have relied on their useless computer projections, & now will not admit, as the US navy have, that the computer projections were simply very wrong.

Thanks to Ms Marohasy for persistently answering AGW hype with actual truth, meticulously set out in the form of numerical data. Strength to her elbow. Graham Young has rightly pointed out that ideology it is subject to contradiction when it strays from factual truth. (He also had some home truths about the standard of debate among commenters). Ideology said Category 5, truth said Category 2 or less. Which to choose is a no-brainer.

Jennifer knows what's she is talking about and researches her work really well.

This scare mongering about climate is all about getting the ETS under way. This will just be another tax on business so the share market can trade in another derivative.

To operate any business you will have to buy carbon credits. This cost will be passed down to the consumer. The bigger companies that have more capital will be able to afford to buy the most while the smaller ones go broke. Central Bankers who have interests in these big corporations will favour them with cheaper loans as in the past.

This is why the 0.01 % own so much.It is not because they are exceptionally productive but because they can create money from nothing as debt. As George Carlin used to say, "It's a big club and you ain't in it."

Graham, I do not live in Queensland, but did see newsflashes which are consistent with what was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald; i.e. that wind speeds in excess of 280 km/h were recorded prior to landfall.

Cyclones dissipate on reaching land; but by how much seems to be unknown. They maintain top strength for about 24 hours though it can be longer. Cyclones can decay quite rapidly if they reach geographic areas or atmospheric conditions unfavourable to maintaining their strength. Compliments of Mr Google.

With the initial strength of Cyclone Marcia, what kind of information should authorities have provided?

On reaching land Cyclone Marcia was not as powerful as predicted; nevertheless, many homes were destroyed. In such a circumstance it is academic whether a storm might be category 2, or 3. The important matter is to help people rebuild their lives as quickly as possible and repair infrastructure.

Quote from Sydney Morning Herald:
"Cyclone Marcia, meanwhile, has recorded wind speeds of as much as 285km/h, with sustained winds of 205km/h...."

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/cyclone-lam-and-cyclone-marcia-twin-severe-storms-a-first-for-australia-20150220-13jycu.html

Where did they get the wind speeds from Ant? You are dodging the issue. You need to do some research instead of relying on secondary sources. And research would have shown you that Middle Percy Island is well offshore. https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Middle+Island,+The+Percy+Group+QLD+4707/@-21.6497515,150.2724943,6z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x6bdc40e46646f849:0xef79461c97e77aed

WTF?
ant,

You might not live in Queensland but you do seem to have a better understanding of the real impact of cyclones then other commentators.

In the days, weeks and months after a cyclone there are hundreds and thousands of stories told by people about their experiences.
The community develops a shared experience and understanding of the event.

Few people, if any, really end up caring about what category the cyclone is given when all the data is finally analysed.
You are right ant, it is purely academic.

Few people really care about the highest wind speed recorded. If your roof peels back in 150km/h winds after it is hit by a flying branch this is no less significant than a porcelain toilet bowl coming through your roof in 250km/h winds.
The damage will be severe and the experience truly frightening for adults as well as the children they may be trying to keep safe.
The wind speed is purely academic.

Before cyclone Yasi some residents and their guests refused all the advice offered to them to leave their Port Hinchinbrook home. As the cyclone come closer to the coast and before landfall they sent out a distress call to the emergency services pleading that someone come and take them to a safer location. By that time it was far too dangerous for the police or SES personal to venture out. They were isolated.

I will take the advice of the BOM, police and SES over the bravado and arrogance of those who think they know better every time.

WTF, I haven't experienced cyclones, but have experienced storms and blizzards in mountain areas. Also, have experienced gales in a sailing boat. Those conditions probably don't rate in comparison to a cyclone. Having been involved in outdoor activities for 50+ years I have relied on BOM's forecasts which have improved immensely.
I do not hold the conspiracy theory that BOM is fraudulent in the data they provide.

Until BOM says the winds were lower than the 280 km/h I will be believing them.

The important factors are that nobody was hurt; also, those who experienced losing their homes need every possible form of assistance possible

Ant, the BOM is a great service and their forecasts are indeed excellent and getting better all the time.

However, the BOM in Qld came under considerable media and political pressure after the 2011 Brisbane floods and a couple of other events, so it may be more likely to be prone to err on the side of caution for extreme events such as cyclones.

It always amuses me when people seeking to appear intelligent think that the best way to do so is to accuse others of conspiracy theories...

WTF?;
The actual readings are not academic;
They are used to set insurance risks and the construction standards.
The higher the average wind speeds over the total number of cyclones
is what is used by the insurance companies, so the truth is very important.

I suggest you look a bit deeper than the biased Fairfax organisation.

The ONLY point of Ms Marohasy's article is to yet again attempt to illustrate that the official entities such as BOM are still involved in the "great AGW conspiracy/fraud".

She continually cherry picks in all of her data and has been shown over and over again to have zero credibility.

Referring to a lower than predicted wind speed on one single recording station means nothing and is irrelevant ...unless she and GrahamY are suggested the 5000 damage claims so far submitted to insurers is fraudulent.

At least she and her supporters, while becoming more shrill, are being left behind and increasingly ignored as the world focuses on AGW solutions.

WTF?
Bazz,
Clearly I was making a point about the experiences of the people who suffer from the terrifying experience of a cyclone.

It follows an earlier point I made about being able to see through a lot of the bravado I hear about these experiences.

People who experience a cyclone do not generally care about categories and wind speeds.

I have, however, heard many pub bores telling the “southerners” about their experiences. They typically have all the facts and figures about categories, wind speeds, locations and damage bills along with a big dose of devil-may-care bluster.

This coupled with ridiculous media comments about the stoic attitude of Queenslanders in the face of natural disasters belittles the true experiences and difficulties some people in Yeppoon now face.

I think I will leave predicting cyclones to those qualified to do so. I would not criticize BoM for erring on the side of caution. Tropical cyclones are destructive storms. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would complain that a cyclone was not destructive enough. Suggestions that BoM are motivated by some sort of global warming conspiracy are not worth wasting time on.

GrahamY, I made no claim on Jennifer's expertise in biology, I am not a biologist and therefore can make not judgement about here capabilities. I will however continue to point out that she is not a climate scientist. I will also point out that she should do the same, and question her motives when she talking outside of her field of expertise.

I also pointed everyone to the actual document she was referring to.

I think Cobber is a bit confused.
You do not have to be a climate scientist to dispute their findings.
I am looking for a simile. If a scientist in a subject makes a
statement about his conclusions, then someone has an experience that
contradicts his conclusion, why shouldn't he say so ?

Also many skeptics are scientists in other fields that can see
contradictions to their own field.
Should they say nothing just because they are not climate scientists ?

All this has nothing to do with the fact that this was nothing like a cat 5 cyclone, & you don't have to be any scientist to see that.

The UN have called it a cat 3.

The US navy have admitted that their models got it very wrong, & that it was a cat 3. I believe theirs is the same faulty model that the BOM used.

Blind Freddy can see by the damage anywhere that it was no more than a high cat 2 when it crossed the coast.

Why does the BOM insist in continually calling the thing what it was not. Is there any other description for this behaviour than lying?

Their forecast was entirely wrong for the effect after it continued south. The 75+mm forecast for Beaudesert produced under 15mm. Yet another proof that their models are basically useless. They can't even get the next few hours anything like right.

They are looking more like tits on a bull as time goes by.

All this defence of the indefensible is sounding very like people who know their own discipline is on pretty shaky ground, & are practicing solidarity with their academic brethren, hoping for reciprocal support when they are found wanting.

I have read as many forums/comments about TC Marcia as I can find. I can't say from this that the evidence is solid one way or the other for its rating at landfall - there is data to support Cat 5 as well as Cat 4 and even Cat 3. But one thing that is clear is that it was a small and intense system. Windspeeds are claimed to have been highest on its eastern flank and somewhat variable over small distances, so it is possible there were gusts to Cat 5 in some areas close to the eye.

However, everything I am reading supports the idea that it was substantially weaker than Cat 5 as it headed overland and was likely Cat 2/3 at Yeppoon and Cat 1/2 at Rocky.

The issue to me is not what it was at landfall but the idea that is out there that it was a Cat 5 at Yeppoon and even Rocky. Yes if you listened or looked closely a downgrading was noted on the day, but the media has left everyone with the impression this was a monster storm all the way through.

Surely BOM should communicate this to the public so that people aren't under the misapprehension that Yeppoon and Rocky were struck by a Cat 5.

And given the uncertainties that many have expressed about the likelihood it WAS a Cat 5 at any time, it'd be nice to see some solid data to support that contention one way or the other. The only actual data I can find says it was not.

The best discussion I have seen is at Weatherzone, well worth reading the last 10 pages of this discussion.

http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/1307826/100

Does anybody have access to the relevant figures for Middle Percy Island?

Currently the observations for Middle Percy Island on Friday to Sunday are missing from
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW4145.latest.shtml

I've not seen enough evidence to have a strong opinion either way about this particular event but I do think if BOM got it wrong they should make sure that is widely known.

As others have pointed out there are very real dangers if people think that what they experienced was a higher category than it actually was. Decisions to seek alternate shelter might well hinge on a view that a dwelling stood up to a Cat 5 event when it has not actually done so.

R0bert

I think that is your answer RObert. The reason they have gone is to minimise the BOM embarrassment. I believe Jennifer gave the details from the site, & recorded them, expecting they would disappear.

Robert I have lay ahull in a 40 Ft yacht in a low cat 2, sailed a 6o ft. ferry through a moderate cat 2, in the fairly sheltered water into Shute harbour & hidden up mangrove creeks from a couple of moderate to high 3s.

I have cleaned up the damage from one of those 3s & also from a high cat 3, & believe me, Yeppoon saw nothing like a moderate 3. Dig up some photos of Cardwell & Tully heads & you will then know what a high cat 3 would have done to Yeppoon.

The BOM say the reason data from Middle Percy is not available is that the solar cells went out. Presumably on this basis it was batteries that were maintaining the readings. Although it strikes me as strange that data wasn't passed to a central computer rather than, as this explanation would suggest, being maintained on remote computers and made available centrally.

Hard to believe they have deliberately withdrawn the data to tamper with it, which is what the lack of data would support, if the above explanation isn't correct.

I'm not going to comment on the idiotic proposition that the scientists that are quoted always get it right and can't be questioned. On that theory Richard Millhouse Nixon would probably be in the Whitehouse because none of that Watergate thingy happened, because he said so. As a politician, who could be more qualified to know. Bernstein and Woodward were only journalists afterall.

Jesus wept!

Did you just compare those questioning whether cyclone Marcia should have been called a Category 3 or 5 to Woodward and Bernstein?

Wow.

RObert, & others interested in the facts, Jennifer now has the missing figures for Middle Percy up on her website, for all to see.

Perhaps the BOM will go & find out what actually happened, as if they didn't know.

Graham, you are far too generous.

I was interested in the hype surrounding Marcia reporting, particularly the expected 3 metre storm surge that suddenly came out of nowhere. Three metres would be devastating and cat 5 cyclones can create a big storm surge. But while the predictions were climbing to 3 metres, anyone could look at a live readout of the storm tide gauge at Rosslyn Bay to see what was really happening.

Not many did because it was plain to see that the tide was tracking only a little above the normal predicted level. The much hyped 3 metres was actually about 0.4 metres. I’d like to hear an explanation of why the predictions climbed so far so suddenly. Seems they used the same arithmetic for Marcia’s strength.

Here’s a screen shot I made of the storm tide gauge.
http://abovephotos.smugmug.com/Other/Forum-images/n-gGmPD/i-gPnMHR9/A

Remember when the Italians held the seismologists liable for failing to predict an earthquake? Can you blame scientist for getting cautions?

Too low, they get sued. Too hight, people bitch about it. God help you is you get it wrong. God help you if what people are demmanding is basically beyond human power to achieve.

Here's a thought: why not give the seismologists and the meteorologists the benefit of the doubt? Why not assume that they honestly care about their work, that they are full aware of the consequences of what they do, that they are not malicious or full of poo, and leave them to it?