QLD, Australia: changes in tropical cyclone risk

[Alan Mighty]

https://www.smh.com.au/national/quee...19-p5cdwk.html

[Wotname]

The SMH link may be paywalled for many readers. Here is the link to original article which also contains much more information.

"Divergence of tropical cyclone hazard based on wind-weighted track distributions in the Coral Sea, over 50 years" - https://link.springer.com/article/10...05780-3#citeas

I haven't trawled though the full article in detail but I wonder why they only used data form the last 50 years. AFAIK, good data is available for last 100 years.

[Wotname]

Mod note - Tropical cyclone risk is a very important topic for recreational cruisers and especially for 'banana bender' cruisers [banana bender = Queenslander] and thus very worthy of discussion however the thread topic has the potential to wander off onto the shoals of off-topic climate change and possible political arguments.

Please keep your posts directly relevant to cruising aspects of the thread topic. Failure to do so will result deleted posts, possible infractions being issued and ultimately in the thread being closed.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Wotname

The SMH link may be paywalled for many readers. Here is the link to original article which also contains much more information.

"Divergence of tropical cyclone hazard based on wind-weighted track distributions in the Coral Sea, over 50 years" - https://link.springer.com/article/10...05780-3#citeas

I haven't trawled though the full article in detail but I wonder why they only used data form the last 50 years. AFAIK, good data is available for last 100 years.

English translation (SMH) of the above link. The SMH one is possibly complimentary.


'One Queensland region is in line to bear the brunt of cyclones into the future, research looking at 50 years of cyclone data has found.

Griffith University researchers have studied Bureau of Meteorology data on cyclones that formed in the Coral Sea between 1970 and 2020, to get a better local understanding of how they are tracking in intensity and frequency.


They found three main “clusters” of tracking paths over the half-century period: Cluster One, which tended to track south-easterly and affect south-east Queensland (for example, TC Zelia in 2011); Cluster Two, which tended to track over central and northern Queensland (for example, TC Yasi, also in 2011); and Cluster Three, much smaller than the other two, which saw cyclones cross Cape York and re-intensify in the Gulf of Carpenteria (for example, TC Abigail in 2001).

Lead researcher John Miller, a PhD candidate with Griffith’s Coastal and Marine Research Centre, said the overall trend over the 50 years has been for cyclones to appear less frequently, but to be more intense when they do form.'

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I haven't trawled though the full article in detail but I wonder why they only used data form the last 50 years. AFAIK, good data is available for last 100 years.

Agreed. QLD (and even NSW before separation) has data on cyclones going back to the late 19th century.

I think this "50 years" constraint is a symptom of the decline of Australian academia, including Griffith University of course.

Miller is or was a PhD candidate. So he or his supervisors set an artificial limit of only looking at the most recent 50 years instead of doing the proper job of examining all the data (or even going beyond white 'pfella records to include oral history from First Nations people, or doing sediment analysis to construct a longer record).

All about restricting the data so you've got an easy research job. Fast to research. Fast to publish. The university department gets throughput statistics for PhD graduates.

The cost: thin research that ignores the patterns and chaos that is in the records.

Why get the PhD candidate to bang their head on the variability of climate since the late 19th century? Why deal with the complexity of including the wet seasons of the 1950s?

Just push the publication and the graduate out from the academic sausage factory, and get a tick for scoring a news release in the popular press.

If the public get misled, that's to their cost.

If the marine hull insurance companies get misled and hike their rates and change their hurricane zone boundaries, that's to the cost of the muggins who have to hold hull insurance.

As for Griffith University - I'd drop its academic reputation several levels. Just another sausage producer.

'Twas always a mistake to name a university after a grifter (read as grafter for the Aus audience) politician. Just another liar and cheat. And the university deliberately chose to bear his name!?!

[Dave_S]

They should share their ability to predict weather with "certainty" with BOM.

It seems like a strong word for an authority to use.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

They should share their ability to predict weather with "certainty" with BOM.

It seems like a strong word for an authority to use.

LOL.. You nailed it.... they can't even predict rain here 90% the time let alone wind... Yet predicting cyclone prevalence they think they know what they are talking about.....

[RaymondR]

Highly commercialized tertiary education is not trustworthy from a research viewpoint.

[mrcarson]

50 yrs is ridiculous. I've been sailing for near 70 yrs and still here.
I was in Darwin with a crane after Cyclone Tracy. The most important thing to know up this part of the coast is ALL the creek Entrances Lat/Longs that have your vessels draught to get in there. They much safer than Marina's. That's where a lot of us used to bolt.
Even rivers if you can get round a few bends.

[RaymondR]

The sample size is too restricted to draw any reliable conclusions.

And for us yachties we need to be mindful of where the havens are wherever we are during the season.