Talk:Severe storms in Australia

Was this article written by an eight year-old?

Seriously, can't anyone clean this messy article up? Why are there random capital letters in words, wrongly spelt words, and even a bloody exclamation mark?

--220.235.241.94 (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay well I've started working on it ... feel free to jump in and help anytime. ;) --PoizonMyst (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this statement serious? "Thunderstorms occurred nearly daily until 27 February 2007" That's not meteorologically possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.114.73 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure it's possible - I just spent 5 weeks out of 6 being rained on in QLD. However, I did remove the sentance you've referred to because I couldn't find a citation for it. While it was definately true the region experienced a record number of storms for the month of February (and correctly between Dec 2006 and Feb 2007), twas more like 14 or 16 thunderstorms in Feb - well above the avg of 3 for the period. Certainly the 31 Dec storm was the third in 3 days - but over the two month period the storms did not appear to be "nearly daily" (even though it may have felt that way for residents in the area!).--PoizonMyst (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk copied across from 2 December 2005 Canberra storms

I am not much in favour of removing content from the wikipedia but really question whether this subject is encyclopaedic or notable. Wouldn't it have been better reported at wikinews? Someone says excitedly on the radio that there are trees down in Commonwealth Park and in the suburb of Curtin - yes but there are even more trees left standing. It is very sad a man was hit by a falling tree - but not necessarily a notable event, either meteorogically or otherwise. Similarly the small plane crash - these things happen - this was the third Piper Chieften to crash this year in Australia.--A Y Arktos 19:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

They said it was the worst environmental event to hit the city since the bushfires, and I think I heard damage estimates in the $10m-$20m range. There were alot of buildings damaged all over the city as well as the power failures. Wasnt one building in Fyshwick 'demolished' because of the storm? Astrokey44 23:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Not sure who "they" were - doesn't matter - it is newswriting - could be described as the worst storm in Canberra this century or millenium too. We are fortunate to not have many storms here. I found a database of disasters at http://www.ema.gov.au/ema/emaDisasters.nsf which includes a disasters database listing disasters back to 1622 apparently. It is not necessarily complete as per their caveat. However, there was a storm in January this year that killed three and injured 12 with the damage bill estimated at $216.7m. (not sure if my search will link successfully). I certainly did not remember it - I guess because I was not affected.

In 1969 there was a storm at Kempsey that killed 21 because of the loss of a ship. 18 were killed in Townsville in 1896. 406 off King Island in another shipwreck. The report of 1563 deaths from severe storm definitely inspires me to stay on dry land as shipwrecks are the biggest offenders followed by aircraft such as the 1990 Emerald crash.

My point is about perspective and notability. I am not nominating for deletion but suggesting future events might be better written about at Wikinews and then transwikied if notability eventuates.--A Y Arktos 11:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Notability is still a proposed guideline, despite how much its used as a reason for deletion at AfD. Events which occur since Wikipedia started are likely to be covered in more detail than more significant pre-21st century events, I dont think they can be compared fairly really. Although I guess I did get caught up in all the tv and newspaper coverage, maybe there could be some sort of general article on Severe storms in Australia where you could put some of the other storms you mentioned and this one Astrokey44 11:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• The quote I best like about notability is

Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance#No: Jimbo Wales - 'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV. I understand and appreciate where people are coming from on the 'Yes' vote, but feel that they will only get the unanimity necessary in a wiki environment if they rephrase the issue in those terms. Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion. (Though perhaps only as a stub, of course, since it's very complicated and not many people would know how to express it clearly in layperson's terms.)

I have linked the article to List of disasters in Australia by death toll which now seems to be a pretty comprehensive list.

I really like the map in this article. Could you produce something similar for Canberra_bushfires_of_2003? Perhaps the intensity of the fires could be illustrated by a gradation of colour based on damage?--A Y Arktos 19:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I asked Martyman about it since he made the suburb map Astrokey44 23:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

---

what a stupid article for wikipedia. get rid of this at once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.111.198 (talk • contribs) 10 June 2007

November 2008 Storms

I've added a section to Queensland about the severe storms that hit Brisbane starting on the 16th. Being here is the source of most of my first hand knowledge, however I tried to include sources for any specific facts used. If someone wants to clean it up, that would be great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentoo user (talk • contribs) 13:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Made some updates and clean-ups

I did a bit of a cleanup, added citations (and fixed some dead links), added a bit of extra infos here and there, and updated/verified old infos. Oh, and I reordered ACT because it was all over the place - so in line with article format, earliest to latest events. Still working on the article, but it's starting to get late now, and this was not exactly where I had planned to go with my day either. So far I've worked extensively on ACT and QLD - with a little bit of work on NSW. Any help on the article would be gratefully accepted. In addition, I'm not sure that I'm doing the citations correctly - for example when I have to link to the same website/article twice or more - so if anyone feels compelled to check please go ahead. Australian Capital Territory "Two hundred houses were damaged by a severe storm in 2001." (Removed this while I'm still trying to find ANY reference to it - If someone can link to a citation for this storm then feel free to return the sentance to the article - it should be placed before the ACT Feb 2007 supercell) Mite look to referencing this storm instead at the same place in the article: Event - Storms: South east Australia 27 Oct 2004 --PoizonMyst (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Also added link to List of Australian region cyclone seasons in the "See Also" section - in preference to linking to each cyclone season page.--PoizonMyst (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

List or not?

This article has turned into a glorified list. Shouldn't we also have some context such as what conditions and other hows and whys that lead to their formation in Australia? How about a comparison of the severity with other large countries? Statements about annual economic loss, insurance and climate change should probably be included. Alternately we could omit that from this page and instead use Climate of Australia. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No section for South Australia, Tasmania

There are no sections for either South Australia or Tasmania. Both states have had a fair share of storms over the years. 58.166.244.49 (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, according to the Bureau of Meterology's Severe Storms Archives, there have been 2777 severe storms in Australia with:

• 0 in the ACT (I guess they don't measure the ones inside Parliament House)
• 26 in Tasmania
• 129 in Northern Territory
• 297 in South Australia
• 480 in Queensland
• 494 in Victoria
• 539 in Western Australia
• 781 in New South Wales

If anyone is interested in the cause of the severe storms:

• 1270 due to rain
• 935 due to wind
• 405 due to hail
• 126 due to tornadoes
• 27 due to waterspout
• 4 due to dust devils
• 10 due to lightning

Curiously no problem with cyclones, which I assume must be classified as rain or wind. Kerry (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: Well, there's been a severe storm in the ACT now! 20 January 2020 Canberra storm. I added to this page here, and also here, as the same storm also hit several regions in NSW.
I wonder if it's worth a stand alone page, same for the current extensive heavy wind & rain down the East coast of Oz, 2020 Eastern Australian storms perhaps? 220 of ^Borg 13:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Severe storms in Australia. 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/20120316152413/http://www.disasters.ema.gov.au/Browse%20Details/DisasterEventDetails.aspx?DisasterEventID=1370 to http://www.disasters.ema.gov.au/Browse%20Details/DisasterEventDetails.aspx?DisasterEventID=1370
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316152806/http://www.disasters.ema.gov.au/Browse%20Details/DisasterEventDetails.aspx?DisasterEventID=1203 to http://www.disasters.ema.gov.au/Browse%20Details/DisasterEventDetails.aspx?DisasterEventID=1203
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051218122028/http://www.ema.gov.au/ema/emaDisasters.nsf to http://www.ema.gov.au/ema/emaDisasters.nsf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Cyclone Yasi?

Is there any reason this isn’t listed? It was one of the biggest and most catastrophic storms in Queensland history Allyjj (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Racist language used

In the western Australian section where it talks of deaths. It refers to “white and coloured men” can this be changed? Drugs dont work (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)