Talk:Hypercane

Cleanup
Performed minor cleanups to article and moved talkpage discussions (since creation of article) to Archive 1. Regards. Rehman(+) 04:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Celsius - Fahrenheit conversion
In the first paragraph of the article, the value 15 degrees Celsius, used to express a difference between two temperatures, is incorrectly converted to 59 degrees Fahrenheit. This conversion would be correct if 15C were the actual temperature being referred to ((15 x 1.8) + 32 = 59). However, as a difference in temperature, the correct value is 15 x 1.8 = 27 degrees Fahrenheit. I don't know if this is a flaw in the conversion functionality used or if the conversion was just incorrectly formatted. Senoflar (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * . Good spotting. Regards. Rehman(+) 07:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "creationist" comment
The sentence cites no actual comments, and is purely conjecture.

It provides no useful information to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analogrival (talk • contribs) 14:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Size?
The picture caption and the article text are contradictory re: storm size. The text says it would larger than Tip, while the caption says it would be the size of Tracy. So... which is it? Korossyl (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think what the article tries to say that a system of multiple hypercanes can form, each of them as small as a thunderstorm. Calmarius (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The confusion might stem from the distinction between the size of the eye - which might indeed be unusually narrow with a diameter of a few km according to Emanuel 1995 - and the overall size of the storm system which still is in the hundreds of kilometers in his simulations. Now, there seem to be a lot of repeated claims on the internet about the size of hypercanes, but I have not yet been able to track down any really good papers about it (Vardiman's creationism motivated simulations do not inspire confidence, but do produce very big cyclones). Anders Sandberg (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have revised the sentence about the small horizontal size. The reference that has a numerical simulation of a hypercane (Emanuel et al. 1995, ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/hypercane95.pdf) shows the horizontal scale is at least 300 km (Fig. 4a). I cannot verify what was in the television show, but from what I saw, it was based exclusively on the Emanuel et al. 1995 publication. I recommend the contradictory tag be removed following this revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.127.225.238 (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hypercane. 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/20080517014607/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=30308 to http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=30308

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Size
The article does not say what the size would likely be. If I remember correctly, a hypercane is expected to / could possibly be much smaller than a normal hurricane in horizontal extent. Earlier versions of the article include this information, but it seems to have been removed. Without it, the graphic comparing Tip and Tracy doesn't have any reason to be in the article. ZFT (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I arrived here wondering about the same thing. I've removed the claim, it was sourced to a dubious source which links an LA Times article and the 1995 paper as its own sources but neither of them mentions anything to imply the hypercanes would be that big (LA Times doesn't even mention hypercanes). I'm not a climatologist or meteorologist but IMO the graphs in the 1995 paper align with the idea of a small hurricane although bigger than 15 miles, but since Sun Sentinel mentions that number specifically, I've changed the article to reflect that.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  01:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It really all depends on how you define size. For Hypercane-force winds (300 mph or greater), sure the size would probably be no greater than 15 or 20 miles. However, tropical cyclones sizes are usually defined by gale-force wind diameter, and Hypercanes, being as intense as they are (hypothetically speaking), would probably have a gale-force diameter reaching continental proportions. The size isn't mentioned in most articles, but I'm sure that there are some out there that go into this detail.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well the 1995 paper has graphs of horizontal wind speeds for an example hypercane (figures 4a & 4b). Looking at that, the 15 m/s contour which is a little less than gale force is at a ~300 km radius. Comparing by orders of magnitude, that's fairly big but still closer to Cyclone Tracy than North America; for instance, a circle with a 300 km radius would only cover an area about the size of Romania. The 55 m/s winds extend out to about 60 km. The paper also specifically says the top speeds are at a radius of 6 km, so the eye must be less than 12 km in diameter, which completely contradicts the statement in the article that the eye would be 300 km in diameter.
 * Of course, though, that's an old paper and (if I understood correctly) basically a "what if" in situations where the current model breaks down, so I'd definitely favour the conclusions of a newer article if anyone can dig one up.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  19:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that all papers published on hypercanes after Emanuel's 1990s papers have been written by creationists. I will look at if it started being under a different name in scientific literature, but if that's not the case, I think there should be some note in the article that addresses this. Plumeria03 (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nevermind - seems ~2012 there was a decision to remove discussion of creationists within the article. Seems to have been primarily because of a lack of citation, but probably for the best. Plumeria03 (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)