Talk:Hypercane/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fixes

Fixed: 130 m/s is approximately 500 kilometers/hour, not 500 miles/hour. Winds could speculatively and conceivably get as fast as the latter, but the lower boundary (where the analytical hurricane solution falls apart and a numerical hypercane one starts to be needed, at least on paper) is the former. 142.104.60.203 02:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

120 degrees Fahrenheit makes little sense, given that the average swimming pool is heated to 80 degrees. Forty degrees higher than an indoor swimming pool hardly appears to account for a dramatic increase in available energy for a hurricane -- especially when talking about accelerating winds from 200 (or less) miles per hour to 500+. Will someone find a way to verify temperature scale?

Well, they said that the equation 'blew up' as the winds accelerated enough to outpace friction, so it can be thought of like passing a threshold. If the water temperature is lower than some temperature (that the scientists didn't tell us), then friction will hold the winds down. If the temperature is above that, then the winds will run out of control and approach 500 mph. And it's not 120 degrees Celsius because that's above the boiling point.

This article is essentially trash. It looks like it was written by a 8-year old and has no meteorological backing.

One problem with the initial intro to this article - it is essentially the text of the History Channel MegaDisasters episode intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.154.151.197 (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Florence (1988)

• http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/HYPERCANES.pdf
  I ran into an interesting article while researching Hurricane Florence. The author used Hurricane Florence as a prototype for a hypercane, and theorized what would've happened if Florence moved through an area of water of 45º Celsius. Feel free to add it to the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable

There are many possible factual errors in this theory. First of all, the heat from a supervolcanic eruption or asteroid impact would last only a few days, and as soon as the "hypercane" moves away, it would rapidly weaken. Also, at the current projected rate of global warming at its peak, some areas of the ocean would barely reach 50°C for more than a few hours, near the coastlines. This is not enough to sustain a hypercane. Please clarify these. Thanks. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 13:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first two, but I did say extensive global warming. However, I believe you, as a part of the tropical cyclones WikiProject, are more qualified to clarify this article and review its validity. Blast 10,03,07 0157 (UTC)

AstroHurricane001: The concept of a hypercane is very speculative -- even its authors state that. However your statement that the heat from an undersea supervolcanic eruption or asteroid impact would dissipate in a few days is plainly false, from very well-understood fluid dynamics and energy conservation. The timescale is of order 1 month for a 50 C ocean volume 30 km wide. Reading the Emanuel et al. paper, and its refernces, or any of the many excellent ocean fluid dynamic textbooks may help. There is no experimental evidence for a hypercane at present, but neither is the theory obviously wrong or is there experimental evidence against it (at present). 142.104.60.203 03:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. What I mostly meant was, if a supervolcanic eruption were to strike land, the dust trown up by it would eventually cover up the Earth and cause global cooling. If there was a pocket of 50°C+ temps, as soon as the hypercane moves away from that area, it would rapidly weaken. Global warming would likely only sustain 50°C+ ocean temeratures near costal tropical areas in the daytime. If a hypercane were to form near the coast, it could easily weaken as it approaches land. It is rather frightening, however, that this could cause an intensifying hurricane to appoach land, strengthen substantially, and then unleash nearly all its fury as it moves inland. Global warming, however, could easily reduce atlantic hurricane activity, due to deforestation in latin america, desertification in the Sahel, and a reduction in the Gulf stream's intensity. Also, if they didn't form in areas where they're called hurricanes, what would they be called? Hyperphoons? Hyperclones? Hyperwillies? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How do we know that the winds will exceed 300 MPH? How do we know that the pressure will be 700 millibars? And how do we know that the water temperature needed for a 'hypercane' to form would need to be 120 degrees F. What i am saying is that this is an article mostly made up of opinion. There is not even any scientific evidence that one of these storms could form under any circumstances. Are there any ACTUAL information sources were it states that one of these storms could actually form?Juliancolton 13:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't know. We can't know right now. But this isn't about knowing with certainty. Hypercanes are based on computer modeling. Think of it as pilot data on which a hypothesis is based. It's part of the scientific method, which is a continual cycle of generating new data of all types, which inevitably raises more questions.

This isn't about opinion so much as a report of the result of the computer model. The computer model itself is evidence, but it's not very strong evidence. That's why there's no absolute language concerning whether there have been, will be, or could be hypercanes. But the fact that the computer model shows hypercane formation under certain conditions is significant enough that scientists (and the History Channel) are talking about it. That's the context for this article.

The universe isn't divided into facts and opinions. It's more colorful than that. Everything we know, or think we know, is based on observations (which might be flawed), and reasoned interpretations of those observations (which might also be flawed). The best we can do is repeat observations and discuss interpretations with an open mind. That's how science works, and the hypercane model is part of that process.

That's my answer to your question from two years ago. :o) Dcs002 (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If a theoretical hypercane was to be about 700 hPa

...then the Great/Grand Roar (the name of the Tactical Roar hypercane) isn't all that viable. In the first episode (based on my memory), a news reporter stated that the average barometric pressure associated with the storm was a somewhat measly 920 hPa (she also mentioned in the same report that there would be "slight storm strengthening"). Many Category 5s and some Category 4s (like 95's Opal in the Atlantic) had lower pressures at their peaks. While I don't doubt that one would consider that the GR was still a hypercane, the pressure difference is a little suspect in my opinion. Any thoughts? Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My Sub-Article

My user sub-page has a hypercane, at a very high pressure. Its name is Hypercane Bobby. It rapidly strengthened, but do you think it should be a hypercane as only the winds reached 325 mph and pressure of 796 mb strengthening over 30*C waters? Also, it was only like normal hurricanes. See my subarticle on Hypercane Bobby.Weatherlover819 (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Overall, the hypercane is somewhat plausible, though its significance and actual occurrence are debatable. What is seriously wrong is the writing-it is really bad, and this part about a userpage's fictional bobby storm is irrelevent. Let's start with citing some real peer reviewed references for each stated fact. Clean this article up or delete. (an0n) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.219.235.253 (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The History of the Hypercane

The phrase "but could a single asteroid have been the lone killer?" was odd to me - should a encyclopedia be posing hypothetical questions? So I did a simple Google search... [1] This appears lifted from somewhere and/or is it not cited properly. Kennonv (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerns

Though this article failed at WP:AFD, I have some serious concerns about its validity. First and foremost, although a quick glance at the article shows multiple references, all references are based on one paper published in 1995. There has been no academic study, and the concept of a "hypercane" is disputed mathematically as well as pragmatically. As other editors note above, there are some serious flaws with both the supposition of the possibility of a "hypercane" and the alleged circumstances necessary for one to possibly form. This is pseudoscience, which makes for great fiction (and dramatic "What if...?" tv shows), but isn't really germane to an encyclopedic treatment of science subjects. If there were multiple, peer-reviewed studies then it would be suitable for inclusion; a single theory published (and scientifically rejected) in 1995 is not. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Terms like hypercane and tornadocane which were coined by one person, and are only referenceable by one web page or one academic paper, won't have enough references to even gain C class. They probably shouldn't be within wikipedia, though hypercane has a stronger basis for staying since there have actually been newsarticles and TV shows using the term. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Some additional references to help expand the article:

• 1995 Discover magazine article
• Geology by Design: Interpreting Rocks and Their Catastrophic Record textbook (page 46)

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)