Richard Wiseman

[Robin]

Again, the July 11, 2006 NY Times article stated:

"Enormous waves that sweep the ocean are traditionally called rogue waves, implying that they have a kind of freakish rarity. Over the decades, skeptical oceanographers have doubted their existence and tended to lump them together with sightings of mermaids and sea monsters."

I don't know why you persist in repeating this since Broad's claim is patently untrue

Waves of about 80 feet have been recorded since the 1970's and oceanographers models have predicted waves of up to 118 feet since that time at least. Some models have over predicted extreme waves.

Other sources say the same thing -- most oceanographers didn't believe the many accounts of rogue waves.

The fact that you might have heard a story repeated a few times does not make it true.

There is no evidence whatsoever of any oceanographer disbelieving accounts of rogue waves and there is good solid evidence that their models had predicted the existence of waves greater than 110 feet, even before one had been scientifically measured.

Here is an alternate view in the Scientific American:

This is just one of the many anecdotal accounts in maritime history of waves upward of 30 meters devouring ships, even swallowing low-flying helicopters. But what sea captains and scientists have long believed to be true only gained widespread acceptance after the first digitally recorded rogue wave struck an oil rig in 1995. "The seamen tales about large waves eating their ships are correct," says Tim Janssen, an oceanographer at San Francisco State University. "This was proof to everybody else, and a treat for scientists. They suspected it, but to see it and have an observation is something else."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rogue-waves-ocean-energy-forecasting​

As I have shown, we have solid evidence for this.

What we now know is that extreme waves are even more frequent than earlier suspected by scientists.

But it is hardly discredit to the oceanographers that satellite imagery and hi-res computer models provides a more accurate picture than a handful of weatherships and hand-calculated models.

 

[tsig]

I'm not aware of any evidence for the existence of mermaids. I think sea "monsters" could exist, especially if that term is broadly defined. However, my point about rogue waves is that, between the credible eyewitness accounts and the physical evidence, oceanographers should have reconsidered their inaccurate models long before 1995.

You're aware that the computing power to run the equations hasn't been around very long? You seem to be blaming scientists for not using tools that hadn't been invented.

 

[Robin]

I think you are confusing what oceanographers believed with what their models showed. Do you have evidence to show that they believed their models were 100% accurate?

I'm also still failing to see what your point is.

I have already shown hard evidence that oceanographers did believe in extreme waves, did not believe that their models were 100% accurate

The oceanographers models predicted 100 ft plus waves for decades before 1995 so the 1995 event was confirmation of certain models.

 

[Robin]

Scientists tend to be cautious and wait until they have solid evidence of something. Who coined the term 'rogue wave', anyway? Was it seamen or scientists?

Neither, as far as I know. The scientific literature I have quoted earlier terms them "extreme" waves.


Sailors, as far as I know, call them giant seas.

 

[Robin]

So what's your explanation for the results -- poor experimental design, fraud, or what?

We see statistical significance in some meta-analyses, but rarely in individual experiments.

This might be some real small psi effect.

But it could also be explained by a combination of file-drawer effect, the presence of poor experimental practice in a subsection of the studies and the presence of fraud in a smaller subsection of the studies.

 

[Robin]

You're aware that the computing power to run the equations hasn't been around very long? You seem to be blaming scientists for not using tools that hadn't been invented.

But as I demonstrated earlier, even the hand-calculated models of the 1970's, based on data from a handful of weather ships scattered throughout the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, still predicted extreme waves.

There is no evidence whatsoever of any oceanographer doubting the existence of extreme waves and plenty of evidence that their models predicted them.

So the idea that oceanographers dismissed accounts of extreme waves really seems to be just a myth.

 

[fls]

We see statistical significance in some meta-analyses, but rarely in individual experiments.

This might be some real small psi effect.

But it could also be explained by a combination of file-drawer effect, the presence of poor experimental practice in a subsection of the studies and the presence of fraud in a smaller subsection of the studies.

It should be noted that almost all of the parapsychology studies exhibit poor practice because most experiments are designed without control groups, in addition to the various other flaws which have been demonstrated to be present in the studies (i.e. it would be misleading to refer to the number suffering from this problem as a "subsection").

Linda

 

[paximperium]

It should be noted that almost all of the parapsychology studies exhibit poor practice because most experiments are designed without control groups, in addition to the various other flaws which have been demonstrated to be present in the studies (i.e. it would be misleading to refer to the number suffering from this problem as a "subsection").

But but they are "statistically significant"!!!

 

[GeeMack]

I never claimed that there has been a controlled test of levitation showing highly statistically significant results, but only that "in controlled tests of psi, results have varied, but overall seem to be highly statistically significant. However, there is no smoking gun."

So, I was arguing that, generally, results have been highly statistically significant, but not for all psi claims.

But I remind you, and the other readers, that your qualifications to understand what the term "statistically significant" means have been challenged, and you have been unable to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications. Consequently your opinion is wholly unqualified, and is therefore worthless.

I am very curious if Rodney even understands what "statistically significant" even means.

In a word, no.

 

[fls]

So what's your explanation for the results -- poor experimental design, fraud, or what?

Those are the usual culprits - i.e. those things which are invariably present unless you take steps to avoid them (if by "experimental design" you include all those elements which introduce bias (i.e. producing an effect when one is not present), from design and implementation to reporting). I am pleased to see that you seem to understand this now, since you brought it up as an explanation.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

Those are the usual culprits - i.e. those things which are invariably present unless you take steps to avoid them (if by "experimental design" you include all those elements which introduce bias (i.e. producing an effect when one is not present), from design and implementation to reporting). I am pleased to see that you seem to understand this now, since you brought it up as an explanation.

Linda

I always understood your argument, it's just that many who have worked on parapsychology experiments disagree that poor experimental design or fraud can explain the significantly positive results that have occurred in many experiments. Perhaps cj.23 can tell us where he stands on this issue.

 

[fls]

I always understood your argument, it's just that many who have worked on parapsychology experiments disagree that poor experimental design or fraud can explain the significantly positive results that have occurred in many experiments.

Well they would, wouldn't they? When they fail to use good design, whether it's because they are unfamiliar with the elements of good design, or they are familiar but deliberately avoiding them, either way it's not something you'd want to admit to.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

But as I demonstrated earlier, even the hand-calculated models of the 1970's, based on data from a handful of weather ships scattered throughout the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, still predicted extreme waves.

There is no evidence whatsoever of any oceanographer doubting the existence of extreme waves and plenty of evidence that their models predicted them.

So the idea that oceanographers dismissed accounts of extreme waves really seems to be just a myth.

But if that's true how did it become so widely circulated by reputable journalists? As you have acknowledged, William Broad of the New York Times appears to be just such a journalist who would not have simply blindly accepted or invented a story that, prior to 1995, oceanographers believed rogue waves occurred only about once every 10,000 years.

 

[Rodney]

Well they would, wouldn't they? When they fail to use good design, whether it's because they are unfamiliar with the elements of good design, or they are familiar but deliberately avoiding them, either way it's not something you'd want to admit to.

Linda

But, as you are aware, criticism of early parapsychology experiments by outsiders led to improvements in experimental design, and yet results continued to be statistically significant. So, what you appear to be left with is that most parapsychology experiments have not used control groups, which I'm not sure explains the results.

 

[Robin]

But if that's true how did it become so widely circulated by reputable journalists? As you have acknowledged, William Broad of the New York Times appears to be just such a journalist who would not have simply blindly accepted or invented a story that, prior to 1995, oceanographers believed rogue waves occurred only about once every 10,000 years.

So let me get this straight.

You find it plausible that for decades the oceanographers blindly believed mathematical models in the face of physical evidence - even though I have given you evidence to the contrary.

But you find it utterly implausible that a journalist who is not a scientist might have gotten a detail about his story wrong. Even though you cannot find a shred of evidence to support it.

Do you realise that you are doing just what you accused the oceanographers of doing?

Time to face up to the evidence.

 

[GeeMack]

But, as you are aware, criticism of early parapsychology experiments by outsiders led to improvements in experimental design, and yet results continued to be statistically significant. So, what you appear to be left with is that most parapsychology experiments have not used control groups, which I'm not sure explains the results.

No. You do not have the qualifications to understand what "statistically significant" means. Your continued claim that "results continued to be statistically significant" is an argument from ignorance. Now if you continue to make that claim, it becomes a lie.

 

[Robin]

From what I have been able to find out, a 10,000 year wave, or 10,000 year return period is a term adopted by the Society of Naval and Marine Engineers for their published standards for safety margins.

It looks as though this has been set at 1.3 times the 50 year value.

Naturally if oceanographers are finding more accurate data and models to suggest a higher frequency of extreme waves then these standards would have to be reviewed.

That may be what Broad had heard.

 

[Robin]

Also, Rodney, are you implying that the journalist in the Scientific American was not reputable?

If we have two contradictory stories both from reputable journalists then one of them must have gotten it wrong.

So we have to look at the evidence.

 

[Rodney]

So let me get this straight.

You find it plausible that for decades the oceanographers blindly believed mathematical models in the face of physical evidence - even though I have given you evidence to the contrary.

But you find it utterly implausible that a journalist who is not a scientist might have gotten a detail about his story wrong. Even though you cannot find a shred of evidence to support it.

Do you realise that you are doing just what you accused the oceanographers of doing?

Time to face up to the evidence.

I commend you on your research, but as far as I can tell, everything you cite was written after the existence of rogue waves was conclusively demonstrated in 1995. Now, I realize that you argue that Stanislaw Massel's "Ocean surface waves - their physics and predictions" (which, I understand, was published in April 1996) claims that "predictions made in 1950 based on weathership data the highest wave in a 50 year period would be 36 meters." However, I'm looking for an oceanographer who is on record as having clearly stated prior to 1995 that s/he believed that rogue waves existed and that accounts of them were not simply tall tales.

 

[Robin]

I commend you on your research, but as far as I can tell, everything you cite was written after the existence of rogue waves was conclusively demonstrated in 1995. Now, I realize that you argue that Stanislaw Massel's "Ocean surface waves - their physics and predictions" (which, I understand, was published in April 1996) claims that "predictions made in 1950 based on weathership data the highest wave in a 50 year period would be 36 meters."

The cite for the 1971 study is in the references of Massel's book. Are you suggesting that he is lying about the 1971 study?

The 1971 study was not written after 1996.

However, I'm looking for an oceanographer who is on record as having clearly stated prior to 1995 that s/he believed that rogue waves existed and that accounts of them were not simply tall tales.

I have shown a documented study in 1971 which measures 76 foot waves and predicts 118 foot waves - that is not sufficient?

You have not provided a single instance of an oceanographer doubting the existence of extreme waves or any good reason to believe that they did.

And yet you will continue to believe it.

Yes?