Rogue Waves

[Mojo]

That establishment scientists, including oceanographers, need to drop their elitist attitudes and pay more attention to the real world.

Does this "real world" of which you speak include Cayce's pronouncements, by any chance?

 

[drkitten]

Sir Robin "[w]ent to sea in the Merchant Navy in 1957 as a Deck officer . . . In 1992 RKJ was invited to become President of the Sail Training Association, a youth development organisation which operated two topsail schooners “Sir Winston Churchill” and “Malcolm Miller” and also organised the annual Tall Ships races. Before he retired in 2001 £11 million had been raised to replace these two vessels with two larger brigs “Prince William” and “Stavros Niarchos” . . . " See http://www.robinknox-johnston.co.uk/

That doesn't sound like a lot of supertanker experience to me. Unless you think that "topsail schooners" are a type of oil transport....

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No, because it's the credibility of the anecdotes that's the key. If one or two not-so-upstanding citizens say that they saw Bigfoot and offer up a grainy photo, that isn't much in the way of proof. If, on the other hand, the entire crew of a ship say that the ship was struck by a 25-30 meter high wave and offer up the ship with damages consistent with being struck by such a wave, that's a lot in the way of proof.

And a number of upstanding citizens showing themselves to be absolutely appalling at recalling details of events they witnessed (such as in the case I referred you to earlier which you ignored), what does that say about the reliability of eye-witness evidence?

Remember the ONLY sinking that you included in your list when asked for details you attribute to a rogue wave on the basis of ONE eyewitness report. Not the entire crew, one person. In a highly stressful environment.

What distinguishes his eyewitness report from that of an eyewitness to the tube shooting? After all there are plenty press reports about how the man shot that day ran from police, jumped barriers, wore three different types of coat and had a bomb belt on. All based on eyewitness reports. How much time should scientists by spending investigating vanishing bomb belts and coats that change colour and style?

 

[Mojo]

How much time should scientists by spending investigating vanishing bomb belts and coats that change colour and style?

Ah, but think of the enormous commercial potential should they succeed...

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Ah, but think of the enormous commercial potential should they succeed...

Indeed - and in these dangerous times surely we need to research thoroughly the risk posed by vanishing (or possibly even invisible) bomb belts. Think what risk we are exposed to if the terrorists get their hands on those!

 

[drkitten]

" offer up the ship with damages consistent with being struck by such a wave, that's a lot in the way of proof."

I'm also a little confused by this bit here. What, exactly, are "damages consistent with being struck by a rogue wave"? I mean -- if the ship gets hit by a rogue wave, the decks will be wet, right? So if I can offer up the ship with water on the decks, then that's "consistent" with being hit by a rogue wave, and therefore proof that the ship was hit by such a wave?

That's an obvious fallacy. It's formal name is Affirming the Consequent, but informally, it's the same "theory" that leads to all sorts of woo-woo beliefs. If I wear my lucky rabbit's foot, and as a result my team wins the match, that doesn't "prove" that there's anything magic about the foot. If a unicorn ate all of my lettuces, they'll be gone in the morning -- but I'm still inclined to attribute the crop damage I see to rabbits. Or as doctors put it, "if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."

What you would want to look at is being able to present the ship, not with damage consistent with a rogue wave, but damage inconsistent with an ordinary storm. I can't for the life of me figure out what such damage would be, and I suspect neither can other naval architects. If we can figure out what that damage is, it's also obvious that no such damage has been commonly observed, or else there wouldn't be this controversy in the first place.

 

[Rodney]

I'm also a little confused by this bit here. What, exactly, are "damages consistent with being struck by a rogue wave"? I mean -- if the ship gets hit by a rogue wave, the decks will be wet, right? So if I can offer up the ship with water on the decks, then that's "consistent" with being hit by a rogue wave, and therefore proof that the ship was hit by such a wave?

See post #97 on this thread. Among other accounts of rogue waves, you will read:

"In 1966, the Italian cruise ship Michelangelo was steaming toward New York when a giant wave tore a hole in its superstructure, smashed heavy glass 80 feet above the waterline, and killed a crewman and two passengers. In 1978, the München, a German barge carrier, sank in the Atlantic. Surviving bits of twisted wreckage suggested that it surrendered to a wave of great force."

" . . . And within the week between February and March 2001 two hardened tourist cruisers – the Bremen and the Caledonian Star – had their bridge windows smashed by 30-metre rogue waves in the South Atlantic, the former ship left drifting without navigation or propulsion for a period of two hours."

Further, even when a ship is lost or the ship's physical damage may be consistent with an event other than a rogue wave, the number of eyewitnesses renders any other explanation far fetched:

"Shortly before dawn on Sunday, June 3, 1984, the 117-foot, threemasted Marques sailed into a fierce squall about 75 miles north of Bermuda. Heavy rain began to pelt the ship, and a furious wind sprang up out of nowhere. Squalls were nothing new to the Marques, one of 39 tall ships participating in a transatlantic race. But as a precaution, Stuart Finlay, the seasoned 42-year-old American captain of the ship, shortened the sails. The Marques was carrying a crew of 28 - half of whom were under 25. At the helm, Philip Sefton, 22, fought the angry waves that now confronted them.

"Suddenly a heavy gust of wind pushed the Marques down on its starboard side. At the same instant 'a freakish wave of incredible force and size,' as Sefton later described it, slammed the ship broadside, pushing its masts farther beneath the surging water. A second wave pounded the ship as it went down. The Marques filled with water and sank in less than one minute. Most of the crew were trapped as they slept below deck. Only Sefton and eight shipmates survive."
________________________________________________________________
"In late 1942, carrying 15,000 U.S. soldiers bound for England, the Queen Mary hit a storm about 700 miles off the coast of Scotland. Without warning amid the tumult, a single, mountainous wave struck the ocean liner, rolling it over and washing water across its upper decks. Luckily, the ship managed to right itself and continue on its voyage."

 

[TriangleMan]

Um . . .
"Shortly before dawn on Sunday, June 3, 1984, the 117-foot, threemasted Marques sailed into a fierce squall about 75 miles north of Bermuda. Heavy rain began to pelt the ship, and a furious wind sprang up out of nowhere. . . <snip> . . ."Suddenly a heavy gust of wind pushed the Marques down on its starboard side. At the same instant 'a freakish wave of incredible force and size,' as Sefton later described it, slammed the ship broadside, pushing its masts farther beneath the surging water."

Newsflash - Scientists rush to research new phenomena - big waves can occur during fierce squalls!

"It's completely inexplicable", says Dr. John Q. Science, "seas are nomally quite calm during storms. We need to research this immediately".

 

[MandosV]

As in where's the "off" switch? Let's try this.


I've talked to them and they said "We're sorry. We'll do better."

All finished! These things are so easy when you know how to handle them.


Given the location shown with your avatar, you'll like this.

Grillswith
Specialty of the University Diner
in Charlottesville, Virginia
Until it went out of business

Preparation of self:
About 2:00 am, realize that you've been studying multivariate calculus, applied telekinesis, and biomechanics since daybreak without eating anything. Head downtown to the Diner.

Assuming you can't travel back in time, you'll also need to perform the...

Preparation of recipe:
Melt a pat of butter on a griddle or non-stick pan. Fry one or two glazed yeast (not cake) doughnuts -- Krispy Kreme is the right kind for a proper Grillswith. Those not able to get KK can be forgiven for substituting less suitable doughnuts, but they must be the plain glazed yeast kind.

When the glaze has caramelized a bit, put it on a melmac plate, top each doughnut with a scoop of vanilla ice cream, provide with fork, eat pretty darned fast. Order another. You're a young student, you'll easily burn off all those calories in no time.

Yum.

[edited to attribute third quote block to MandosV]

Hey Meffy,
Thanks so much. First, I laughed so hard the Gatorade tm shot out of my nose. Second, I always enjoy doughnuts. Third, I think you're the only one who "gets it" so far.

 

[Rodney]

Newsflash - Scientists rush to research new phenomena - big waves can occur during fierce squalls!

"It's completely inexplicable", says Dr. John Q. Science, "seas are nomally quite calm during storms. We need to research this immediately".

I guessed you somehow missed this, so I'll put it in big letters: "At the same instant 'A FREAKISH WAVE OF INCREDIBLE FORCE AND SIZE,' as Sefton later described it, slammed the ship broadside, pushing its masts farther beneath the surging water."

Undoubtedly, however, Sefton lied, and the 19 members of the crew who allegedly died actually survived and were kept in hiding for 17 years, whereupon they were ordered by the lying coward George Bush to hijack four planes and fly them into buildings so that he could be re-elected three years later. (For a fuller explanation, see numerous other threads on this forum.)

 

[Mojo]

I guessed you somehow missed this, so I'll put it in big letters: "At the same instant 'A FREAKISH WAVE OF INCREDIBLE FORCE AND SIZE,' as Sefton later described it, slammed the ship broadside, pushing its masts farther beneath the surging water."

Undoubtedly, however, Sefton lied, and the 19 members of the crew who allegedly died actually survived and were kept in hiding for 17 years, whereupon they were ordered by the lying coward George Bush to hijack four planes and fly them into buildings so that he could be re-elected three years later.

You're finally getting a little nearer reality than you usually are.

Just not very near.

 

[Meffy]

@MandosV: I wouldn't go so far as to say I get it, but I have had far too many Grillswiths to claim I'd never had it. =^_^= Wish I could eat one of those nowadays. I'd have to be verrry careful not to do a blood sugar spike-plummet dealie.

 

[Bjorn]

That doesn't sound like a lot of supertanker experience to me. Unless you think that "topsail schooners" are a type of oil transport....

Sir Robin was the first person to ever single handedly circumnavigate the globe non stop on a sailboat and is famous for sailing accomplishments, not for big ships.

However, I looked up the major tanker spills during the last decades, and couldn't find any reference to the kind of freak waves we are talking about here.

The Maltese tanker TASMAN SPIRIT (87,584 DWT) grounded at the entrance to Karachi Port, Pakistan in the early hours of Sunday 27 July 2003.

During the afternoon of Wednesday 13 November 2002, the tanker PRESTIGE (81,564 DWT), carrying a cargo of 77,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil, suffered hull damage in heavy seas off northern Spain. Local fishermen said forecasts indicated winds up to 40 knots (46 mph) and waves up to 20 feet. No freak waves reported by the survivors.

The Maltese tanker ERIKA, carrying some 31,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil as cargo, broke in two in a severe storm in the Bay of Biscay on 11 December 1999, 60 miles from the coast of Brittany. Lloyd's List reported that severe corrosion had been discovered by class just weeks before the incident.

On the evening of 15 February 1996, SEA EMPRESS, carrying 130,000 tonnes of Forties Blend North Sea crude oil, ran aground in the entrance to Milford Haven, South West Wales.

Following engine failure, BRAER ran aground in severe weather conditions on Garth's Ness, Shetland on 5 January 1993.

EXXON VALDEZ grounded on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on 24 March 1989.

CASTILLO DE BELLVER, carrying 252,000 tonnes of light crude oil (Murban and Upper Zakum), caught fire about 70 miles north west of Cape Town, South Africa on 6 August 1983.

The tanker AMOCO CADIZ ran aground off the coast of Brittany on 16 March 1978 following a steering gear failure.

METULA grounded in the eastern Strait of Magellan, Chile, on 9 August 1974. About 47,000 tonnes of light Arabian crude oil and 3,000 to 4,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil are estimated to be have been lost.

On 7 March 1980 TANIO, carrying 26 000 tonnes of No. 6 fuel oil, broke in two during violent weather conditions off the coast of Brittany, France. No reports of freak waves from the survivors.

ARGO MERCHANT ran aground on Nantucket Shoals, off Massachusetts, USA, on 15 December 1976.

TORREY CANYON ran aground on Pollard Rock on the Seven Stones Reef, near Lands End, Cornwall on 18 March 1967.

That's it - as far as I can see, none of the accidents were blamed on freak waves, but feel free to prove otherwise, Rodney ...

 

[TjW]

See post #97 on this thread. Among other accounts of rogue waves, you will read:

"In 1966, the Italian cruise ship Michelangelo was steaming toward New York when a giant wave tore a hole in its superstructure, smashed heavy glass 80 feet above the waterline, and killed a crewman and two passengers. In 1978, the München, a German barge carrier, sank in the Atlantic. Surviving bits of twisted wreckage suggested that it surrendered to a wave of great force."

" . . . And within the week between February and March 2001 two hardened tourist cruisers – the Bremen and the Caledonian Star – had their bridge windows smashed by 30-metre rogue waves in the South Atlantic, the former ship left drifting without navigation or propulsion for a period of two hours."

Further, even when a ship is lost or the ship's physical damage may be consistent with an event other than a rogue wave, the number of eyewitnesses renders any other explanation far fetched:

"Shortly before dawn on Sunday, June 3, 1984, the 117-foot, threemasted Marques sailed into a fierce squall about 75 miles north of Bermuda. Heavy rain began to pelt the ship, and a furious wind sprang up out of nowhere. Squalls were nothing new to the Marques, one of 39 tall ships participating in a transatlantic race. But as a precaution, Stuart Finlay, the seasoned 42-year-old American captain of the ship, shortened the sails. The Marques was carrying a crew of 28 - half of whom were under 25. At the helm, Philip Sefton, 22, fought the angry waves that now confronted them.

"Suddenly a heavy gust of wind pushed the Marques down on its starboard side. At the same instant 'a freakish wave of incredible force and size,' as Sefton later described it, slammed the ship broadside, pushing its masts farther beneath the surging water. A second wave pounded the ship as it went down. The Marques filled with water and sank in less than one minute. Most of the crew were trapped as they slept below deck. Only Sefton and eight shipmates survive."
________________________________________________________________
"In late 1942, carrying 15,000 U.S. soldiers bound for England, the Queen Mary hit a storm about 700 miles off the coast of Scotland. Without warning amid the tumult, a single, mountainous wave struck the ocean liner, rolling it over and washing water across its upper decks. Luckily, the ship managed to right itself and continue on its voyage."

So I'm a little confused here, Rodney. With all this convincing evidence, why didn't you immediately drop everything and begin researching it?
You said earlier that "wasn't feasible". But why is it so much more feasible for someone else to drop their current research in order to study something you're interested in?

 

[Rodney]

That's it - as far as I can see, none of the accidents were blamed on freak waves, but feel free to prove otherwise, Rodney ...

I agree that none were explicitly blamed on rogue waves, but in several cases rogue waves can't be ruled out. For example: "During the afternoon of Wednesday 13 November 2002, the tanker PRESTIGE (81,564 DWT), carrying a cargo of 77,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil, suffered hull damage in heavy seas off northern Spain." You added the editorial comment: "No freak waves reported by the survivors." However, I don't see that documented in the links that you provided.

Further, the link listing the oil spills states: "More incidents will be added shortly." So, even with respect to oil spills, that link is not a complete accounting, and it doesn't even address container ship sinkings. Again, the claim made on several web sites is that severe weather has sunk more than 200 supertankers and container ships exceeding 200 metres in length during the last two decades, and that rogue waves are believed to be the major cause in many such cases.

 

[Rodney]

So I'm a little confused here, Rodney. With all this convincing evidence, why didn't you immediately drop everything and begin researching it?
You said earlier that "wasn't feasible". But why is it so much more feasible for someone else to drop their current research in order to study something you're interested in?

Because I'm not an oceanographer. Besides, I'm not suggesting that every oceanographer should have started researching rogue waves -- only those who claimed that their models showed that such waves are a myth.

 

[Bjorn]

I agree that none were explicitly blamed on rogue waves, but in several cases rogue waves can't be ruled out. For example: "During the afternoon of Wednesday 13 November 2002, the tanker PRESTIGE (81,564 DWT), carrying a cargo of 77,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil, suffered hull damage in heavy seas off northern Spain." You added the editorial comment: "No freak waves reported by the survivors." However, I don't see that documented in the links that you provided.

I have looked and looked again for reports about freak waves being the course of any of those incidents and found nothing. Honestly, it's about time you do your own research. Go look for evidence if you think it's there.

Further, the link listing the oil spills states: "More incidents will be added shortly." So, even with respect to oil spills, that link is not a complete accounting, and it doesn't even address container ship sinkings.

I challenge you to find those other incidents, and the container ships sinking, and connect those accidents to freak waves. I've spent some time finding facts - now you do the same.

Again, the claim made on several web sites is that severe weather has sunk more than 200 supertankers and container ships exceeding 200 metres in length during the last two decades, and that rogue waves are believed to be the major cause in many such cases.

Every one of those websites are using the same source - and we have now, those of us who bothered to do some investigation, found that the available evidence about ships lost is not supporting that source.

 

[TjW]

Rodney:
I'm really having trouble with why your being convinced of something obligates other people to research it.

 

[Pidge]

I agree that none were explicitly blamed on rogue waves, but in several cases rogue waves can't be ruled out. For example: "During the afternoon of Wednesday 13 November 2002, the tanker PRESTIGE (81,564 DWT), carrying a cargo of 77,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil, suffered hull damage in heavy seas off northern Spain." You added the editorial comment: "No freak waves reported by the survivors." However, I don't see that documented in the links that you provided.

I understand that rouge waves are those that are travelling in otherwise "calm" seas. Large waves in heavy seas or during a storm would not be unusual.

 

[Mojo]

I agree that none were explicitly blamed on rogue waves, but in several cases rogue waves can't be ruled out. For example: "During the afternoon of Wednesday 13 November 2002, the tanker PRESTIGE (81,564 DWT), carrying a cargo of 77,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil, suffered hull damage in heavy seas off northern Spain." You added the editorial comment: "No freak waves reported by the survivors." However, I don't see that documented in the links that you provided.

Can giant squid be ruled out for all of them?

How about Atlanteans?

There's no evidence that any of the survivors said that neither of these was involved.