Rogue Waves

[politas]

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.

And you persist in ignoring the fact that no one claimed that.

The models predicted extremely rare rogue waves. That is not the same thing as predicting no rogue waves.

Also, you are persistently equating "rogue waves" with "extremely large waves". They are not the same thing.

 

[politas]

"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."

Now, see, this is exactly why anecdotal reports are treated with skepticism and judged to have fairly low value.

Before dawn, while desperately fighting heavy seas, the ship is heeled heavily to starboard, a big wave slams into the ship. (A relatively small ship, all things considered)

It's dark. The ship's deck is crazily tilted. Sefton was busy trying to hang on and control the ship.

And you think that under those circumstances, Sefton can accurately judge the size and direction of the wave, enough to give oceanographers some useful data for adjusting their models? How well do you think the wave was lit for Sefton to see it? How could he see the horizon? He's on a ship where he is say 5 metres above the waterline at most. Under the circumstances, the size of the wave that hit them could be as small as 10 metres and he would still likely see it as a "freakish wave of incredible size and force".

There is also another point. When describing the wave, Sefton is explaining why he should not be held accountable for loss of the ship and the lives aboard. I'm not saying he is therefore neccessarily lying about the size of the wave, but he certainly has a strong personal benefit in making people believe that the weather was the cause of the ship's loss while he was in control of her.

 

[Rodney]

I have looked and looked again for reports about freak waves being the course of any of those incidents and found nothing.

Which is much different than: "No freak waves reported by the survivors." Who, exactly, reported that?

Honestly, it's about time you do your own research. Go look for evidence if you think it's there.

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.

The specific facts don't seem to be readily available on-line, as your research shows.

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.

Again, what does your research prove? You have only a handful of sinkings where rogue waves can definitely be ruled out. I do agree, however, that, the websites I have cited seem to rely on the same source, and so we have to pin down where the "200 supertankers and large container ships sinking over the past two decades" comes from. I have e-mailed Dr. Rosenthal about this.

 

[Rodney]

And you persist in ignoring the fact that no one claimed that.

The models predicted extremely rare rogue waves. That is not the same thing as predicting no rogue waves.

For all practical purposes, it is the same. According to several sources, the pre-1995 models used by most oceanographers produced a rogue wave only every 10,000 years. Now, the evidence indicates that on average 10 such waves are churning somewhere at any time. If you subscribed to the former models, you would believe it extremely unlikely that anyone had actually encountered a rogue wave.

Also, you are persistently equating "rogue waves" with "extremely large waves". They are not the same thing.

So a 30 meter-high wave is not necessarily a rogue wave?

 

[Rodney]

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.

Rouge waves yes, rogue waves no.
Seriously, large waves in heavy seas would not be unusual, but 20-30 meter-high waves would be, and so the latter would still be termed rogue waves, even in a hurricane.

 

[TriangleMan]

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."

But when I asked you about Bigfoot evidence you said:

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.

But in this instance we have one guy saying a large wave, without giving its size, hit his boat while it was falling over, in a storm in the North Atlantic (where 25-30 foot waves are not uncommon in such conditions), before dawn - so it wasn't even during daylight. How does this qualify as credible evidence of rogue waves according to your previous quote?

 

[politas]

For all practical purposes, it is the same. According to several sources, the pre-1995 models used by most oceanographers produced a rogue wave only every 10,000 years. Now, the evidence indicates that on average 10 such waves are churning somewhere at any time. If you subscribed to the former models, you would believe it extremely unlikely that anyone had actually encountered a rogue wave.

You seem to think that oceanographers believe that their models accurately describe the real world. I don't believe that is the case. Oceanographers, like meteorologists and economists, understand that their models are the best they can make with available knowledge and technology. Stories of things which do not fit their models are exactly what they want to hear, since it gives them ideas of how they might improve their models. They then attempt to collect data on that phenomenon.

Now, lets say an oceanographer hears ten anecdotal reports of vaguely-described "rogue waves" which do not fit his model. During the same time he receives ten reports about tidal heights that do not fit his model. Studying the rogue waves will cost $10million. Studying the tides will cost $10,000. Both studies should lead to an improvement in his model, which in each case, may help to predict the other phenomenon. Which should he choose to study?

So a 30 meter-high wave is not necessarily a rogue wave?

To be honest, I have no idea how big ocean waves get. I'm not an oceanographer. What I have seen in this thread are definitions of "rogue waves" which do not match "large waves", but make them a subset of "large waves". I then see you using citations that mention large waves and counting them as rogue waves, without any explanation of what makes the particular large wave a rogue wave.

 

[Bjorn]

Which is much different than: "No freak waves reported by the survivors." Who, exactly, reported that?


The specific facts don't seem to be readily available on-line, as your research shows.

Again, what does your research prove? You have only a handful of sinkings where rogue waves can definitely be ruled out. I do agree, however, that, the websites I have cited seem to rely on the same source, and so we have to pin down where the "200 supertankers and large container ships sinking over the past two decades" comes from. I have e-mailed Dr. Rosenthal about this.

You seem to think that I'm looking for accidents that were NOT caused by freak waves. I'm not - I'm searching for accidents and what caused them. You could do the same, you know ....

Tab. 7: The biggest ships lost in 2004​

SELENDANG AYU Malaysia bulker 72937 1998 Stranding​

BOW MARINER Singapore chemical tanker 39821 1982 Fire + Explosions
YTHAN Marshall Islands bulker 35310 1984 Fire + Explosions
SERAYA BARU Singapore tanker 32107 1981 Fire + Explosions
LOK PRAGATI India bulker 26928 1984 Foundering
STEPAN RAZIN Russia bulker 19590 1980 Stranding
VICUNA Chile chemical tanker 17465 1983 Fire + Explosions
AN LU JIANG China, PR of general cargo 15210 1978 Stranding
HYUNDAY No: 105 Panama Ro-Ro 12889 1986 Collision
ASIAN NOBLE Korea, Rep. of bulker 12336 1986 Foundering
BECHAR Algeria general cargo 11941 1978 Stranding
HERA Cambodia general cargo 11845 1974 Foundering
WIN GRAND Malta general cargo 11769 1986 Foundering
BARBADOS OKTAY Turkey general cargo 10056 1975 Fire + Explosions​

Lok Pragati: The ship sank in the former shipyards ship repair
Asian Noble: Sank in a storm 50 miles from the coast of Primorye
Hera: Sank during a snowstorm near Istanbul
Win Grand: Sank after ingress of water into cargo hold​

As you can see, I have looked into those where the reason is stated as "foundering" - feel free to dig up stories about those accidents and see if you can find anything about freak waves. I couldn't.​

 

[Rodney]

But in this instance we have one guy saying a large wave, without giving its size, hit his boat while it was falling over, in a storm in the North Atlantic (where 25-30 foot waves are not uncommon in such conditions), before dawn - so it wasn't even during daylight. How does this qualify as credible evidence of rogue waves according to your previous quote?

There were eight other survivors of this sinking. Did any contradict Sefton? And do you really think it's reasonable that 25-30 foot waves caused the ship to sink so quickly that 19 members of the crew lost their lives? Here is another account:

"4:30 a.m.
Sunday, June 3, 1984
75 miles north of Bermuda.

"The storm that has buffeted the sail-training ship Marques for the last 14 hours appears to be subsiding. Most of the crew are below, sleeping peacefully...

"Suddenly, a heavy gust of wind pushes Marques down on her starboard side. Then, as helmsman Philip Sefton, 22, recalls 'a freakish wave of incredible force and size,' literally slams into the ship, knocking her far over, flat on her side.

"Water starts roaring through the open hatchway, down into the bowels of the ship. And in less than 45 seconds (approximately the time it will take you to read all the words on this page), the ship is gone - as she literally sails under the ocean, her cabin lights still glowing green through the water as she slides, into the depths. In under a minute, all that remains of Marques, are the few cold, shocked survivors, struggling for the liferafts. And then, the red rockets arcing through the stormy, pre-dawn sky. Of the 28 on board, there are nine survivors...

"Said John Ash, 24, of the rogue wind and wave that drove the Marques into the sea: 'It meant to kill us. There was nothing we could do'."

 

[Rodney]

You seem to think that oceanographers believe that their models accurately describe the real world. I don't believe that is the case. Oceanographers, like meteorologists and economists, understand that their models are the best they can make with available knowledge and technology. Stories of things which do not fit their models are exactly what they want to hear, since it gives them ideas of how they might improve their models. They then attempt to collect data on that phenomenon.

That's not what several sources say. Rather, most oceanographers simply discounted eyewitness accounts of rogue waves because those accounts contradicted their models.

Now, lets say an oceanographer hears ten anecdotal reports of vaguely-described "rogue waves" which do not fit his model. During the same time he receives ten reports about tidal heights that do not fit his model. Studying the rogue waves will cost $10million. Studying the tides will cost $10,000. Both studies should lead to an improvement in his model, which in each case, may help to predict the other phenomenon. Which should he choose to study?

Aside from the fact that you're making up your numbers, did oceanographers spend money studying tides to improve their models?

To be honest, I have no idea how big ocean waves get. I'm not an oceanographer. What I have seen in this thread are definitions of "rogue waves" which do not match "large waves", but make them a subset of "large waves". I then see you using citations that mention large waves and counting them as rogue waves, without any explanation of what makes the particular large wave a rogue wave.

Wrong, I discussed this in post #103 of this thread:

According to Edward Willett:
"Rogue waves are monster, ship-smashing walls of water that rise to seemingly impossible heights, three to five times as high as the waves around them, and often come from unexpected directions."

30-meter-high waves are, by definition, rogue waves because the general wave level never approaches that height even during hurricanes.

 

[Rodney]

You seem to think that I'm looking for accidents that were NOT caused by freak waves. I'm not - I'm searching for accidents and what caused them. You could do the same, you know ....

Tab. 7: The biggest ships lost in 2004​

SELENDANG AYU Malaysia bulker 72937 1998 Stranding​

BOW MARINER Singapore chemical tanker 39821 1982 Fire + Explosions
YTHAN Marshall Islands bulker 35310 1984 Fire + Explosions
SERAYA BARU Singapore tanker 32107 1981 Fire + Explosions
LOK PRAGATI India bulker 26928 1984 Foundering
STEPAN RAZIN Russia bulker 19590 1980 Stranding
VICUNA Chile chemical tanker 17465 1983 Fire + Explosions
AN LU JIANG China, PR of general cargo 15210 1978 Stranding
HYUNDAY No: 105 Panama Ro-Ro 12889 1986 Collision
ASIAN NOBLE Korea, Rep. of bulker 12336 1986 Foundering
BECHAR Algeria general cargo 11941 1978 Stranding
HERA Cambodia general cargo 11845 1974 Foundering
WIN GRAND Malta general cargo 11769 1986 Foundering
BARBADOS OKTAY Turkey general cargo 10056 1975 Fire + Explosions​

Lok Pragati: The ship sank in the former shipyards ship repair
Asian Noble: Sank in a storm 50 miles from the coast of Primorye
Hera: Sank during a snowstorm near Istanbul
Win Grand: Sank after ingress of water into cargo hold​

As you can see, I have looked into those where the reason is stated as "foundering" - feel free to dig up stories about those accidents and see if you can find anything about freak waves. I couldn't.​

I appreciate your efforts, but again, what is needed here is an explanation from Dr. Rosenthal and others who cite the 200 huge ships sinking over the last two decades as to where that figure comes from.

 

[Bjorn]

I appreciate your efforts, but again, what is needed here is an explanation from Dr. Rosenthal and others who cite the 200 huge ships sinking over the last two decades as to where that figure comes from.

Which "others"? Do you have anyone saying so who is not quoting Rosenthal?

My immediate reaction when I read it was "It cannot be true", and my reaction is based on, if I might say so, a very broad experience in ocean-going vessels combined with lots and lots of contacts in the shipping industry.

I have tried to find ANY ship over 200 meters being sunk by freak waves by going through reports about ships lost during the last decades. Nothing there (search for yourself ....).

I have e-mailed several people in the industry and the reaction is, from every single one: That's not possible. We don't even lose that many big ships for ANY reason.

I have quoted the chairman of Intertanko, who says "It's simply not true".

Now - if authorities within the industry say it's not true, if there aren't enough ships sunk by any reason to make it possible to be true, if the information about those that were lost (fewer than 200) shows that they were lost for a lot of reasons like grounding or explosions or fires or collisions, and yes, a few of them foundered but somehow the words "freak waves" are not to be found in the reports or newspaper articles about them - do you really still believe that Rosenthal is right?

 

[politas]

That's not what several sources say. Rather, most oceanographers simply discounted eyewitness accounts of rogue waves because those accounts contradicted their models.

Can you cite those sources, or do you mean the ones I refuted earlier which said things along the lines of "once thought to be myths"

Aside from the fact that you're making up your numbers, did oceanographers spend money studying tides to improve their models?

Well, what do you think they did? Just sat in their offices ignoring the real world and trying to make calculations based on their imaginations? What do you think their goals are?

Wrong, I discussed this in post #103 of this thread:

According to Edward Willett:
"Rogue waves are monster, ship-smashing walls of water that rise to seemingly impossible heights, three to five times as high as the waves around them, and often come from unexpected directions."

30-meter-high waves are, by definition, rogue waves because the general wave level never approaches that height even during hurricanes.

Ok, fine. But many of the anecdotes you have quoted as "evidence of rogue waves" say nothing about the height of the waves. Certainly the story about the tall ship foundering in no way supports rogue waves.

 

[Pidge]

Wikipedia article on freak waves. Which states pretty much what has been discussed so far...

1) 200 ships over 600ft in length lost in a decade is a myth.
2) There has been one recorded sinking of a large ship which is most likely to have been caused by a freak / rogue wave.
3) Project WaveMax detected one extremely large wave per 150,000 km² (a square with sides of 387.3km) in a three week observation period. Encountering a wave is a highly unlikely event.
4) The exact mechanism is still unknown, but most likely due to co-incidence of conditions. e.g. re-inforcement of co-inciding waves, contra-flow of ocean currents and wave direction.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...

According to Edward Willett:
"Rogue waves are monster, ship-smashing walls of water that rise to seemingly impossible heights, three to five times as high as the waves around them, and often come from unexpected directions."

30-meter-high waves are, by definition, rogue waves because the general wave level never approaches that height even during hurricanes.

Incorrect. It seems you have not read the papers from 2000 and 2004 Rogue waves workshops. I added links to some papers at post 131.

There are still some ongoing discussion on the exact definition of what a rogue wave is. Usually, rogue waves are defined by their shape and size relative to "standard" wave trains during storms. "Extreme" waves are huge waves, but with normal shape, and they are have been known and studied for a relatively long time. Rogue or freak waves are very steep, with a pronounced depression ahead ot them, and may not necessarily be the biggest waves formed at a storm. Check the links at post 131, that BTW show that your argument are quite flawed on the subject.

 

[TriangleMan]

There were eight other survivors of this sinking. Did any contradict Sefton? And do you really think it's reasonable that 25-30 foot waves caused the ship to sink so quickly that 19 members of the crew lost their lives?

Actually once a ship falls over the water entering it will sink it quickly, no large waves are needed. Oddly enough a search on the Marques disaster turned up an old Time Magazine article in which no wave was mentioned at all.

"Those below did not stand a chance," said Philip Sefton, 22, also from Britain, who was at the helm. He described the deathly blow that struck the Marques 80 miles north of Bermuda: "It was totally unexpected. It was incredible in its velocity. It was a freak hurricane. The ship was on its side in less than ten seconds. She started to go under in 30 seconds. The squall knocked the ship over like a day sailer." According to Mark Litchfield, one of the British owners of the Marques, who was in Bermuda, "it seems incredible that she was driven under like that. It would have to have been a wind of absolutely phenomenal proportions."

Feel free to read the rest of the article, no mention of a wave, and the article has quotes from Seaton and Ash. One person even describes how they got in a life raft after the ship fell over (why didn't the 'rogue wave' capsize that?).

After the initial articles you posted I assumed that the boat was in a storm and that it was likely hit by a large wave after falling over, now I've found an article that says the storm had largely subsided until a big gust of wind knocked the ship over - and no massive wave. Which one should I believe? Doesn't this tend to make the 'rogue wave' theory even less credible, something along the level of 'Bigfoot' evidence?

 

[Rodney]

Incorrect. It seems you have not read the papers from 2000 and 2004 Rogue waves workshops. I added links to some papers at post 131.

There are still some ongoing discussion on the exact definition of what a rogue wave is. Usually, rogue waves are defined by their shape and size relative to "standard" wave trains during storms.

I think that you will find that a 30-meter high wave is considered to be a rogue wave by most experts. If there is a source that says otherwise, please document.

"Extreme" waves are huge waves, but with normal shape, and they are have been known and studied for a relatively long time.

Oh? When was the term "extreme" wave first used and how large a wave are you talking about? Again, please document.

Rogue or freak waves are very steep, with a pronounced depression ahead ot them, and may not necessarily be the biggest waves formed at a storm. Check the links at post 131, that BTW show that your argument are quite flawed on the subject.

Again, if there is a source that says that rogue waves may not necessarily be the biggest waves formed during a storm, please document.

 

[Rodney]

Actually once a ship falls over the water entering it will sink it quickly, no large waves are needed. Oddly enough a search on the Marques disaster turned up an old Time Magazine article in which no wave was mentioned at all.

Feel free to read the rest of the article, no mention of a wave, and the article has quotes from Seaton and Ash. One person even describes how they got in a life raft after the ship fell over (why didn't the 'rogue wave' capsize that?).

After the initial articles you posted I assumed that the boat was in a storm and that it was likely hit by a large wave after falling over, now I've found an article that says the storm had largely subsided until a big gust of wind knocked the ship over - and no massive wave. Which one should I believe? Doesn't this tend to make the 'rogue wave' theory even less credible, something along the level of 'Bigfoot' evidence?

No, because the article is an incomplete account. It quotes Sefton as saying: "It was a freak hurricane. The ship was on its side in less than ten seconds. She started to go under in 30 seconds. The squall knocked the ship over like a day sailer." So, are we supposed to believe a "freak hurricane" occurred with no wave?

 

[Bjorn]

No, because the article is an incomplete account. It quotes Sefton as saying: "It was a freak hurricane. The ship was on its side in less than ten seconds. She started to go under in 30 seconds. The squall knocked the ship over like a day sailer." So, are we supposed to believe a "freak hurricane" occurred with no wave?

1.

I wonder - have you ever been in a squall? Do you know what it is?

2.

I get the feeling that you want us to prove there were no freak waves involved in the accidents that have been mentioned. Shouldn't it be the other way around - you proving that they were?

3.

I never saw an answer to this:

Now - if authorities within the industry say it's not true, if there aren't enough ships sunk by any reason to make it possible to be true, if the information about those that were lost (fewer than 200) shows that they were lost for a lot of reasons like grounding or explosions or fires or collisions, and yes, a few of them foundered but somehow the words "freak waves" are not to be found in the reports or newspaper articles about them - do you really still believe that Rosenthal is right?

Well?

 

[Rodney]

1. I wonder - have you ever been in a squall? Do you know what it is?

I know what a squall is, but haven't experienced one at sea. Relevance?

2. I get the feeling that you want us to prove there were no freak waves involved in the accidents that have been mentioned. Shouldn't it be the other way around - you proving that they were?

Yes, and the proof is overwhelming in several instances. In the Marques incident, the proof may not be 100% conclusive, but helmsman Philip Sefton stated flat-out that the ship was sunk by "a freakish wave of incredible force and size." The fact that the Time magazine article chose to instead quote as its authority on the storm one of the owners of the Marques, Mark Litchfield, who was 80 miles away when the Marques sank, made no sense.

3.I never saw an answer to this: Well?

The facts aren't all in yet. For one thing, I haven't heard back from Rosenthal. For a second, your accounting of large ship sinkings isn't close to being complete, any more than the Time article was a complete accounting of the demise of the Marques.