Rogue Waves

[Bjorn]

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

One can experience very strong winds, but usually squalls are short-lived and not accompanied by large waves.

Yes, and the proof is overwhelming in several instances.

Please re-post the overwhelming evidence.

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.

What about the fact that we don't even lose 200 ships over 200 meters in 20 years for all reasons combined?

Why don't you investigate some of the accidents we have had with big ships and look for freak waves quoted as the main factor? Search for ships lost or big ships lost or tankers lost or whatever you want - I did - and see what you find. My list is, as you point out, not complete, maybe you could complete it?

Again, I get the feeling that I have to prove big ships weren't sunk by freak waves. Why don't you prove they were?

 

[TriangleMan]

So, are we supposed to believe a "freak hurricane" occurred with no wave?

I'm glad that you now agree that large waves occur with storms.

Since Seaton described the storm as a 'freak hurricane' should scientists now be investigating the phenomenon of 'rogue hurricanes'? After all, no one else on the ship appear to contradict Seaton.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Ihelmsman Philip Sefton stated flat-out that the ship was sunk by "a freakish wave of incredible force and size."

And I have provided you with links to a recent extremely high profile news story where eyewitness accounts were demonstrated to be utterly inaccurate.

Now unless you think that scientists should be investigating the cloaking technology that the puffa jacket / winter coat / blue fleece / denim jacket was made of that enabled it to change style, shape and colour to confuse eyewitnesses, that they should be looking into the sometimes invisible material used to make the bomb belt that the eyewitness reported he was wearing and that they investigate the freak acoustics that enabled eyewitnesses to report different numbers of gunshots, then you are going to have to explain why Philip Sefton is different from the eyewitnesses to the shooting.

A question that you have avoided on a number of occasions.

What is it about the eyewitness to the ONE SINGLE SPECIFIC INCIDENT that you have mentioned involving a sinking that means he cannot be, like the eywitnesses in the shooting case, simply wrong? Apart from the fact that admitting it leaves you with precisely nothing to support your position?

 

[Mojo]

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?

It's not unknown for Rodney to try to shift the burden of proof.

 

[politas]

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.

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.

The Marques is a relatively tiny 115-foot tall ship. How it can possibly be used as any indicator of problems encountered by ships over 500 metres is beyond me.

Sefton's report of the wave is highly subjective and extremely likely to be inaccurate, for reasons I have already stated.

That you continue to use this example shows your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I've finally figured Rodney out. He's uncomfortable with the part of the scientific process that says

Scientific progress is the cummulative growth of a system of knowledge over time, in which useful features are retained, and nonuseful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge.

source: http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html and seems to think that if science would treat all anecdotal evidence as equal, and of value, that this process would be greatly shortened in time.

 

[Rodney]

What about the fact that we don't even lose 200 ships over 200 meters in 20 years for all reasons combined?

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has provided me a list of shipping losses for the period 1985-2000. The IMO figures do not list losses by ship length, but they show that, during this 16-year period, a staggering 3848 ships were lost, with 205 being oil tankers. Here is the complete breakdown:

TOTAL LOSSES: 3848
Oil tankers: 205
Other liquids: 6
Bulk dry carriers: 241
Bulk dry/oil carriers: 24
Self discharging bulk dry: 2
Other bulk dry cargo: 44
General cargo: 1642
Passenger ships: 60
Passenger/general cargo: 23
Container ships: 40
Refrigerated cargo: 55
Ro/ro cargo: 57
Passenger/RoRo cargo: 81
Other dry cargo: 11
Liquefied gas carrier: 25
Chemical tankers: 47
Fish catching: 982
Other fishing: 17
Tugs: 127
Supply ships: 53
Research: 10
Dredgers: 36
Miscellaneous: 60

 

[Correa Neto]

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.


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


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

Oh, but I already provided the sources. At post 131 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1774748&postcount=131), where I provided several links to papers from the 2000 and 2005 rogue waves workshops.

That BTW, show many errors within your arguments.

 

[Bjorn]

The IMO figures do not list losses by ship length ....

.... and 200 ships over 200 meters during 20 years was the point you were going to find evidence for, wasn't it?

 

[Meffy]

The International Maritime Organization (IMO)

Obviously any figures they provide are just their opinion.

[Note: Most posters will probably understand that the above is a (fairly dumb) joke. For those who mightn't: think about it.]

 

[Rodney]

Oh, but I already provided the sources. At post 131 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1774748&postcount=131), where I provided several links to papers from the 2000 and 2005 rogue waves workshops.

That BTW, show many errors within your arguments.

Most of those papers are a good cure for insomnia. But let me ask you this: Are you saying that the erroneous models oceanographers used for years allowed for "extreme" waves, but not for "rogue" waves? If so, what was the maximum wave size those models allowed for?

 

[Rodney]

.... and 200 ships over 200 meters during 20 years was the point you were going to find evidence for, wasn't it?

I've got an e-mail outstanding to Wolfgang Rosenthal on that issue. However, I note that Rosenthal claimed that "two large ships sink every week on average" and the IMO figures indicate the actual figures during 1985-2000 were about 4.5/week. The difference may be that Rosenthal's definition of "large ships" may omit some ships counted by the IMO, such as "fish catching" ships. So, I think you're going to have a hard time convincing reasonable people (which, needless to say, excludes most folks here ) that Rosenthal is in the habit of exaggerating the number of large ships lost each week.

 

[Bjorn]

I've got an e-mail outstanding to Wolfgang Rosenthal on that issue. However, I note that Rosenthal claimed that "two large ships sink every week on average" and the IMO figures indicate the actual figures during 1985-2000 were about 4.5/week [edited by Bjorn to say of all sizes]. The difference may be that Rosenthal's definition of "large ships" may omit some ships counted by the IMO, such as "fish catching" ships. So, I think you're going to have a hard time convincing reasonable people (which, needless to say, excludes most folks here ) that Rosenthal is in the habit of exaggerating the number of large ships lost each week.

He does.

According to the Lloyd's Register, 26 ships of over 200 meters have been declared a "total loss" over the past five years, that is, about five ships a year. The 26 included 1 containership, 11 tankers and 14 bulkers.

200 ships over 200 meters didn't disappear for any reason during a 20 year timespan.

If you want to give evidence that we in fact lost that many ships of such a size, you cannot do it by posting numbers showing how many ships we lost of all sizes - agree?

 

[Rodney]

He does.

According to the Lloyd's Register, 26 ships of over 200 meters have been declared a "total loss" over the past five years, that is, about five ships a year. The 26 included 1 containership, 11 tankers and 14 bulkers.

200 ships over 200 meters didn't disappear for any reason during a 20 year timespan.

If you want to give evidence that we in fact lost that many ships of such a size, you cannot do it by posting numbers showing how many ships we lost of all sizes - agree?

(1) Yes, but where may I find Lloyds' data? It seems passing strange that 3848 ships were lost in just 16 years, and yet only 26 ships over 200 meters in length were lost in 5 years.

(2) Assuming Lloyds' data are accurate and all-inclusive, the main point that Rosenthal is making is that a lot of ships are lost due to what is simply termed "bad weather" and he believes that many of those are lost due to rogue waves. Do you disagree with that claim?

 

[Meffy]

(1) Yes, but where may I find Lloyds' data?

Okay, I admit this is a really wild guess but: ask Lloyd's?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Rodney's example has convinced me. I will no longer be skeptical of anything, I'll believe everything out of hand because there is a small chance it could be right.

 

[Meffy]

Ken! My old friend Ken. Say, didja remember that $50 I lent you a week ago? I could use it back now... O_:-}

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well, taking Rodney's advice, I won't care about evidence. What's your paypal account, Meffy?

 

[Meffy]

Lahk our prezdint, Ah bleev in the Merkin Paypal.

 

[Rodney]

Okay, I admit this is a really wild guess but: ask Lloyd's?

Lloyd's data are not available without a membership. However, I just noticed that Bjorn is talking about only a 5-year period, and so it is possible that only 26 ships over 200 meters in length were lost during that period, but 174 ships greater than that length were lost during the other 15-years, for a total of 200 over 200 meters lost over the past 20 years.