Rogue Waves

[Rodney]

Because it contradicts evidence, as you've been shown repeatedly.

The evidence is conclusive that rogue waves exist, and there are many ship sinkings where rogue waves are the most likely cause, such as the Anita.

Ah, a probability! Please show your calculations or wipe that brown stuff off the number.

No calculation is necessary, it's just common sense: Ships are built to withstand significant waves, but not rogue waves. If I'm wrong, why is there so much interest in forecasting rogue waves and building ships that can withstand them?

 

[Meffy]

*marvel* How do you humans chase your tails so well? I mean, you haven't even got tails!

 

[TjW]

Hardly. The great majority of oceanographers wrote rogue waves off as exaggerations until the evidence became irrefutable.

And this would be a problem, how?
Irrefutable is kind of what evidence is.
So rogue waves were ignored until there was evidence. Sounds like science to me.

Should science be studying flying reindeer capable of rooftop takeoff and landing? There are numerous anecdotes about such beasts. The benefit to mankind from this technology, if it can be shown to exist, is simply enormous.

 

[Rodney]

Irrefutable is kind of what evidence is.

Hardly. There is a whole range of evidence ranging from miniscule to irrefutable. For example, in the American legal system, a jury in a criminal case is instructed by the judge to vote to convict if the evidence indicates that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil case, the standard is even less stringent -- only "a preponderance of evidence." And do you think the Food and Drug Administration refuses to approve a new drug until the evidence of its efficacy is irrefutable?

 

[Correa Neto]

So, you think FDA should be more tight?

This could be a problem for some stuff you defend, like Edgar Cayce's "medicine"...

 

[Rodney]

So, you think FDA should be more tight?

No. The FDA has a delicate balancing act to perform, but the main thing that they should ensure is that dangerous drugs, such as thalidomide, are kept off the market.

This could be a problem for some stuff you defend, like Edgar Cayce's "medicine"...

Even most Cayce critics don't think that his remedies are dangerous. The FDA has no business banning remedies that they think are unproven, but not dangerous. If they want to require a label stating that the efficacy of, for example, a vitamin in treating cancer has not been demonstrated, fine, but there is no need to ban use of that vitamin. (Besides, as Ursula can attest, if you eat three almonds a day, you don't have to worry about cancer. )

 

[trvlr2]

Originally Posted by Meffy View Original:
I don't know. As you've been told over and over again, the burden of proof is upon you, the one making the extraordinary claim, not me. You tell me. I'll expect proper, complete evidence to back it up.


Why is this an "extraordinary claim"? Do you think it's more likely that ships sink in storms in which there are 5-meter waves or 25-meter waves? I think the main problem here is that shipping companies don't want to admit that their ships are not designed to withstand rogue waves and try to slough off losses on "bad weather" without a thorough investigation. However, as the Kjeldsen article that Correa cites notes about one case in which there was a Court of Inquiry: "'ANITA' disappeared completely at sea with the whole crew and no emergency call was ever given. The Court of Inquiry then concluded that the loss can be explained by an event in which a very large wave suddenly broke several hatch covers on deck, and the ship was filled with water and sank before any emergency call was given. The wave that caused the loss of 'ANITA' was probably a freak wave."

Originally Posted by Meffy View Original:
No it doesn't. Please re-read my previous post until you understand the difference between claiming that "x is true" and claiming that "we know that x is true."

Okay, I don't "know" that "rogue waves cause ships to sink year in and year out", but based on evidence that's been developed in recent years, it's about 99% certain.

OK, Rodney. Yes, scientific thought CAN be very rigid. Scientists are people, subject to human foible. Certainly the earth orbited the sun, and plate tectonics moved the continents , long before scientists thought it was so.
Same with Rogue Waves.
I have spent a fair part of my life at sea(warning anecdote!) , & what I have seen & consider to be a rogue, is a sea which is out of direction and size with the prevailing sea. Mostly, a really big "hole" in the water, with a variable set of larger than prevailing waves, 3 to five of them following-normal until the "hole", then YEE-HAAA!(ETA: not travelling with the average sets).
Bad weather seems to help bring these conditions when the wind is really strong,then shifts suddenly. Current is a factor.
These seas don't really look that large until you fall into the hole. Looking up can be very daunting.
Ships are designed with 20 year,50year life,etc. Doesn't mean that at the end of the "life" the ship is junk-just means that the ship was designed to handle average weather in average 20 years.(Assuming proper inspection and repair, competently manned.)
Ships,space and marine ,are also built by the cheapest bidders; maintained on a tight budget, manned as cheaply as possible.
Bad weather will bring out deficiencies in man and material. The EDMOND FITZGERALD was held to sink because of flooding when the hatch covers caved in ,during submersion in a "wall of water" Ref. "Stability and Trim for The Ship's Officer" 3rd edn.,pp 298, lower.
Was it a freak sea? Rogue wave? Depends on your definition. To me-YES!
Would the EF have survived, had the hatch covers held? Again, me-Yes!
And,yes, a ship can break in half in an unfortunate encounter with one of those travelling holes. Having the bow and stern supported while midships is not,definitely overstresses the structure-will it free-fall? Nah. Probably will break, tho. And, if too much water gets in, it will sink.
But, these situations are much rarer than you seem to believe.Read Bjorn's postings of casualties- humans are responsible for the overwhelming majority-fire,grounding, all human stuff-Even in the bad weather scenario, humans play a great part-Were the inspections properly done? Were proper repairs carried out? Were standing orders observed?Was the situation assessed correctly?Proper action taken in a timely manner?
Probably can't change your notions. I can, however, tell you the difference between a 'fairy tale' and a 'sea story'- 'Fairy tale' starts,"once upon a time",
'sea story', "now, this ain't no *****"

a

 

[politas]

Hardly. The great majority of oceanographers wrote rogue waves off as exaggerations until the evidence became irrefutable.

Please provide evidence for this statement. You have not done so in the quotations you have previously posted. "Skeptical" does not mean "disbelieving".

 

[Rodney]

Please provide evidence for this statement. You have not done so in the quotations you have previously posted. "Skeptical" does not mean "disbelieving".

The July 11 NY Times states: "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 with sightings of mermaids and sea monsters."

The July 2004 ESA article states: "Once dismissed as a nautical myth, freakish ocean waves that rise as tall as ten-storey apartment blocks have been accepted as a leading cause of large ship sinkings."

Edward Willet states on his website: "Scientists and engineers have traditionally been skeptical about the reports of these monsters because the wave models they’ve been using for decades almost never produce a rogue wave. Statistically, according to those models, a rogue wave should arise only once every 10,000 years. But that skepticism--and those models--have been demolished by recent data."

 

[Meffy]

We're on a carousel,
A crazy carousel,
And now we go around,
Again we go around,
And now we spin around.
We're high above the ground,
And down again around,
And up again around,
So high above the ground
We feel we've got to yell.
-- Jacques Brel

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Anecdotes are a great place to start in science, but a poor place to finish.

Athon

oooh ! oooh ! oooh !

Great sig material ... May I ?

 

[Rodney]

We're on a carousel,
A crazy carousel,
And now we go around,
Again we go around,
And now we spin around.
We're high above the ground,
And down again around,
And up again around,
So high above the ground
We feel we've got to yell.
-- Jacques Brel

Whatever. -- Paris Hilton

 

[Bjorn]

But, these situations are much rarer than you seem to believe. Read Bjorn's postings of casualties - humans are responsible for the overwhelming majority -fire, grounding, all human stuff ...

Which was my point. Thanks.

It isn't very difficult to find lists of ships that have been lost, two or three such lists have been posted here. By googling the names of the ships, one by one, you can find information about the accidents and the reasons for them.

Freak waves are rarely or never reported as the reason - at least with ships over 660 feet - but if Rodney wants to prove his point, he should at least take the time to do some googling and come up with a handful of big ships sunk by freak waves.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

If I'm wrong, why is there so much interest in forecasting rogue waves and building ships that can withstand them?

Does that mean, that if most ( if any ) naval archichtects are not being called upon to design ships to withstand rogue waves, that you are wrong ?

Ever heard of insurance ?
Do insurance companies now have a ' rogue wave ' clause ?


Here's one for you.

Let's call this " Diogenes' Axiom of Risk Assessment "

Damage causing events are not to be considered likely to happen, until
insurance companies start charging you out the A$$ to cover them,
or refusing to cover them at all .

 

[politas]

The July 11 NY Times states: "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 with sightings of mermaids and sea monsters."

The July 2004 ESA article states: "Once dismissed as a nautical myth, freakish ocean waves that rise as tall as ten-storey apartment blocks have been accepted as a leading cause of large ship sinkings."

Edward Willet states on his website: "Scientists and engineers have traditionally been skeptical about the reports of these monsters because the wave models they’ve been using for decades almost never produce a rogue wave. Statistically, according to those models, a rogue wave should arise only once every 10,000 years. But that skepticism--and those models--have been demolished by recent data."

That's not evidence of what oceanographers believe, that's evidence of what journalists write.

And as I said, being skeptical about something is not disbelieving something. It's doubting. Doubting reports is what you do when it doesn't match existing knowledge. You then go seeking further knowledge before accepting the reports. That is what happened. What is wrong with that procedure?

 

[Rodney]

Does that mean, that if most ( if any ) naval archichtects are not being called upon to design ships to withstand rogue waves, that you are wrong?

It depends on how expensive it is to design a ship to withstand a rogue wave and the perceived likelihood of that ship encountering a rogue wave. To the extent forecasting models of rogue waves continue to improve, it may be less expensive for ships to avoid rogue waves rather than to be able to withstand them.

Ever heard of insurance ?
Do insurance companies now have a ' rogue wave ' clause ?

Here's one for you.

Let's call this " Diogenes' Axiom of Risk Assessment "

Damage causing events are not to be considered likely to happen, until
insurance companies start charging you out the A$$ to cover them,
or refusing to cover them at all .

I would guess ship insurers lump rogue waves into the "bad weather" category, and assess premiums based on historical loss figures for given shipping routes. For example, if Route A has experienced twice the losses of Route B due to "bad weather", the premiums on Route A will be much higher than on Route B. I don't think the insurer particularly cares what the "bad weather" is; it simply knows that Route A is more dangerous than Route B.

 

[Rodney]

That's not evidence of what oceanographers believe, that's evidence of what journalists write.

But where is the evidence that the journalists are wrong?

And as I said, being skeptical about something is not disbelieving something. It's doubting. Doubting reports is what you do when it doesn't match existing knowledge. You then go seeking further knowledge before accepting the reports. That is what happened. What is wrong with that procedure?

According to several accounts, until 1995 most oceanographers did actively disbelieve that mariners had encountered rogue waves, and that set back research into rogue waves.

 

[Meffy]

Whatever. -- Paris Hilton

Each of us has an intellectual soulmate whom we quote for inspiration. Can't say yours surprises me.

Rodney, I've asked before but not got a satisfactory answer: What exactly do you hope to achieve by haranguing people on this forum? Why don't you pester people who can DO something about it instead of us?

 

[politas]

But where is the evidence that the journalists are wrong?

Where's the evidence they are doing anything more than putting spin on a story to engage their audience, using imprecise statements that they can weasel their way out of?

According to several accounts, until 1995 most oceanographers did actively disbelieve that mariners had encountered rogue waves, and that set back research into rogue waves.

The accounts you have posted do not say that. They imply that. But they imply it in a way that allows them to truthfully state that they never said it. When I read that kind of language from a journalist, I tend to doubt the journalist's intentions.

I am skeptical of the journalist's reports, and I believe their implications exaggerate the situation. I have rational reasons for my belief. Thus, I seek more information. You seem to believe that the implications of journalists accurately reflect reality.

Again, I ask, do you have any evidence of oceanographers believing that Rogue Waves did not exist before 1990, contrary to your other statements which imply that they knew they existed, but due to a lack of useful data their models did not predict their appearance accurately?

What I am looking for is writings from respected oceanographers stating that all reports of rogue waves are unworthy of consideration. Even just one would be good evidence for your position.

Absent that, you would need to read through every article written by oceanographers mentioning rogue waves and show that they have dismissed anecdotal reports which seem to be otherwise reliable without giving rational reasons for such a dismissal beyond the purported rarity/non-existence of rogue waves.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It depends on how expensive it is to design a ship to withstand a rogue wave and the perceived likelihood of that ship encountering a rogue wave. To the extent forecasting models of rogue waves continue to improve, it may be less expensive for ships to avoid rogue waves rather than to be able to withstand them.

That was not the question.. The question was ARE THEY ? , designing and building such ships at this time.. If not, then you are wrong...

I would guess ship insurers lump rogue waves into the "bad weather" category, and assess premiums based on historical loss figures for given shipping routes. For example, if Route A has experienced twice the losses of Route B due to "bad weather", the premiums on Route A will be much higher than on Route B. I don't think the insurer particularly cares what the "bad weather" is; it simply knows that Route A is more dangerous than Route B.

You guess?

You don't think ?

I suspected as much ...