Rogue Waves

[Rodney]

Actually, you are disregarding all the arguments put to you that show that:

a) it was acknowledged by scientists that the phenomenon probably existed;

Not according to the NY Times article or at least three others:

(1) http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMOKQL26WD_index_0.html "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."

(2) http://www.edwardwillett.com/Columns/roguewaves.htm "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."

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freak_wave "Once thought to be only legendary, they are now known to be a natural ocean phenomenon, not rare, but rarely encountered."

 

[ponderingturtle]

So credible people telling similar stories over long periods of time does not constitute evidence?

Sure it does. Look at the evidence for spontanious human combustion. Scientists scoffed at that for years inspite of all the similar stories over a long period of time.

Now if I can just get the FDA to accept my aspbestose underware as the only proven way to prevent SHC, I will be raking in the money.

 

[GreedyAlgorithm]

Your inclusion of the word "much" shows that my efforts here have not been entirely in vain.

Sure, anecdotes can be evidence. Maybe not much, and by that I mean maybe insignificant, but still some. Kind of like if we know the universe is finite and see a white swan and have never seen a black swan, a Bayesian would say we have slightly more evidence that no swans are black.

But it's not evidence I'd bet on.

 

[Correa Neto]

I'm not blaming science for anything, rather I'm blaming those -- including scientists -- who disregard strong evidence just because it can't be currently verified in a laboratory.

And exactly what do you consider to be strong evidence?

Anedoctal evidence?

"I saw a wave that was THAAAAAAAAAAAAAT BIIIIIIIIIIG! Its true!"

How many more people will have to tell you there were no adequate tools to investigate the phenomena 30 or even 20 years ago?

If a 50m-long asteroid obliterated a city say, 30 years ago, would you nowdays be blaming "scientists who disregarded strong evidence" for such events by not providing a warning or a way to avoid the impact? Or you would consider the fact that 30 years ago detecting such an impactor was not possible due to technological restrictions? Note that 30 years ago there were plenty of non-anedoctal evidence for asteroid impacts.

Your argument is a complete fallacy.

 

[Rodney]

And exactly what do you consider to be strong evidence? Anedoctal evidence?

Many stories from credible individuals saying essentially the same thing, coupled with damage to their ships consistent with their stories, constitutes strong evidence to me.

I saw a wave that was THAAAAAAAAAAAAAT BIIIIIIIIIIG! Its true!"

Does it bother you at all that at least many of those claims have now been confirmed?

How many more people will have to tell you there were no adequate tools to investigate the phenomena 30 or even 20 years ago?

Probably as many who will tell me that most oceanographers believed in rogue waves prior to 1995.

If a 50m-long asteroid obliterated a city say, 30 years ago, would you nowdays be blaming "scientists who disregarded strong evidence" for such events by not providing a warning or a way to avoid the impact? Or you would consider the fact that 30 years ago detecting such an impactor was not possible due to technological restrictions? Note that 30 years ago there were plenty of non-anedoctal evidence for asteroid impacts.

If any scientist 30 years ago was clueless enough to think that an asteroid could not obliterate a city, I would think he was in complete denial of reality. However, there is a legitimate issue even today of whether the probability of a significant asteroid impact in any given year is sufficient to justify spending money on a program to destroy or alter the orbit of asteroids. In contrast, we know that rogue waves cause ships to sink year in and year out, and I think that could have been determined a generation or more ago.

Your argument is a complete fallacy.

If you're talking about my argument that oceanographic technology was more advanced a generation ago than you and others believe, I will concede that I'm not sure exactly what was feasible, particularly when funding is taken into account. On the other hand, if you're talking about my argument that most oceanographers a generation ago discounted strong evidence of rogue waves, I think you're in as much denial today as they were then.

 

[Mojo]

Does it bother you at all that at least many of those claims have now been confirmed?

How? have people gone back in time and measured the waves?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

In contrast, we know that rogue waves cause ships to sink year in and year out,

Evidence?

And I don't mean repeat the two cases 30 years apart that you have alredy quoted. Your claim is "year in and year out" so it should not be hard for you to cite cases in, say, 1987, 1994 and 2000.

 

[Oldpossum]

Surely it's the Giant, Ship sinking, Carnivorious, White Whale that is the true threat?
I mean, Just think about what huge teeth it must have!

No small furry animal is safe, while this monster is loose in the world, for who knows where it might be lurking?
It could be in the kiddy pool next door, just waiting for one of us small furries to innocently stroll down to the pool, for a refreshing sip of chlorinated pool water!
(Or was that Salt Water Crocodiles, whatever, they are all monsters, to a 2 kg Possum, or Skunk!)

No, we need to spend your scarce research funding, developing Giant White Whale tracking satellites!

PS only 24 more posts to go, before I can have an avatar!

ETA, I was supposed to be quoting melf's post, but it didn't work for some reason...

 

[Rodney]

Evidence?

And I don't mean repeat the two cases 30 years apart that you have alredy quoted. Your claim is "year in and year out" so it should not be hard for you to cite cases in, say, 1987, 1994 and 2000.

Read the links that I've posted. According to http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMOKQL26WD_index_0.html

Severe weather has sunk more than 200 supertankers and container ships exceeding 200 metres in length during the last two decades. Rogue waves are believed to be the major cause in many such cases.

Mariners who survived similar encounters have had remarkable stories to tell. In February 1995 the cruiser liner Queen Elizabeth II met a 29-metre high rogue wave during a hurricane in the North Atlantic that Captain Ronald Warwick described as "a great wall of water… it looked as if we were going into the White Cliffs of Dover."

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.

"The incidents occurred less than a thousand kilometres apart from each other," said Wolfgang Rosenthal - Senior Scientist with the GKSS Forschungszentrum GmbH research centre, located in Geesthacht in Germany - who has studied rogue waves for years. "All the electronics were switched off on the Bremen as they drifted parallel to the waves, and until they were turned on again the crew were thinking it could have been their last day alive.

"The same phenomenon could have sunk many less lucky vessels: two large ships sink every week on average, but the cause is never studied to the same detail as an air crash. It simply gets put down to 'bad weather'."

Offshore platforms have also been struck: on 1 January 1995 the Draupner oil rig in the North Sea was hit by a wave whose height was measured by an onboard laser device at 26 metres, with the highest waves around it reaching 12 metres.

Objective radar evidence from this and other platforms – radar data from the North Sea's Goma oilfield recorded 466 rogue wave encounters in 12 years - helped convert previously sceptical scientists, whose statistics showed such large deviations from the surrounding sea state should occur only once every 10000 years.

 

[Rodney]

How? have people gone back in time and measured the waves?

So you believe that, despite the accounts from crews (and in some cases, passengers) and damaged ships, coupled with research confirming that rogue waves are not uncommon, such waves did not cause the damage?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Severe weather has sunk more than 200 supertankers and container ships exceeding 200 metres in length during the last two decades. Rogue waves are believed to be the major cause in many such cases.

Your claim is:

"we know that rogue waves cause ships to sink year in and year out".

The article you linked to in relation to the cause of these sinkings says:

"The same phenomenon could have sunk many less lucky vessels: two large ships sink every week on average, but the cause is never studied to the same detail as an air crash. It simply gets put down to 'bad weather'."

So this does not support your claim that we KNOW that rogue waves are responsible - like to have another go?

 

[Mojo]

So you believe that, despite the accounts from crews (and in some cases, passengers) and damaged ships, coupled with research confirming that rogue waves are not uncommon, such waves did not cause the damage?

Such waves might have caused the damage. The discovery that such waves exist makes it more plausible that they may have caused the damage. But that's the problem with anecdotal evidence: a plausible anecdote is still an anecdote. Without accurate records of the observations you can't say that any of the observations has been confirmed. And the existence of the waves was doubted, remember, because there were no accurate records.

 

[Rodney]

Your claim is:

"we know that rogue waves cause ships to sink year in and year out".

The article you linked to in relation to the cause of these sinkings says:

"The same phenomenon could have sunk many less lucky vessels: two large ships sink every week on average, but the cause is never studied to the same detail as an air crash. It simply gets put down to 'bad weather'."

So this does not support your claim that we KNOW that rogue waves are responsible - like to have another go?

So, if I understand your logic, you do not dispute any of the article's findings, two of which are relevant to your contention:

(1) Severe weather has sunk more than 200 supertankers and container ships exceeding 200 metres in length during the last two decades. Rogue waves are believed to be the major cause in many such cases.

(2) The same phenomenon could have sunk many less lucky vessels: two large ships sink every week on average, but the cause is never studied to the same detail as an air crash. It simply gets put down to 'bad weather'.

Let's examine these findings in turn:

(1) 200 supertankers and container ships exceeding 200 metres in length sinking during the last two decades translates into an average of 10 per year. Even though the article states that rogue waves are believed to be the major cause in MANY such cases, let's assume they're a cause in merely 10 percent -- that's an average of 1 huge ship per year sinking due to rogue waves.

(2) Two large ships sinking every week on average translates into 104 per year. Attributing the same conservative 10 percent to rogue waves means that an average of more than 10 large ships sink per year due to rogue waves.

And yet you argue that my contention that "we know that rogue waves cause ships to sink year in and year out" is unsupported?

 

[ponderingturtle]

So, if I understand your logic, you do not dispute any of the article's findings, two of which are relevant to your contention:

(1) Severe weather has sunk more than 200 supertankers and container ships exceeding 200 metres in length during the last two decades. Rogue waves are believed to be the major cause in many such cases.

But everyone knows it was the aliens in the bermuta triangle getting out.

Wait or was that a gravitational distortion?

Ships even large ships can do down in rough weather with out rogue waves, take the edmund fitzgerald(or are there now rogue waves on the great lakes, there are certainly loss's of large ships in bad weather there)

So you cited a couple of cases where there seems to have been a rogue wave(only one that there was dammage and survivors I can remember). So you are agrueing that based on that data point, we need to assume all these others where we have little or no evidence what sank them where caused by rogue waves.

 

[Rodney]

But everyone knows it was the aliens in the bermuta triangle getting out.

Wait or was that a gravitational distortion?

Ships even large ships can do down in rough weather with out rogue waves, take the edmund fitzgerald(or are there now rogue waves on the great lakes, there are certainly loss's of large ships in bad weather there)

So you cited a couple of cases where there seems to have been a rogue wave(only one that there was dammage and survivors I can remember). So you are agrueing that based on that data point, we need to assume all these others where we have little or no evidence what sank them where caused by rogue waves.

Not all, just many. Consider that radar data from the North Sea's Goma oilfield recorded 466 rogue wave encounters in 12 years -- that's about 39 per year just at that oilfield. As the 21 July 2004 European Space Agency News article observes: "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."

 

[Correa Neto]

Many stories from credible individuals saying essentially the same thing, coupled with damage to their ships consistent with their stories, constitutes strong evidence to me.

Questions:
(1) Exactly how much "many stories from credible individuals" there are and along what timeline?
(2) How would you exclude the possibility that the damage was not caused by smaller waves, and the size was exagerated say, by the fear and adrenaline rush experienced by the witnesses, specially in reports where no accurate measure of the waves are avaliable?

Does it bother you at all that at least many of those claims have now been confirmed?

Nope.
Why should I be bothered?
I actually thought "cool" some years ago when I first read about it (back in the late 90's if the data is not stored at some bad sector of my brain)

Probably as many who will tell me that most oceanographers believed in rogue waves prior to 1995.

Tip:
Google for "soliton".

If any scientist 30 years ago was clueless enough to think that an asteroid could not obliterate a city, I would think he was in complete denial of reality. However, there is a legitimate issue even today of whether the probability of a significant asteroid impact in any given year is sufficient to justify spending money on a program to destroy or alter the orbit of asteroids. In contrast, we know that rogue waves cause ships to sink year in and year out, and I think that could have been determined a generation or more ago.

Oh, but the very same reasoning applies! How could someone back in the first half of the XX century know the odds of a potentially hazardous impact?
Tip: Remember Tunguska.
And none of them cared to make a survey of the orbits of asteroids and comets to find the dangerous ones... Oh, stoopid scientists!

Ever heard of insurance companies?
Don't you think they would not happen to have statistics on such shipwrecks?

If you're talking about my argument that oceanographic technology was more advanced a generation ago than you and others believe, I will concede that I'm not sure exactly what was feasible, particularly when funding is taken into account. On the other hand, if you're talking about my argument that most oceanographers a generation ago discounted strong evidence of rogue waves, I think you're in as much denial today as they were then.

Ragarding the denial, well, who's having problems to accept than no technology was avaliable to detect and study the phenomena 30 or 20 years ago? All you say is you are "not sure exactly what was feasible" by then.

The evidence then avaliable was not strong, since there were alternative possibilities that could not be discarted easilly. Your agenda is not allowing you to see the many weaknesses of anedoctal data.

 

[Rodney]

Questions:
(1) Exactly how much "many stories from credible individuals" there are and along what timeline?

I haven't done a compilation, but accounts of rogue waves have been around for centuries. For example, according to -- http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf066/sf066g14.htm --
"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."

"Accounts such as that above are part of sea lore. Waves 50-100 feet high have been frequently reported over the years."

According to -- http://63.240.200.111/pages/sn_arch/11_23_96/fob2.htm --
"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.

"Gargantuan waves, which appear unexpectedly even under calm conditions in the open ocean, have damaged and sunk numerous ships over the years."

According to the NY Times article: "Over the centuries, many accounts have told of monster waves that battered and sank ships. In 1933 in the North Pacific, the Navy oiler Ramapo encountered a huge wave. The crew, calm enough to triangulate from the ship’s superstructure, estimated its height at 112 feet.

"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."

According to the ESA article:
"In February 1995 the cruiser liner Queen Elizabeth II met a 29-metre high rogue wave during a hurricane in the North Atlantic that Captain Ronald Warwick described as 'a great wall of water… it looked as if we were going into the White Cliffs of Dover.'

"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."

(2) How would you exclude the possibility that the damage was not caused by smaller waves, and the size was exagerated say, by the fear and adrenaline rush experienced by the witnesses, specially in reports where no accurate measure of the waves are avaliable?

First, we know now that rogue waves are not uncommon. Second, why do you and so many other so-called skeptics always assume people are exaggerating or lying? Can you cite any studies that support this dark opinion of mankind?

Nope.
Why should I be bothered?
I actually thought "cool" some years ago when I first read about it (back in the late 90's if the data is not stored at some bad sector of my brain)

We know now that rogue waves occur every day. So is it logical to assume that past reports of rogue waves were made up?

Tip:
Google for "soliton".

I did and found nothing of direct relevance. What's your point?

Oh, but the very same reasoning applies! How could someone back in the first half of the XX century know the odds of a potentially hazardous impact?
Tip: Remember Tunguska.
And none of them cared to make a survey of the orbits of asteroids and comets to find the dangerous ones... Oh, stoopid scientists!

Ever heard of insurance companies?
Don't you think they would not happen to have statistics on such shipwrecks?

Not a bad point (especially for you ). However, since insurance companies were until recently unaware of rogue waves (thanks to most oceanographers being asleep at the switch), there was probably a tendency to blame bad luck or incompetent crews for ships sinking.

Ragarding the denial, well, who's having problems to accept than no technology was avaliable to detect and study the phenomena 30 or 20 years ago? All you say is you are "not sure exactly what was feasible" by then.

And you are sure what was feasible? Can you document?

The evidence then avaliable was not strong, since there were alternative possibilities that could not be discarted easilly.

What possibilities -- that ship crews were all exaggerating or lying and that tremendous damages to ships were all consistent with smaller waves?

Your agenda is not allowing you to see the many weaknesses of anedoctal data.

And your agenda is preventing you from seeing that there are many flavors of anecdotal data, and anecdotes from credible individuals frequently turn out to be accurate.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So, if I understand your logic, you do not dispute any of the article's findings, two of which are relevant to your contention:

(1) Severe weather has sunk more than 200 supertankers and container ships exceeding 200 metres in length during the last two decades. Rogue waves are believed to be the major cause in many such cases.

(2) The same phenomenon could have sunk many less lucky vessels: two large ships sink every week on average, but the cause is never studied to the same detail as an air crash. It simply gets put down to 'bad weather'.

Let's examine these findings in turn:

(1) 200 supertankers and container ships exceeding 200 metres in length sinking during the last two decades translates into an average of 10 per year. Even though the article states that rogue waves are believed to be the major cause in MANY such cases, let's assume they're a cause in merely 10 percent -- that's an average of 1 huge ship per year sinking due to rogue waves.

(2) Two large ships sinking every week on average translates into 104 per year. Attributing the same conservative 10 percent to rogue waves means that an average of more than 10 large ships sink per year due to rogue waves.

And yet you argue that my contention that "we know that rogue waves cause ships to sink year in and year out" is unsupported?

Making up a percentage and applying it to sinkings where the cause is unknown does not equal knowing the cause.

Again - do you have cases there it is KNOWN (your claim) that the cause was a rogue wave?

 

[Rodney]

Making up a percentage and applying it to sinkings where the cause is unknown does not equal knowing the cause.

Again - do you have cases there it is KNOWN (your claim) that the cause was a rogue wave?

See my previous post, which lists several such cases. Also, here's a picture of a rogue wave -- http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMOKQL26WD_index_1.html

 

[Correa Neto]

I haven't done a compilation, but accounts of rogue waves have been around for centuries. ...snip...First, we know now that rogue waves are not uncommon. Second, why do you and so many other so-called skeptics always assume people are exaggerating or lying? Can you cite any studies that support this dark opinion of mankind?

Was there evidence back in the 80s or before that they are "not uncommon"?

And...
What exactly is "not uncommon"?

We know now that rogue waves occur every day. So is it logical to assume that past reports of rogue waves were made up?

Nice diversion attempt.

I did and found nothing of direct relevance. What's your point?


Not a bad point (especially for you ). However, since insurance companies were until recently unaware of rogue waves (thanks to most oceanographers being asleep at the switch), there was probably a tendency to blame bad luck or incompetent crews for ships sinking.

And you are sure what was feasible? Can you document?

What possibilities -- that ship crews were all exaggerating or lying and that tremendous damages to ships were all consistent with smaller waves?


And your agenda is preventing you from seeing that there are many flavors of anecdotal data, and anecdotes from credible individuals frequently turn out to be accurate.[/QUOTE]