Rogue Waves

[Rodney]

Rodnay,
Please ... What is your point?
Hindsight is always 20/20. Monday morning quarterbacks always win.
If my aunt would have had testicles, she would have been my uncle.

Seriously, we wouldn't have used lead based paint if we knew that it caused damage to children. We wouldn't have used asbestos if we'd have known the damage it caused.

If you are simply pointing out that we were ignorant in the past, that's a specious argument. It is also a tautology.

If you are trying to argue that anecdotal evidence should cause us to drop everything, every time a new "phenomena" is observed, the posters here have disproven that quite nicely.

So, I ask again, what is your point?

I've already made it several times: Oceanographers prior to the mid-1990s should not have ignored the strong anecdotal and physical evidence that rogue waves exist, but rather adjusted their inadequate mathematical models that showed such waves occur only every 10,000 years or so.

 

[Rodney]

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcayce.html

We've already discussed Cayce on a couple of other threads. The Straight Dope is largely relying on a book written by Cayce's sons called "The Outer Limits of Edgar Cayce's Power", which discussed cases where Cayce's diagnoses were inaccurate. One such case was where Cayce gave a reading based on an out-of-date newspaper article about an individual who was critically ill. Cayce prescribed a treatment that might have worked had the patient still been in that condition, but unfortunately the patient had already died at the time of the reading. A follow-up reading was given to find out what had gone wrong, and the sleeping Cayce made no excuses. He said that his psychic power had gone awry. A serious error, to be sure. However, the Straight Dope doesn't bother to inform its readers that in "The Outer Limits of Edgar Cayce's Power", Cayce's sons did a random survey of their father's health readings and found them 85% accurate. Randi tries without success to knock down this percentage in his book "Flim-Flam."

 

[Rodney]

First of all, you can't really say they dismissed the reports.

Yes I can, because if they hadn't dismissed the reports, they would have adjusted their mathematical models.

Second, you just can't build a mathematical model out of the blue in real life. You will not just be adding wavelenght, speed and amplitude values to a simple wave equation. You must first gather enough data on the waves (again, how would you do that back in the 60s?) to allow a statistical study. No just on the waves themselves, but also on the sea and weather conditions where they were seen. Then you would start creating mathematical or physical models of the phenomena supposed to create the waves. Once its ready, you will enter the sea and weather data you gathered and check the outcome, making changes to the model as required by its output data.

There was certainly data in the 60s, and that's what oceanographers based their models on. My point is that models can always be tinkered with, and they should have been tinkered with based on the anecdotal reports and the physical evidence of rogue waves.

Solitons are one of the possibilities. Solitons, however, can happen in calm water. The point actually is that you can not really say that freak waves were ignored by science. You can look for them at lakes and channels (you probably followed the links and found a pic of one of them at a channel), but how would you find one in the open sea? See the similarities?

What you're saying makes it more indefensible that rogue waves weren't taken seriously by oceanographers prior to the 1990s. I mean, if you have both a theoretical model and empirical evidence, what's the excuse other than: Anecdotes can't be trusted.

 

[MandosV]

I've already made it several times: Oceanographers prior to the mid-1990s should not have ignored the strong anecdotal and physical evidence that rogue waves exist, but rather adjusted their inadequate mathematical models that showed such waves occur only every 10,000 years or so.

O.K., for the sake of argument alone, I will grant you this point.
Again, so what?
Even if you are correct that scientists "should" not have ignored the anecdotal evidence, it is quite plain as posted here that technologically then was not sufficient that anything could have been done in response.

Are you simply seeking to misplace the blame for a natural event on scientists? I continue to fail to see the point of your post.
If your point is that they were wrong in the past, even if I agree that they were wrong, SO WHAT?

Pointing out failures is not argument, when you start a post, make a point that has value. As it stands, it appears that you have made a point as innocuous as "You know, once they believed the sun revolved around the earth. They shouldn't have ignored all the anecdotal evidence then. Now we know better and there still isn't a damn thing we can do about the motion of the heavenly bodies."

The only possible point that I can see you aiming at (and this would be in line with how I think many woo believe) is that scientists have knowingly and deliberately ignored data and hidden truth so that people suffered detriment and damage. Pah!!!!!

You have, so far, only proven that as time goes by, we learn more and more.
If you have nothing else of value, go away.

 

[Correa Neto]

Yes I can, because if they hadn't dismissed the reports, they would have adjusted their mathematical models.

"Adjusted their mathematical models"?
Geez... Do you think its that simple? Its not about about a sine wave formula that one learns in high school that we are talking here...

Tell me, can anyone adjust a mathematical model with anedoctal data?

Once again, before the currently avaliable tools were developed, there was no way data on these phenomena could be adequately gathered. The very existence of these phenomena could be recorded say, by some oceanographic vessel, only by sheer chance!

The seas are vast and these waves are probably not so common as you claim. Think about it: If these waves were so common and dangerous as you say, don't you think they would have been recorded before, say, by ships from the US Navy?

You honestly belive insurance companies, the navies from ocean-going countries and freight companies would have missed such giant waves if they were so common to pose great danger?

There was certainly data in the 60s, and that's what oceanographers based their models on. My point is that models can always be tinkered with, and they should have been tinkered with based on the anecdotal reports and the physical evidence of rogue waves.

Rodney, its not as easy as you think. Check again what I wrote:

You must first gather enough data on the waves (again, how would you do that back in the 60s?) to allow a statistical study. No just on the waves themselves, but also on the sea and weather conditions where they were seen. Then you would start creating mathematical or physical models of the phenomena supposed to create the waves. Once its ready, you will enter the sea and weather data you gathered and check the outcome, making changes to the model as required by its output data.

Try doing this with anedoctal data. Even a few reliable measurements of wave height and speed would not be enough. You need massive ammount of data for mathematical modelling, as well as processing power. The chalculations are not scribbed on paper. Cared to check what sort of computers were avaliable back in the 80s?

What you're saying makes it more indefensible that rogue waves weren't taken seriously by oceanographers prior to the 1990s. I mean, if you have both a theoretical model and empirical evidence, what's the excuse other than: Anecdotes can't be trusted.

Rodney, you are again missing the point: How would you detect one of those waves?
Think about it.
Take the easy path: How would you, back in the 70s, detect a soliton crossing the Atlantic?
Suppose you decided to use satellites. IR would be useless, and you don't have an orbital radar platform with the required sensibility. You are restricted to visible wavelenghts. Now you have two problems. Lets check the first:
You would only be able to "see" a soliton by its shadow. The following condition smust be matched:
(1) Illumination reaching the sea surface from a shallow angle;
(2) The wave must be high enough to produce a sizeable shadow (see below);
(3) The wave bust be travelling at a certain direction in respect to the light rays (waves running towards north or south would not be detected).
(3) Got clouds? Sorry, better luck next day.

See how restricted you are?

But wait, there's more!
The second obstacle is imaging sensor resolution. You will only be able to detect shadows that are above the resolution limit. That was not very big back in the 80s. Check avaliable info say, on LANDSAT.

Enough obstacles? Sorry, there's even one more!
Do you have any idea on how many images you would have to check? This would most likely means an automated detection routine, something that would require processing power, something you by now should know was not avaliable.

Bottomline:
Science knew about such waves. We just didn't have the adequate tools to study the real life examples. As soon as they became avaliable, the odds of detection increased and they were "discovered".

If you want to argue that anedoctal data should be taken more seriously, OK, I will not agree completely, but go ahead. But the case you are making right now is a complete strawman.

 

[politas]

It appears that you have no experience with modelling. As Wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model -- observes: "A mathematical model is an abstract model that uses mathematical language to describe the behaviour of a system . . . Mathematical modelling problems are often classified into black box or white box models, according to how much a priori information is available of the system. A black-box model is a system of which there is no a priori information available. A white-box model (also called glass box or clear box) is a system where all necessary information is available. Practically all systems are somewhere between the black-box and white-box models, so this concept only works as an intuitive guide for approach."

You are entirely misrepresenting the nature of the problem.

In order to adjust models to account for rogue waves, you need to have at minimum measurements of rogue waves, in order to test the output of the model. That allows you to attempt hit or miss adjustments with little chance of accuracy. This is what they were doing, and the best model they could come up with only produced such waves roughly once every 10,000 years.

They knew these models were inaccurate, just as meteorologists know their current models are inaccurate. But they were the best they could get without better data and computational power.

Predictive science is all about using the best model you can make with the tools you have.

 

[Megalodon]

It appears that you have no experience with modelling. As Wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model -- observes: "A mathematical model is an abstract model that uses mathematical language to describe the behaviour of a system . . . Mathematical modelling problems are often classified into black box or white box models, according to how much a priori information is available of the system. A black-box model is a system of which there is no a priori information available. A white-box model (also called glass box or clear box) is a system where all necessary information is available. Practically all systems are somewhere between the black-box and white-box models, so this concept only works as an intuitive guide for approach."

Again, you're wrong. And you misread my post also. I said that models without data are worthless, not impossible. You can model whatever you want without data, but it will not give you accurate information about the system. That's probably why some scientist said rogue waves could only happen every 10.000 years.
And my comment applied to oceanographic models. I'm sure that in the 'harder' sciences, like physics and chemistry, you can make a number of system modelling without data for that particular system. But even those rely on huge sets of data collected through the centuries.

In simple words, your wikipedia reference is deceiving. A system to be modelled has to be between black-box and white-box. Think about it: if a system is completely black-box, than you don't know it exists; if it's completely white-box, then you know everything there is to know about the system, and modelling is redundant.

Think about what you read before parroting it.

 

[Meffy]

Rodney, two questions. 1) What do you want us to do about it? 2) Why harangue the JREF board -- do you want brownie points, a pat on the head?

 

[Rodney]

Bottomline:
Science knew about such waves. We just didn't have the adequate tools to study the real life examples.

"Science" may have known about such waves, but according to four different sources, oceanographers did not generally accept that they existed:

NY Times: Despite such accounts, many oceanographers were skeptical. The human imagination tended to embellish, they said.

ESA News: 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 Willett: 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.

Wikipedia: Once thought to be only legendary, they are now known to be a natural ocean phenomenon.

 

[Rodney]

Rodney, two questions. 1) What do you want us to do about it? 2) Why harangue the JREF board -- do you want brownie points, a pat on the head?

I simply want skeptics to evaluate anecdotal evidence carefully, without the bias that, if it can't be immediately confirmed in a lab or by some other scientific test, it's worthless.

 

[Correa Neto]

Rodney, a relatively quick glace on the abstracts of a 2000 rogue wave workshop shows the many mistakes you've been making on the subject.
http://www.ifremer.fr/metocean/conferences/stw_abstracts/Haver.pdf
http://www.ifremer.fr/metocean/conferences/stw_abstracts/rosenthal.pdf
http://www.ifremer.fr/metocean/conferences/stw_abstracts/olagnon.pdf
Who said they never take anedoctal data in to account?

http://www.ifremer.fr/metocean/conferences/stw_abstracts/taylor.pdf
http://www.ifremer.fr/metocean/conferences/stw_abstracts/stansberg.pdf
As said before, these waves are and hard to observe...

http://www.ifremer.fr/metocean/conferences/stw_abstracts/wolfram.pdf
That's four years of data collecting...

http://www.ifremer.fr/metocean/conferences/stw_abstracts/wolfram.pdf
Studies being carried out since 1984. 89 storms along 12 years... And 446 events recorded.
Guess what? The chances of a rogue waves hitting a buoy are "lower than previously expected".

http://www.ifremer.fr/metocean/conferences/stw_abstracts/liu2.pdf
Four years of data gathering.

http://www.ifremer.fr/metocean/conferences/stw_abstracts/faulk.pdf
This guy has been looking for them since the late 70s...

http://www.ifremer.fr/metocean/conferences/stw_abstracts/barltrop.pdf
Avaliable models returned a freak wave every 100, 1000 or 10000 years, depending on the input data.

You can also look at the 2004 workshop.
http://www.ifremer.fr/web-com/stw2004/rw/fullpapers/haver.pdf
Shows some hints on how engineers, insurance companies and oceanographers take in to account giant waves on their work subjects.
You will notice (if you have failed to get it after reading the other links)that a freak wave is not defined by its size, as you seem to belive, but also by its shape.
There are freak waves and extreme giant waves. The second type was already well-known. Its the shape that causes freak waves to be more threatening, even if smaller than an extreme giant wave.

This Rodney, brings an extra challenge to the study of rogue waves, even with today's technology.

You will also notice that

"Global loading due to a freak wave is most probably smaller than the global loading in connection with a "classical" extreme wave.

It also states that rogue or freak waves are not much of a problem for offshore structures, but may eventually be problematic for ships. Interesting enough, the paper points that they may become more problematic if bad weather becomes more common due to GW.

What can we conclude?

Its not just a question of "tinkering with the models" and collecting data for serious research takes time.
Oceanographers knew about those (as well as other) waves, they did not "dismissed" the anedoctal data they considered reliable.
They just were aware of the limitations inherent to anedoctal data as well as of the limits imposed by avaliable technology.
You should have gathered more data on the phenomena before staring the ad hom attack...

I'll say it again:
If you want to argue that anedoctal data should be taken more seriously, OK, go ahead and start a thread on this.
But the case you are making right now, about oceanographers being guilty of losses of lives and property because they never cared about anedoctal information on rogue waves, is a complete strawman.
Actually I consider it a false accusation, an insult, even not being an oceanographer.

 

[Meffy]

I simply want skeptics to evaluate anecdotal evidence carefully, without the bias that, if it can't be immediately confirmed in a lab or by some other scientific test, it's worthless.

All anecdotal evidence? Or just some of it? How do "skeptics" decide how much, and who decides for us?

 

[Rodney]

But the case you are making right now, about oceanographers being guilty of losses of lives and property because they never cared about anedoctal information on rogue waves, is a complete strawman. Actually I consider it a false accusation, an insult, even not being an oceanographer.

I'm not holding oceanographers responsible for losses of lives and property, it's just that I think that they generally disregarded strong anecdotal and physical evidence regarding rogue waves prior to 1995.

 

[Rodney]

All anecdotal evidence? Or just some of it? How do "skeptics" decide how much, and who decides for us?

I think all anecdotal evidence should be evaluated to determine to the extent possible its credibility.

 

[Bjorn]

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.

Since these numbers are repeated several times, I have to comment: I have spent a lot of time at sea. I thought I knew something about the frequency of accidents involving ships over 200 meters in length, and I refuse to believe that 200 of them have been lost during the last two decades. It would mean 10 a year.

From one of the other sources:

In the past two decades, freak waves are suspected of sinking dozens of big ships and taking hundreds of lives.

I realize, of course, that "dozens" could also mean "more than 200", but you get my point.

 

[politas]

"Science" may have known about such waves, but according to four different sources, oceanographers did not generally accept that they existed:

NY Times: Despite such accounts, many oceanographers were skeptical. The human imagination tended to embellish, they said.

ESA News: 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 Willett: 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.

Wikipedia: Once thought to be only legendary, they are now known to be a natural ocean phenomenon.

So, you have just completely ignored my previous post where I argued your faulty interpretation of the language in your sources?

 

[politas]

I think all anecdotal evidence should be evaluated to determine to the extent possible its credibility.

Congratulations, you got your wish. It is evaluated. If you disagree with the evaluations, that's your prerogative.

 

[Meffy]

I think all anecdotal evidence should be evaluated to determine to the extent possible its credibility.

"All" includes a lot of territory. Who will do this evaluation, and who will fund them? It's going to have to be a very large staff.

 

[TriangleMan]

You'd need an army of researchers just to follow up on every ancedotal claim of miracles happening in India! Not gonna happen. This is why stronger evidence is usually needed before researchers start to follow up on it. I say usually because scientists are not some cadre who only follows orders from some council, if a scientist is intrigued by a phenomena after hearing a couple of tales about it, and decides to follow up, that's their perogative. Problem is that something like rogue waves is a lot more difficult to look into than say, the Mpemba effect, so one would want a lot more evidence of the phenomenon before spending the time and resources to look into it.

 

[Oldpossum]

I think all anecdotal evidence should be evaluated to determine to the extent possible its credibility.

Ah, we finally get to the chase..

In other words, you are a woo, and you want us evil sceptics, to please stop ripping your pleasant daydreams of cosmic harmony and such, apart.