Rogue Waves

[BPScooter]

These sorts of threads are always sort of hard for me to figure out. Is the basic gist a) "Bad scientists, bad bad! You ignored (certain) evidence and now you changed your mind!" or b) "Yay! Scientists have a new piece of evidence! New technology allows further confirmation of speculation! Hooray for scientists!"

My guess is that reaction B (hooray) is why the threads and people I tend to like on this board are here. My guess is that reaction A is why most of the sort of waffly threads here get started.

 

[GreedyAlgorithm]

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

This is no doubt the reason behind the fundamental disconnect between you and what seems like every other poster to this thread.

What you think and what is plausible are not always the same. Scientists cannot evaluate all anecdotal evidence to determine how credible it might be. We just don't have the resources. So we must prune aggressively. "If you've never missed a flight, you're spending too much time in airports." --Umesh Vazirani

 

[richardm]

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.

This number has been quoted by The Times as well. According to Wikipedia, however:

The story that "200 large ships lost to freak waves in the past two decades" was published in The Times (May 2006). The earliest reference seems to be in the press release by the European Space Agency (cited at the page bottom), and first quoted as "200 large ships of 600ft long or more in the past two decades sunk without trace". At the time the claim was made, there had only been 142 ships of that size lost at sea in the time frame, all with clear, known causes (source: Lloyd's Register - Fairplay). The main culprits were the Iranian and Iraqi air forces in the 1980s (See: Iran-Iraq war).

 

[Meffy]

@richardm: Sounds suspicious to me -- an obvious cover-up by those who deny the existence of the Bermuda Triangle, the Lesser Antilles Heptagon, and the Easter Island Squiggly Shape That Doesn't Look Much Like Anything.

 

[Bjorn]

This number has been quoted by The Times as well. According to Wikipedia, however:

there had only been 142 ships of that size lost at sea in the time frame, all with clear, known causes (source: Lloyd's Register - Fairplay). The main culprits were the Iranian and Iraqi air forces in the 1980s

Thanks. That's 142 ships of that size lost in total. I wonder how many of them were included in the numbers here:

"Tanker War."
Lloyd's of London, a British insurance market, estimated that the Tanker War damaged 546 commercial vessels

It doesn't leave many to be lost to freak waves ....

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

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

Your previous post listed precisely ONE sinking of a ship. You assert that this was due to a rogue wave based on one report.

And it seems that the claim of 200 ships of more than 200 metres being sunk due to unknown causes has been proved to be demonstrably false - so your claim that we KNOW ships are being sunk "year in, year out" is based on applying a made up percentage to an incorrect number. And you wonder why we don't think you are qualified to judge which anecdotes science should devote resources to investigating?

As for the reliability of eyewitness accounts, can I suggest you look at the various accounts from eyewitnesses of the incidents surrounding the shooting by police on the London underground last year?

According to the eyewitness reports the man shot was Asian (actually Brazilian), he jumped over the ticket barrier (actually used his travel pass to go through the gate), he was wearing a blue fleece, awinter coat and a puffa jacket (actually only a denim jacket), he was wearing a bomb belt with wires hanging out of it (actually he was not), he tripped and fell getting onto the train (actually he boarded as normal and sat down on a seat), he was shot 4,5,6,8 or 11 times (actually 11), and the police warned him in advance outside the tube station, inside the tube station and inside the tube train and told people to get off the train prior to the shooting (no warning was given and no instructions were given to passengers.

Why do you assume that eyewitnesses at sea are any more accurate in their reporting?

 

[Meffy]

It doesn't leave many to be lost to freak waves ....

Wull dag.

*ponder*

Righty, how's this -- along with investigating in depth every bit of anecdotal evidence on any subject, no matter how improbable, "we" (the vast, mystically-funded group of unkown skeptics) also throw out burdensome, probably redundant statistics and documentary evidence? NOW things are starting to look pretty bad for science, you betcha!

 

[TjW]

Rodney --
If you felt the investigation of anecdotes regarding rogue waves was such an important topic, why didn't you change career paths, become an oceanographer, and do the data gathering, data reduction, theorizing, and modelling yourself? There's no velvet rope with a bouncer to keep people out of science.
Conversely and contrariwise, there's no obligation on the part of any scientist to drop their current studies in favor of something you feel should be investigated.

 

[Rodney]

Rodney --
If you felt the investigation of anecdotes regarding rogue waves was such an important topic, why didn't you change career paths, become an oceanographer, and do the data gathering, data reduction, theorizing, and modelling yourself? There's no velvet rope with a bouncer to keep people out of science.
Conversely and contrariwise, there's no obligation on the part of any scientist to drop their current studies in favor of something you feel should be investigated.

I don't have any particular interest in oceanography, and so changing career paths would have been illogical. I agree that there are no overt barriers to keep people with unconventional ideas out of science, but, in my opinion, most scientists are not open to certain ideas and thus, as in this case, fail to examine evidence in a timely manner.

 

[drkitten]

I don't have any particular interest in oceanography, and so changing career paths would have been illogical. I agree that there are no overt barriers to keep people with unconventional ideas out of science, but, in my opinion, most scientists are not open to certain ideas and thus, as in this case, fail to examine evidence in a timely manner.

Except that you've not demonstrated that there was any evidence to examine. Every "fact" of yours examined in this discussion turned out not to be true.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I don't have any particular interest in oceanography, and so changing career paths would have been illogical. I agree that there are no overt barriers to keep people with unconventional ideas out of science, but, in my opinion, most scientists are not open to certain ideas and thus, as in this case, fail to examine evidence in a timely manner.

Most scientists are not open to ideas like making up percentages and applying them to incorrect numbers and calling it science. Funny that.

 

[Rodney]

Except that you've not demonstrated that there was any evidence to examine. Every "fact" of yours examined in this discussion turned out not to be true.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to document.

 

[drkitten]

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to document.

Re-read the thread. For that matter, re-read Jaggy's post immediately up-thread.

 

[Rodney]

Re-read the thread. For that matter, re-read Jaggy's post immediately up-thread.

\
Your claim is that "[e]very 'fact' of yours examined in this discussion turned out not to be true." So how about a listing of those "facts" with an explanation of why they're untrue?

 

[BPScooter]

I guess I should ask for a post that shows "every" example of a previous post that's argumentative without substance. "Where are your references" is a quick cheap trick, meant to show as an example of how JREF threads are silly and misguided. Read the boards, dude! If you bother to click on some links, you will find fine evidence from peer-reviewed and discipline-specific journals linked by people that seem to know their stuff. Do your own research, if you have time.

 

[Mojo]

...in my opinion, most scientists are not open to certain ideas and thus, as in this case, fail to examine evidence in a timely manner.

Which ideas would those be?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

\
Your claim is that "[e]very 'fact' of yours examined in this discussion turned out not to be true." So how about a listing of those "facts" with an explanation of why they're untrue?

There are two specific ones in my post to which you were directed:

That 10% of sinkings are due to rogue waves; and
That 200 ships of more than 200 metres have been sunk in unknown circumstances.

And also one general one:

That we know that ships are sunk by rogue waves year in and year out.

How about you deal with those ones to start with?

 

[Rodney]

There are two specific ones in my post to which you were directed:

That 10% of sinkings are due to rogue waves; and
That 200 ships of more than 200 metres have been sunk in unknown circumstances.

And also one general one:

That we know that ships are sunk by rogue waves year in and year out.

How about you deal with those to start with?

Sure thing. The 200 ships of more than 200 metres comes directly from two on-line articles -- ESA News and Edward Willett:

ESA News: 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.

Willett: In the last two decades more than 200 supertankers and container ships more than 200 metres long have been sunk by severe weather; rogue waves are believed to have been the cause of many of those losses.

The Wikipedia article contends that these claims are incorrect and cites Lloyd's Register as its source, but if you click on the Lloyd's link, there doesn't seem to be any way to access casualty data without a subscription. If you or someone else here can post the Lloyd's analysis or another one that contradicts the ESA News and Willett articles, fine, I'll evaluate it. But I'm not prepared to assume that the unknown author of the Wikipedia article knows more than the ESA News article author or Willett.

Regarding the 10%, if 200 supertankers and container ships more than 200 metres long have been sunk by "severe weather", as is alleged by both the ESA News and Willett articles, it would certainly seem conservative to assume that at least 1 out of 10 of those "severe weather" accidents would be attributable to rogue waves. Wolfgang Rosenthal, a leading expert on rogue waves, estimates that there are 10 such waves churning at any given time, and radar data from the North Sea's Goma oilfield recorded 466 rogue waves in just 12 years. Further, Rosenthal contends that two large ships sink every week on average, with the cause being attributed to "bad weather". So, if about 100 large ships sink in an average year due to "bad weather" and 10% of those accidents are attributable to rogue waves, that's about 10 large ships sinking each year on average due to rogue waves. No, that doesn't absolutely guarantee that any of those 100 ships must have been sunk by a rogue wave, but if the cause was "bad weather", how likely is it that none of these sinkings were due to rogue waves? Further, I have detailed a number of anecdotes about rogue waves, and many of those anecdotes are supported by ship damages. So, while you can quibble if you want that my claim that "we know that rogue waves cause ships to sink year in and year out" is not fully documented, the same can be said of any other kind of weather-related accidents. And if we know that, on average, 39 rogue waves strike the North Sea's Goma oilfield each year (466 rogue waves divided by 12 years), how likely is it that not a single ship sinks due to a rogue wave in the average year?

Now, if you can demonstrate that the articles I've cited have it all wrong, fine, let's hear the evidence. But I'll need more than a Wikipedia article.

 

[drkitten]

Regarding the 10%, if 200 supertankers and container ships more than 200 metres long have been sunk by "severe weather", as is alleged by both the ESA News and Willett articles, it would certainly seem conservative to assume that at least 1 out of 10 of those "severe weather" accidents would be attributable to rogue waves.

Why? I see no justification for this assumption whatsoever.

Wolfgang Rosenthal, a leading expert on rogue waves, estimates that there are 10 such waves churning at any given time, and radar data from the North Sea's Goma oilfield recorded 466 rogue waves in just 12 years. Further, Rosenthal contends that two large ships sink every week on average, with the cause being attributed to "bad weather".

Again, this is testable. If two large ships sink every week on average, with the cause being attributed to "bad weather," you should be able to find at least two large ships that have sunk due to "bad weather" during the first half of July, 2006 (July 1-14).

I did some quick checking on-line. I couldn't find any large ships that sank during that period. So I extended the search and didn't find any for June 2006, or May, 2006, either. And if your suggestion is correct, there should have been at least twenty large ships that sank due to bad weather during that period.

So, of course, this may just be my bad research skills. But I submit that it's more a sign that Rosenthal is misstating the severity of the rogue wave problem, which greatly detracts from his credibility as a so-called "expert." But if you really think that two large ships suffer weather related sinkings each week -- find them for me, please.

So, if about 100 large ships sink in an average year due to "bad weather"

They don't, as far as the records show.

and 10% of those accidents are attributable to rogue waves,

an unsupported percentage with no apparent basis in reality.

that's about 10 large ships sinking each year on average due to rogue waves.

Which is meaningless, as it's a conclusion drawn from two false premises. "If my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather."

So, while you can quibble if you want that my claim that "we know that rogue waves cause ships to sink year in and year out" is not fully documented,

It's not merely "not fully documented." It's a tissue of assumptions, misrepresentations, and outright lies.

the same can be said of any other kind of weather-related accidents.

Not really. If I tell you that about the frequency of lightning strikes in the United States, we can at least confirm that lighting is a common phenomenon.

And if we know that, on average, 39 rogue waves strike the North Sea's Goma oilfield each year (466 rogue waves divided by 12 years),

I don't know this. Given the inaccuracies you've displayed so far, I actively disbelieve it.

how likely is it that not a single ship sinks due to a rogue wave in the average year?

How likely is it that the assumption you base that question on is correct?

 

[Rodney]

Why? I see no justification for this assumption whatsoever.

So what's your percentage for weather-related sinkings caused by rogue waves - zero? According to -- http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php?id=257&print=1 -- "Naval architects have estimated that more than a third of the 60 super carriers that went down due to sudden flooding between 1969 and 1994 were victims of rogue waves." So, that percentage is more than three times higher than my percentage. Further, a 1/3 ratio applied to 60 super carriers sinking between 1969 and 1994 would mean that more than 20 such carriers sank due to flooding caused by rogue waves over a 25 -year period -- almost one such carrier per year.

Again, this is testable. If two large ships sink every week on average, with the cause being attributed to "bad weather," you should be able to find at least two large ships that have sunk due to "bad weather" during the first half of July, 2006 (July 1-14).

I did some quick checking on-line. I couldn't find any large ships that sank during that period. So I extended the search and didn't find any for June 2006, or May, 2006, either. And if your suggestion is correct, there should have been at least twenty large ships that sank due to bad weather during that period.

So, of course, this may just be my bad research skills. But I submit that it's more a sign that Rosenthal is misstating the severity of the rogue wave problem, which greatly detracts from his credibility as a so-called "expert." But if you really think that two large ships suffer weather related sinkings each week -- find them for me, please.

First of all, it's not "my suggestion" -- it's Wolfgang Rosenthal's. Second, Rosenthal is a research scientist at Germany's GKSS research center and is quoted in several articles as an expert on the subject of rogue waves. Third, I don't think most ship sinkings are going to be featured prominently on the Internet.

They don't, as far as the records show.

Your few minutes of research hardly constitutes the last word on this matter.

an unsupported percentage with no apparent basis in reality.

I've now provided support from the Enviroliteracy article above showing that, as I previously stated, 10% is conservative.

Which is meaningless, as it's a conclusion drawn from two false premises. "If my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather."

False premises according to you and Jaggy, apparently based on a Wikipedia article, a few minutes of research by you, and your belief that attributing 10% of weather-related ship sinkings to rogue waves is unsupported.

It's not merely "not fully documented." It's a tissue of assumptions, misrepresentations, and outright lies.

One conservative assumption for which I've now provided support. What is it that I've misrepresented or lied about? If you think Rosenthal has done that, produce some evidence.

Not really. If I tell you that about the frequency of lightning strikes in the United States, we can at least confirm that lighting is a common phenomenon.

I was talking about weather-related sinking of ships. In any event, according to the Enviroliteracy article: "Naval architects, however, have analyzed the wrecks of ships sunk in recent decades, and have found that a large proportion of them have damage consistent with an encounter with a rogue wave, which can reach heights of a hundred feet."

I don't know this. Given the inaccuracies you've displayed so far, I actively disbelieve it.

So, when I cite the ESA article, which states that "radar data from the North Sea's Goma oilfield recorded 466 rogue wave encounters in 12 years", I'm being inaccurate?

How likely is it that the assumption you base that question on is correct?

Again, if you think Rosenthal and all the articles I cite are inaccurate, produce some evidence of your own to counter Rosenthal and those articles.