Rogue Waves

Rodney

Illuminator
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
3,942
See -- http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/science/11wave.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 -- (Password required)

Excerpt: 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.

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

Moreover, bobbing ships were terrible reference points for trying to determine the size of onrushing objects with any kind of accuracy. Their mathematical models predicted that giant waves were statistical improbabilities that should arise once every 10,000 years or so.

That began to change on New Year’s Day in 1995, when a rock-steady oil platform in the North Sea produced what was considered the first hard evidence of a rogue wave.
 
Interesting.

So when presented with reliable evidence, the sceptical oceanographers revised their opinions?
 
Interesting.

So when presented with reliable evidence, the sceptical oceanographers revised their opinions?
Only when it became impossible to deny. The portions of the article I found most illuminating were: "Despite such accounts, many oceanographers were skeptical. The human imagination tended to embellish, they said . . . Their mathematical models predicted that giant waves were statistical improbabilities that should arise once every 10,000 years or so."
 
Only when it became impossible to deny. The portions of the article I found most illuminating were: "Despite such accounts, many oceanographers were skeptical. The human imagination tended to embellish, they said . . . Their mathematical models predicted that giant waves were statistical improbabilities that should arise once every 10,000 years or so."

Anecdotes are not evidence. When the evidence becomes strong, scientists change their minds. Welcome to the scientific process.
 
Last edited:
Anecdotes are not evidence. When the evidence becomes strong, scientists change their minds. Welcome to the scientific process.
So was it okay to lose many ships and lives on the basis that "[a]necdotes are not evidence"? As the article notes: "In the past two decades, freak waves are suspected of sinking dozens of big ships and taking hundreds of lives." Further: "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." So perhaps it might have been more advisable to rely on anecdotes from credible people rather than "mathematical models [which] predicted that giant waves were statistical improbabilities that should arise once every 10,000 years or so."
 
So was it okay to lose many ships and lives on the basis that "[a]necdotes are not evidence"?

If they're freak and rogue waves that occur once in a blue moon, how would knowing that they existed have helped?
 
So was it okay to lose many ships and lives on the basis that "[a]necdotes are not evidence"?

All ships are fully at the mercy of a wave that size. There's nothing you can do, evidence or no, except hold on tight and wait for it to pass. It's not as if accepting the anecdotes as evidence back then would've prevented anything.
 
If they're freak and rogue waves that occur once in a blue moon, how would knowing that they existed have helped?
They're not uncommon. According to the article: "Drawing on recent tallies and making tentative extrapolations, Dr. [Wolfgang] Rosenthal estimated that at any given moment 10 of the giants are churning through the world’s oceans." Further: "Scientists are now finding that these giants of the sea are far more common and destructive than once imagined, prompting a rush of new studies and research projects. The goals are to better tally them, understand why they form, explore the possibility of forecasts, and learn how to better protect ships, oil platforms and people."
 
All ships are fully at the mercy of a wave that size. There's nothing you can do, evidence or no, except hold on tight and wait for it to pass. It's not as if accepting the anecdotes as evidence back then would've prevented anything.
No, no! You've got to keep all the ships at home until you're sure that none of those waves or squid can exist. It's not as if going to sea has ever been a risky endeavour.
 
All ships are fully at the mercy of a wave that size. There's nothing you can do, evidence or no, except hold on tight and wait for it to pass. It's not as if accepting the anecdotes as evidence back then would've prevented anything.
According to the article:

Already, the scientists said, naval architects and shipbuilders are discussing precautions. Some of the easiest are seen as increasing the strength of windows and hatch covers. But even the best physical protections may fail under assault by tons of roiling water, so the best precaution of all will be learning how to avoid the monsters in the first place.

Increasingly, scientists are focusing on better understanding how the big waves form and whether that knowledge can lead to accurate forecasts — a feat that, if achieved, may save hundreds of lives and many billions of dollars in lost commerce.

A suspected culprit, in addition to wind-current interactions, is the amplification that occurs when disparate trains of waves (perhaps emanating from different storms) come together. Such intersections are seen as sometimes canceling out waves, and other times making them higher and steeper.

Another birth ground is seen as choppy seas where several waves moving independently merge by chance. But scientists say a giant of that sort would live for no more than a few seconds or minutes, whereas some are suspected of lasting for hours and traveling long distances.

As for forecasts, oceanographers are focusing on the interplay of exceptionally strong winds and currents, especially in the Agulhas off South Africa.

Dr. Fornberg said that several years ago South African authorities began issuing predictions. “That’s the only place the theory has succeeded,” he said.

Dr. Rosenthal said that in the future the continued proliferation of radar satellites should create an opportunity to better understand not only the habitats of the giants but in theory also individual threats, bringing about a safer relationship between people and the sea.

“There will be warnings, maybe in 10 years,” he said. “It should be possible.”
 
According to the article:

Already, the scientists said, naval architects and shipbuilders are discussing precautions. Some of the easiest are seen as increasing the strength of windows and hatch covers. But even the best physical protections may fail under assault by tons of roiling water, so the best precaution of all will be learning how to avoid the monsters in the first place.

Increasingly, scientists are focusing on better understanding how the big waves form and whether that knowledge can lead to accurate forecasts — a feat that, if achieved, may save hundreds of lives and many billions of dollars in lost commerce.

A suspected culprit, in addition to wind-current interactions, is the amplification that occurs when disparate trains of waves (perhaps emanating from different storms) come together. Such intersections are seen as sometimes canceling out waves, and other times making them higher and steeper.

Another birth ground is seen as choppy seas where several waves moving independently merge by chance. But scientists say a giant of that sort would live for no more than a few seconds or minutes, whereas some are suspected of lasting for hours and traveling long distances.

As for forecasts, oceanographers are focusing on the interplay of exceptionally strong winds and currents, especially in the Agulhas off South Africa.

Dr. Fornberg said that several years ago South African authorities began issuing predictions. “That’s the only place the theory has succeeded,” he said.

Dr. Rosenthal said that in the future the continued proliferation of radar satellites should create an opportunity to better understand not only the habitats of the giants but in theory also individual threats, bringing about a safer relationship between people and the sea.

“There will be warnings, maybe in 10 years,” he said. “It should be possible.”
Can we return to your "they laughed at the Wright Brothers" argument, which, I think, was the original point of the thread?
 
It's good that radar satellites may help forecast rogue waves. Too bad they didn't have any until just recently. Which also happens to be the time frame within which rogue waves have become "accepted".
 
They're not uncommon. According to the article: "Drawing on recent tallies and making tentative extrapolations, Dr. [Wolfgang] Rosenthal estimated that at any given moment 10 of the giants are churning through the world’s oceans." Further: "Scientists are now finding that these giants of the sea are far more common and destructive than once imagined, prompting a rush of new studies and research projects. The goals are to better tally them, understand why they form, explore the possibility of forecasts, and learn how to better protect ships, oil platforms and people."

There is a difference between 'far more common than imagined' and 'no uncommon'. 10 Waves in the entirety of the oceans is not very many. How many square miles of ocean do you have in the Atlantic and Pacific - I don't know, but try to figure out how many waves you have per square mile and then call them 'common'.

Either way - if science raised alarms and investigated every anecdotal claim, then there would be a lot of wild goose chasing going on. They would have to tackle alien abductions with the same vigor you expect here, they would be wasting an awful lot of time. Scientists really have no choice but to ignore things until there is evidence for them.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom