Freak waves are real: A lesson in objectivity

[Ivan Seeking]

Long treated as myth and folklore, this is just one of many such rerorts that seem to confirm at least some mariner's reports of freak waves. From what I can tell, the jury is in: Freak waves are real. There is no question that they exist.

Ship-sinking monster waves revealed by ESA satellites

21 July 2004
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. Results from ESA's ERS satellites helped establish the widespread existence of these 'rogue' waves and are now being used to study their origins. [continued]

http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/SEMOKQL26WD_index_0.html

So, here we have an example of something long dismissed as lies and myth in spite of centuries of stories from sailors. I think this is a shining example of how human testimony must be considered. No matter how unlikely something may be, certain elements of long term patterns in human testimony can often be trusted; not as scientific evidence of course, but I think for guidance as to what may and may not be real. Often, these sorts of things are based in fact and not just fanciful tales like those of drunken sailors. The problem I think is not whether there is a grain of truth in any myth, since I think most are rooted in fact, the question is, what is the proper context and interpretation for a given myth? In this case the proper interpretation was a literal one. I suspect this is an unusual outcome. Normally I would expect that we need to interpret the myth to a much greater degree.

 

[rick1138]

A twenty foot freak wave hit Daytona Beach Florida a couple of years ago. Fortunately it happened at night and no one was hurt. Another natural occurence that was long deemed to be a sailor's myth was the giant squid.

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, but its probably a few hundred years since they were considered a nautical myth.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A few hundred years...please. These were only discovered by accident.

 

[pack-rat]

I don't believe rogue waves where ever really dismissed as myth and folklore.
They have been generaly accepted in the scientific comunity for quite some time
Just so happens the wonders of science happened to image one from a satellite.
The author talks about scepticism in the scientific and makes one think that all of the scientific comunity have never believed they existed. Every scientific work has its sceptics.
The author does not tell us what the sceptics say in their papers just that large deviations should only occur once every 10000 years. It does not say how large the deviations are.



That first image with that freighter was taken in 1980 off the coast of Durban and was estimated to be 5-15 metres high. (prob from the trough)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Then consider this, rogue waves are now considered a genuine threat to shipping and oil platforms. Research is now underway to understand these waves. Where is the research prior to the last five or ten years? How many papers have been published on this subject? This is the best measure of acceptance. If this threat is as signficant in dollars as now described, why didn't we explore this issue in detail long ago?

I think the proof of my statements is found the previous lack of interest and funding for research. Suddenly freak waves are getting lots of press and attention from the scientific community.

 

[Nereid]

Then consider this, rogue waves are now considered a genuine threat to shipping and oil platforms. Research is now underway to understand these waves. Where is the research prior to the last five or ten years? How many papers have been published on this subject? This is the best measure of acceptance. If this threat is as signficant in dollars as now described, why didn't we explore this issue in detail long ago?

I think the proof of my statements is found the previous lack of interest and funding for research. Suddenly freak waves are getting lots of press and attention from the scientific community.

Things are probably more nuanced than this rather b/w depiction Ivan.

Before the ESA work, there was surely widespread acceptance that, occassionally, very big waves were seen. For doing research however, the difficult parts were 'occassionally' and 'very big'; in both cases, the generally accepted understanding was well aligned at the qualitative level (everyone agreed that 'very big waves' 'absolutely must' happen 'occassionally'), but quantitative data were either poor or scarce. Further, the cost of a research project to nail down the phenomenon quantitatively probably didn't seem worth it (return on research investment $ and effort) to those who could've done it (scientists) or paid for it (ship owners, oil companies, etc).

With the EDA data, some initial 'survey' work can be done at almost zero incremental cost, and a biz case for an investment in further research becomes clear - IF the waves do occur at the frequency implied by the preliminary ESA data THEN a better understanding of them can be expected to save us $$ (range, not a single number); as the research will cost only $$ (range), the ROI is good.

It may be educational to compare the history here with that of sprites.

Interesting terminology, is it 'freak waves' or 'rouge waves'

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Do you have any information to support this position? Where is the information that tells me that this was accepted as a genuine phenomenon?

I find it amusing that whenever something like this is discovered as true, the next statement to be expected is that we always knew they were there. I have seen no reason to believe that anyone except seaman accepted this phenomenon as genuine. Every explanation that I ever heard assumed that an earthquake, or unusual weather, or a landslide produced these waves; until a few years ago. The interview that I saw with the scientist who discovered freak waves on satellite images was not looking for them. He just noticed them. ESA is only following up on this previous work.

I have always heard them called rogue waves. Freak waves seems to be a more recent term but I don't know for sure.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In fact I think I realize the problem here. Sure, we have always known about large renegade waves; that is waves that exist for a reason that we understand. Rogue waves seemingly have no source. In a nutshell, this is the objection that was made by scienctists when asked: Waves don't spontaneously appear without a cause. As is usual, we just weren't imaginative enough.

Can anyone show me one paper more than ten years old that uses wave mechanics to predict large rogue waves at sea. This effort would not have required tremendous funding.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One last thought here. Even if all of the objections made here are correct this does not detract from my original point. My point was that just as with ghosts, UFOs, ESP and certain other phenomenon [not all], we have centuries of human testimony that freak waves are real. On a large scale, that is to say over a very long time and with many encounters, it turns out that the human was reasonably reliable as a data recorder; in spite of the fact that we had and have no good explanation for their accounts. Why should we assume this is not true for UFOs and other phenomenon that meet relatively the same historical criteria?

 

[Nereid]

I think there are two different things being somewhat conflated here Ivan (true, they're to completely independent, but more so than your posts would suggest).

1) Acceptance of observations of large waves: undoubtedly some observations were or marginal quality; equally some were not. AFAIK - and this is a long way from the area of science I have some familiarity with - no one doubted there are good observations of large waves.

2) Satisfactory explanations of each particular observation of a large wave. This is the part which seems to have changed; a recognition that previous explanations are insufficient to account for the (new, ESA) data.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree. As I understand it, conventional explanations have always been assumed in spite of objections that these explanations do not account for what was observed. It was always assumed when needed that specific details, such as the size of the wave, or the direction from which it came were in error, which made possible some conventional assertion that was probably never tested. In the extreme, I remember hearing of one case in particular in which the loss a ship was attributed to human error in spite of accounts from the crew that a rogue wave destroyed the ship.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My apologies. It never ocurred to me that the meaning of "Rogue Wave" was not clear. A Rogue wave is a very specific sort of wave that allegedly defies all conventional explanations. A typical account might say that a storm and the swells approached from the north when suddenly a single large wave from the east destroyed the ship. There is nothing east of the ship that could produce a large wave.

Edit: I think the term applies equally well to inordinately large waves within the standard movement of ocean swells. For example, the swells are running 5 to 7 feet when a 25 foot wave suddenly sinks or swamps the ship.

I am now a little suspicious that large releases of gas caused by methane hydrate deposits may account for some rogue waves. I don't know if this is possible or not.

 

[selfAdjoint]

solitons

I think it is more likely that the rogue waves are http://www.physicscentral.com/people/people-02-6.html.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Nonlinear wave dynamics is now thought to explain some rogue waves.

 

[russ_watters]

In fact I think I realize the problem here. Sure, we have always known about large renegade waves; that is waves that exist for a reason that we understand. Rogue waves seemingly have no source. In a nutshell, this is the objection that was made by scienctists when asked: Waves don't spontaneously appear without a cause. As is usual, we just weren't imaginative enough.

That was all I was trying to say - could you take an uneducated sailor's word for it in 1800 that his ship was capsized by a massive wave in otherwise calm seas? Probably. He doesn't need to know about undersea earthquakes or complex wave mechanics to know that - it doesn't much matter to him where the wave came from. Where the wave came from could well be more complex than scientists thought 10 years ago, but that's a separate issue from accepting that big waves exist.

I don't consider this to be anywhere near the category of [ET]UFO's.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes sorry about that. I assumed that the meaning was clear, really for no good reason.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't consider this to be anywhere near the category of [ET]UFO's.

The elements of human testimony, the irreproducibility of observed events, and the lack of any explanation in the face of scientific scrutiny are paralleled strongly. It is a historical measure of the accuracy of human testimony when it is not supported by science.

 

[FZ+]

The elements of human testimony, the irreproducibility of observed events, and the lack of any explanation in the face of scientific scrutiny are paralleled strongly.

But they have been reproduced. The waves are solitons, and can be easily replicated in the lab with a big tub of water and a large oscillating motor. Just no one happened to draw the connection. And in the end, these sinkings turned out not be the effect of monsters, and (dare I say it?) UFOs, but were perfectly mundane products of an adjusted model.

It's comparable to flying saucer sightings turning out to be clouds, swamp gas, and venus, after all.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You are missing the point. First, solitons may explain some rogue waves and likely do. This was proposed by the scientist who first spotted these things on satellite images. Next, no comparison is made to claims of monsters; we have been talking about the very existence of these rogue waves. You are trying to a assign source when I was only pointing to the fact that these rogue waves do exist; as was claimed. People saw what they said that they saw in spite of the fact that only now can we explain these observations; so of course only now are we talking about it in a serious manner.

So, the skeptics were wrong; again.

Also, you are the only person I have ever heard suggest a relationship between rogue waves and monsters. You are in quite an elite group it seems.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Of did you mean sea monsters like the giant squid? Whoops, that was just another sailor's story wasn't it.

 

[FZ+]

But again, that's not the issue. (What is? ;-)

With UFO sightings, no one disputes that UFO sightings have been reported. In most cases, they don't even dispute that they have seen *something*. It's the interpretation that is the issue. In this case, the observation is that ships disappear in apparently harmless conditions. Some people have seen mega waves. Some people have seen monsters. (I didn't say people claimed rogue waves are caused by monsters, though some no doubt did...)

What's your recommendation? That testimonials are believed without question? That observer interpretations are taken without question? In all seriousness, it would have been useless for science to have immediately jumped in when the wave phenomenon was first reported. This is, in the end, just an anecdote, and an anecdote of how science, and a sceptical approach, had succeeded in turning a scientifically useless myth into an explained reality.[/preaching]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

However, the accuracy of historically long winded phenomenon with similar descriptions from observers is the issue. When you refer to UFO's, many skeptics implicitly ignore the thousand of reports that can not be explained by identified phenomena. If we were to believe only one of many thousands of reports, we are left with no option but to believe that ET is really here. Now, I'm not arguing this as proof that ET is here, but to say that swamp gas or stealth bombers is the explanation is nothing short of a wild guess and silliness. They are lying, they were hallucinating or saw an illusion, or they saw what they say they saw. Many times it just isn't complicated; as in the case where a wave from the east wiped out our ship.

It stands not as an example of how to conduct science, rather I think it shows that given a long history of similar, first hand human accounts with alleged unknown phenomenon, we should consider this as the front line for potential discovery. We should keep an open mind. We should, as we are so inclined, read, listen, and learn, but not judge. We don't have to judge a claim in order to avoid acceptance of it. Why must anyone fear an honest disclosure of information to scientists who might benefit from this knowledge? This is the environment that modern science has created.

I believe the popular manifestation of skepticism is more denial based, rather than being balanced with the spirit of honest inquiry and discovery. Skepticism, and the requirement for physical evidence that can be verified, are companions to inquiry and discovery and surely are not the sole parameters by which we gauge objectivity.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One more thought: If we use UFOs again as a point of reference, what I am aguing is the different between saying that someone saw swamp gas or a stealth aircraft, and saying that we simply we don't what happened. Much more analysis of this sort of thing should end with these words: We can't explain it. We don't know how to account for the story. We have no explanation that is consistent with the claimed observations.

To me, in many cases this is the honest, objective, and approriate answer. Even though we all know that any extreme story might stand a good chance of being a lie, and even though we need to recognize this possiblity, by denial of or challenges to a claim which clearly relates to a transient event, that obviously can't be proven, the scientific position often leaves "he's a liar or a nutjob" as the only interpretation. It is possible that events transpired exactly as claimed and that one day this claim will make sense no matter how unlikely it may seem right now.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I have been reading reports of rogue waves for years and for some reason I have never happened to run across mention of "science" denying they exist. I've heard that science is divided on an explanation, but I haven't ever heard that the existence of rogue waves is a matter of controversy.

There are, incidently, also rogue troughs, which can be enormous enough to sink or damage a ship the size of an oil tanker.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As I understand all of this, the key examples where scientific judgement applies can be found in accounts from maritime law and the assignment of responsibility for shipping accidents. For example, was the ship heading NE or NW? If it was thought impossible that a wave approached from the direction claimed, then the assumption was, at least at times, that the orientation of the ship was not as reported. This might make all the difference in a major judgement. I would think that ever since the exact orientation of a ship at a given time and place could be determined post facto, these issues of accountability and orientation have faded.

 

[zoobyshoe]

As I understand all of this, the key examples where scientific judgement applies can be found in accounts from maritime law and the assignment of responsibility for shipping accidents.

This sounds like the "scientific judgment" is highly biased in the way that expert testimony can be highly biased in a trial. There's money at stake. Insurance companies can hire the scientific judgment of their choice. I don't think you should compare this to the attitude of science to UFOs where, as far as I know, no one is under any financial pressure or incentive to have an opinion one way or another.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, true, but maybe not representative. Still, you have to use something as a guage. Another, and typically considered the best measure of acceptance is the amount of published material. This gets complicated though due to the lack of data. Nonetheless, judging by the five or six stories in the tech news recently about this, and perhaps a dozen over the last year, the sudden level of interest suggests to me at least a much higher level of acceptance than we previously found. If everyone was already convinced, and eveyone knew they were there, then why do we suddenly find all of the discussions and research reported by the press? Until the last few years, any discussions that I have seen were linked more with folklore than anything else; and certainly not science.

As I asked earlier: Where are the scientific papers from ten, or twenty, or even fifty years ago?

 

[Bystander]

(snip)As I asked earlier: Where are the scientific papers from ten, or twenty, or even fifty years ago?

Ask, and ye shall receive: try searching Willard Bascom, or Waves and Beaches, WB, 1964; this gets you into the correct section in the library, or the appropriate search area on the net. There's plenty of material; I'll even give you a link.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/watwav.html

Graham Hanquack makes great mysteries that "have baffled science" of insignificant minutiae to inflate himself. You needn't make "great mysteries" of "wheels" that were invented/discovered long ago to deflate "the establishment."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay there are big waves. I don't see anything new here.

 

[zoobyshoe]

As I asked earlier: Where are the scientific papers from ten, or twenty, or even fifty years ago?

This is quite comparable to the microburst situation, where pilots were getting knocked out of the sky, but "science" hadn't caught up with it yet: the phenomenon was rare enough to make it very difficult to collect any data. Verification has only been quite recent.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is quite comparable to the microburst situation, where pilots were getting knocked out of the sky, but "science" hadn't caught up with it yet: the phenomenon was rare enough to make it very difficult to collect any data. Verification has only been quite recent.

I think so. I am sure that some scientists have always been interested in all of this, but the same is true of UFOs, ghosts, ESP, etc, etc. This does not indicate a general level of acceptance though.

I'm not sure what Bystander thought applied here but if this was the same thing then poeple wouldn't be trying to explain all of this right now. This is not understood to any signficant degree, at least with any degree of certainty.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think so. I am sure that some scientists have always been interested in all of this, but the same is true of UFOs, ghosts, ESP, etc, etc. This does not indicate a general level of acceptance though.

I'm not sure what you're saying. My point is that in spite of any potential interest no breakthrough can be made till someone figures out a way to collect data. Till then, even open minded scientists are hamstrung, and reduced to saying: "As far as science is concerned, no such phenomenon exists." "No praise, no blame", here, as it says in the I-Ching. Science runs on data.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You only elucidate why I found the maritime courts as a unique point of reference in the first place. Also, it is not a black and white issue as to when something is considered real or not by the scientific community. For example, there are still serious scientists who argue for the aether, as opposed to GR. Is relativity accepted or not?

I can also point to numerous arguments from respected scientists that ET is here. Is ET considered to be here or not? If ET lands at the White House tomorrow, can we then claim that ET was recognized as real by scientists all along, we just didn't have good data?

If you are saying that we had no phsical evidence, I don't agree. We had ships of known sizes and construction that were damaged or destroyed by a wave of an approximately known size, and usually the direction of travel. This gives us some baseline numbers like mass, speed, span of origin, orientation wrt the existing swells, local islands or land masses that might influence the behavior of waves. We might experiement and predict situation where Rogue waves are likely, and then look for evidence of such locations. This is just shooting from the hip on a moments notice.

 

[zoobyshoe]

You only elucidate why I found the maritime courts as a unique point of reference in the first place.

This sentence could mean that I elucidate why you consider the maritime court situation uniquely applicable to your case, or it could mean I elucidate why the maritime court situation is the single instance that you could find about this. I think that sometimes in haste you write things that you aren't aware are ambiguous to the reader.