Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Satellite survey washes away wave theory
ABC Online ^ | 7/25/04 | ABC Online

Posted on 07/24/2004 9:26:58 PM PDT by playball0

It appears that massive ship-sinking ocean waves - as high as 10-storey buildings - are far more common than scientists previously thought.

Oceanographers' conventional wisdom was that waves over 25 metres only occurred once every 10,000 years.

However, the European Space Agency says satellite data it collected over only three weeks in 2001 found more than 10 individual waves around the globe that swelled to more than 25 metres in height.

The news is significant because current ships and off-shore platforms are only built to withstand maximum wave heights of 15 metres.

Over the past two decades more than 200 supertankers and container ships exceeding 200 metres in length have sunk around the world, with rogue waves believed to be a possible cause.

Senior scientist with the GKSS Forschungszentrum GmbH research centre, Wolfgang Rosenthal, says many ships have been lucky to survive giant waves.

"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," he said.

"It simply gets put down to 'bad weather'."

Researchers are now examining the satellite data to see if the giant waves can be forecast.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: roguewave; shipping; trade
Rogue waves more common than previously thought. Extremists blame Bush. Bin Ladin suspected. Open sea surfing industry gets boost.
1 posted on 07/24/2004 9:26:58 PM PDT by playball0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: playball0

Forget rogue waves. It's the rogue elephants I'm worried about.


2 posted on 07/24/2004 9:29:44 PM PDT by ChocChipCookie (If we had some eggs, we could have bacon and eggs if we had some bacon. --unknown Freeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: playball0

WOW! El Rogue Waves... Thanks for posting!


3 posted on 07/24/2004 9:30:22 PM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: playball0

We're all doomed!

Sh!t!

If this were the case how would any of the ancient mariners survived.

Scupper me sister!


4 posted on 07/24/2004 9:38:57 PM PDT by x1stcav (http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/photo_gallery.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: playball0

Female and minority ships hardest hit.


5 posted on 07/24/2004 9:39:49 PM PDT by RightWingAtheist (<A HREF=http://www.michaelmoore.com>stupid blob</A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist

"Female and minority ships hardest hit".
BTW, why one frequently encounters a ship being referred to as "she"? Wouldn't "it" be more appropriate?


6 posted on 07/24/2004 9:51:01 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: playball0; Travis McGee

"It appears that massive ship-sinking ocean waves - as high as 10-storey buildings - are far more common than scientists previously thought."

"However, the European Space Agency says satellite data it collected over only three weeks in 2001 found more than 10 individual waves around the globe that swelled to more than 25 metres in height. "

a/ I thought stories were calculated as 10 feet. 25 meters is approx 82 feet

b/ When I crewed from CT to Bermuda 20 odd years ago, for 24 hours we were in seas where the tops of the swells were higher than the mast of our 43' sloop, and I am pretty sure the mast was at least as tall as the yacht was long...

(help me with the usual ratios, TM?)


7 posted on 07/24/2004 9:57:09 PM PDT by Yehuda (http://PostNineEleven.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: playball0

I'm thinking that what the satellite detected are mostly longer wavelength waves - several hundred feet - that would not be perceived as a "wall of water", but a gradual swell.


8 posted on 07/24/2004 10:05:06 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda

I think they may be measuring these waves from the back, which would mean the face of the wave would be in the 100 foot plus range. Of course, if they are measuring the waves Hawaiian-style, where 3 foot waves would otherwise be described by us mainlanders as double-overhead, 25 meter waves could have 200 foot faces.


9 posted on 07/24/2004 10:06:12 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew
I thought the QE2 a few years back, got hit bow-on by a 90-100 ft wave, based on the fact that it went over the bridge.

It was the middle of the night and nobody was on deck.

That wave was said to have originated in a storm/hurricane some hundreds of miles to the South.

10 posted on 07/24/2004 10:10:51 PM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Calvin Locke; All

I thoght it was more like trough to crest. This is much more meaningful.

Look, if anyone sensed the full fury of the ocean, it was the USN in October of '44.

Lot's of rough sailing (icluding one DD that supposedly went 'Turtle') but relatively little loss of life. There was one Essex class carrier that had its bow stoved in by an 80'+ swell, but who's counting.


11 posted on 07/24/2004 10:19:30 PM PDT by x1stcav (http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/photo_gallery.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: playball0

This is the fault of Bush and SUVs'....and Ted Kennedy cherry bombing the Atlanitic.


12 posted on 07/24/2004 10:35:58 PM PDT by Dallas59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x1stcav
it was the USN in October of '44.

The History Channel includes the two typhoons in the piece on Halsey.

Interesting interview of the commander of some destroyer that took a lot of damage.

The task force wanted him to catch up so that they could take a look at the damage. He wired them that it might be better
if he stayed where he was, picking up survivors. They wired back agreeing with the obvious, and sent back a couple
of destroyers to help. One survivor said he thought the ship was Japanese, since he didn't recognize it from the damage.

Halsey, I guess, barely escaped from being relieved of command, given the fact that he managed to hit two typhoons.

Can't recall the info about the weather reports, or lack thereof.

13 posted on 07/24/2004 10:38:12 PM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: playball0
"Over the past two decades more than 200 supertankers and container ships exceeding 200 metres in length have sunk around the world, with rogue waves believed to be a possible cause."

thats one theory of what happened to the Edmund Fitzgerald
14 posted on 07/24/2004 10:39:19 PM PDT by Charlespg (Civilization and freedom are only worthy of those who defend or support defending It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: playball0
We can expect a large increase in maritime disasters due to the Heisenberg effect.

These waves were not observed before and therefore did not cause a problem.

Now that the waves have been observed, we're going to be affected by them.

15 posted on 07/24/2004 10:48:13 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg

"...one theory of what happened to the Edmund Fitzgerald"

Ah! I was thinking of that too reading this story. I watched a really interesting documentary on Discovery or something not too long ago. Really a shame about all those folks who were killed.


16 posted on 07/24/2004 10:54:25 PM PDT by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

"These waves were not observed before and therefore did not cause a problem."

Now we'll have a rash of Schrödinger's catastrophes?.....:)


17 posted on 07/24/2004 10:56:27 PM PDT by Salamander (Tagline in for repair. Please keep your ticket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Salamander
I've lurked on the scientific threads for quite a while.

I'm ready now to join in with the big boys.

18 posted on 07/24/2004 11:04:25 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: playball0
And in other news...

Sheila Jackson-Lee still hasn't got a hurricane named after her.

19 posted on 07/24/2004 11:07:47 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (While Bush plays "rope a dope", Kerry/Edwards play "grope a dope".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

nice surfin pics!


20 posted on 07/24/2004 11:14:14 PM PDT by Yehuda (http://PostNineEleven.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alia

Unless the wave is breaking, most ships should have little problem riding such a wave - if they are properly oriented.


21 posted on 07/24/2004 11:26:17 PM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
BTW, why one frequently encounters a ship being referred to as "she"? Wouldn't "it" be more appropriate?

If you've never seen the figure 8 movement of the fantail, you may not understand it, but those of us with many years at sea have no problem with the description.
22 posted on 07/24/2004 11:36:48 PM PDT by IncredibleHulk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch

Thanks! I grew up sailboating. The article however, left me with the impression that a TON of ships and boats were done in each year by these rogue waves. So, are you suggesting it was an orientation problem, or that these were docked vessels?


23 posted on 07/24/2004 11:39:15 PM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda

thanks.


24 posted on 07/24/2004 11:50:22 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: x1stcav

Fending off a Russian Cruiser trying to get near our Carrier, The Coral Sea, in the Med (87-88), the Sea was pretty rough and the Ruskie was perpendicular to the waves.

I broke the orders and went topside up to the signal shack to get a good view.

The Russian Cruiser was going over to one side so far that al you could see was superstructure, like you were photographing from above, and then over the other way and I could see 2 of it's 3 screws and a whole lot of hull.

I'd have hating to been on board that ship.

The signal shack got smacked so hard by a wave that it was torn loose from the deck and had to be tied back down to keep it from going over the side and a window on the bridge got blown out.

It was real nice in Sonar Control too, what with it being almost all the way forward and 3 decks down. Up and down, pass the sardines and mustard sauce.


25 posted on 07/24/2004 11:52:09 PM PDT by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig (You can turn your head away from the Berg video and still hear Al Queda's calls to prayer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: playball0
Ship-sinking monster waves revealed by ESA satellites
26 posted on 07/24/2004 11:55:18 PM PDT by uglybiker (Those are not classified documents inadvertently shoved down my pants. I'm just happy to see you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alia
Probably an orientation problem. A rogue wave probably caught them by surprise. I daresay that the losses of shipping onshore and near shore is far greater the the few hundreds lost at sea each year. As you know, ships at sea are generally far safer than those near shore.

As long as the waves aren't breaking (or close to it) and the ship is facing into the waves, the ship should be able to ride it out okay. Of course, there are other factors involved too (sea worthiness, maneuverability, plimsole line, width of the trough of the wave, etc.). I'm also assuming that such waves, though not unusual, aren't all that common either.
27 posted on 07/25/2004 12:05:56 AM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
. BTW, why one frequently encounters a ship being referred to as "she"? Wouldn't "it" be more appropriate?

English speaking sailors term ships as 'she'. The Germans and Russians use 'he'. Non-sailors or other disinterested folks use 'it'.

28 posted on 07/25/2004 12:19:42 AM PDT by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg

The Fitz sank in Lake Superior. Do 'Rogue Waves' occur in the Great Lakes as well as the ocean? That would be... not good.


29 posted on 07/25/2004 1:17:07 AM PDT by jaykay (frustrated right winger seeks vast conspiracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch; Alia; dr_lew
Check this link that was posted on a previous giant wave thread.

Heavy Seas

30 posted on 07/25/2004 2:21:50 AM PDT by TheMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: x1stcav

Halsey was almost courtmartialed for that.


31 posted on 07/25/2004 2:24:32 AM PDT by kms61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jaykay

I was in stationed by the Coast Guard in Sault Ste. Marie the year after the Fitzgerald went down.

Let me just say that the song is quite accurate about what happened. The area where the mouth of Whitefish bay is an area where all the wave energy sweeping from the western portion of Lake superior is suddenly bottled up and HUGE waves develop.

It's covered by mostly by compression wave theory and harmonic buildup if you ever want to get into the math.

From a personal point of view. It's awesome to see from shore and terrifying to be out in it.


32 posted on 07/25/2004 6:04:55 AM PDT by The Working Man (Any work is better than "welfare"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
BTW, why one frequently encounters a ship being referred to as "she"?

Must have something to with all the required maintenance.

33 posted on 07/25/2004 6:10:58 AM PDT by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: playball0
Posted before with lots of links

SHIP-SINKING MONSTOR WAVES
REVEALED BY ESA SATELLITES

Mariners have known about the frequency of rogue waves or ultimate waves for centuries. It was only the scientists on dry land that doubted them.

SO9

34 posted on 07/25/2004 8:03:44 AM PDT by Servant of the 9 (Screwing the Inscrutable or is it Scruting the Inscrewable?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda

The shape of a wave is much more important than the height. Short period waves are worse, no matter how high. "Square" ten foot waves with vertical faces will brutalize any yacht. I've been in 50 foot seas that were so far apart they were like gentl rolling hills. If you were ever trapped in fifty foot vertical breaking "sqaure waves," you would be royally screwed.


35 posted on 07/25/2004 9:03:23 AM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Thanks for the explanation!


36 posted on 07/25/2004 9:42:57 AM PDT by Yehuda ("Sandy Berger! Drop your socks and show us the docs!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jaykay
Do 'Rogue Waves' occur in the Great Lakes as well as the ocean?

I don't think so. I don't think lakes — even the Great Lakes — are big enough. As I understand it, the phenomenon is caused by the fact that there are literally hundreds of wave trains propagating in the ocean continuously. They are all going in different directions at different magnitudes. But every so often, totally at random, all the wave trains (or at least a whole bunch of them) will happen to get in phase at a particular place for a brief period of time. You don't want to be there when that happens. The high waves are one thing, but it's probably worse if you happen to be there when an in-phase trough occurs. When that breaks, you'll get it from all sides.

There is probably some naturally-occurring chunk of shoreline somewhere in the world that just so happens to be arranged such that the wave trains being reflected back from the shoreline converge on some particular place many miles out to sea. If that were true, then that particular place would be a high-probability locus for bad news.

37 posted on 07/25/2004 10:15:42 AM PDT by Nick Danger (Kerry lied, while good men died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

"She's a fine ship, Captain, and after a few wee sips of Saurian brandy she starts to look bonny, too."
38 posted on 07/25/2004 10:28:47 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: playball0; Servant of the 9

Global warming to blame ... /sarcasm

Seriously, anybody who has ever seriously discussed this topic with an experienced ocean sailor is likely to have the reaction I do to this article: "what the heck? don't you folks believe the sailor's reports?"

Nearly every one of them who have traveled with a group of ships I've talked to has war stories about waves nearly a hundred feet high...

Agreed with you completely, Servant of the 9...


39 posted on 07/25/2004 3:04:24 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson