Talk:Rogue wave

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems to me that[edit]

a) this article has been used on the front page as "Freak wave"

and

b) "Freak wave" is used most often in the journals

so is there some reason why this was moved from Freak wave to Rogue wave??

I propose putting it back to the original name back?

If not, then it should be copy and pasted back to the original article and moved properly to preserve the edit history.

Mozzerati 06:20, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC) 

: In the process of reviewing and editing this article I have just read or referenced most journals written in the past 10-15 years and it appears to me that rogue wave is now the most commonly used term.AWHS (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of Rogue waves[edit]

I think that examples of near shore "rogue waves" could be inappropriately construed as open ocean rogue wave examples. The probability extremely large, near-shore waves is bathymetry dependent. The existence of exceedingly large waves near shore isn't questioned by the scientific establishment. The existence of open ocean rogue waves is governed by different differential equations. The frequency of open ocean rogue waves is still questioned by scientists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.41.119 (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue wave in Korea[edit]

It seems that on May 5th, 2008 there was a rogue wave occurrence in South Korea, resulting initially in nine people confirmed dead and around 15 missing. FFLaguna (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drauper event[edit]

Ocean Drauper sank on February 15th, 1982 as far as I know. Can somebody confirm this.

The mobile offshore drilling platform Ocean Ranger sank on 15th February, 1982. The Draupner oil rig was around to be struck by the new year's day wave which all sources agree occurred on 1st January 1995. I think you are confusing the two. Benea (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Sneaker wave into Rogue wave[edit]

(merge into rogue wave cancelled; discussion moved to Talk:Sneaker wave Oliphaunt (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

"Perfect Storm" reference[edit]

According to the commentaries on the DVD, the final wave was simply a large storm wave possibly caused by the collision of two other waves and exaggerated for dramatic effect. However, earlier in the movie, a rogue wave was encountered while fishing on relatively calm seas. Amschmid (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hundred year wave[edit]

I removed hundred year wave (which was in bold) from the first sentence, since it is just a statistical measure (a wave with a height which has a probability of exceedance of once per 100 years, on average) and not necessarily a rogue wave (higher than twice the significant wave height of the sea state). Most often, 100-year waves are design waves (since there are no wave records for hundreds of years anywhere), which are computed using linear wave statistics (no rogue waves). Although rogue waves have been measured of a height near the 100-year design wave -- for the offshore structure where they were measured -- this does not imply the two concepts are related.

Despite hundred year wave being a redirect to this article (by lack of a page on wave statistics, or wave forces in structure design), it should not be confused with rogue wave. -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; thanks for catching that. I agree that "hundred year wave" would be best discussed in an article on wave statistics, based on your explanation. But since nobody's written that article yet, I'm in favor of editing Hundred year wave into an actual article; if need be, it can be merged into another article when the time comes. I can start on that later tonight-- I've found a few sources on Google Book Search-- but since all my knowledge on this topic was compiled in the last five minutes, I fear my contribution will be the stubbiest of stubs. Whatever expertise you have would be a great help. Also, I've found at least one source which equates "hundred year wave" with "freak wave", so there probably should be a note of clarification in the "rogue wave" article. --Fullobeans (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a good approach to me. Books which should contain something on this are (by head): Goda, Design of maritime structures; and Holthuijsen (2007?). Further there should be quite some information in the Shore protection manual of the US Corps of Engineers (free downloads available online). I have to stop now, but will look on it in one or two days. It would be great if you can make a start on this. -- Crowsnest (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And a start has been made. It's not much, but it's better than a redirect. I'd look into the references you suggested, but I'm afraid I'm in a bit over my head; so, rather than continuing to edit the article, I'll start working on a time machine so I can go back and tell my sixteen-year-old self to pay attention in physics class. --Fullobeans (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

The 'Deadliest Catch' reference YouTube link appears to be a copyright violation. John Nevard (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the YouTube link. -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible reference[edit]

http://www.math.uio.no/~karstent/waves/index_en.html

Excellent source from Norway. FX (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And from well-known experts in the field. It already appears twice in the external references. -- Crowsnest (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But not used a source? FX (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed claim about shipping losses[edit]

The reference didn't actually have any references. FX (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical doubt of Rogue Waves[edit]

This article should mention in the history section how no one believed in rogue waves until someone caught one on a camera on an oil platform only a few years ago. Up until at least the late 1990s no one believed in these waves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.149.130 (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auto writes: - maybe not 'scientists' (sensu lato); seafarers did, and do . . . . Auto wrote 2015 01 08 2156 Z 81.151.94.74 (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, I have added this into the text, but the overall structure of the article still needs work. A lot of people are saying similar things in the articles I have read. AWHS (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this is a myth... Those waves had been observed but the observation of Draupner wave gave the final piece of evidence + relliable series. I think "which had previously been considered near-mythical" should be reworded. Observation of a rogue wave in 1933 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ramapo_%28AO-12%29 Falez (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw one in Cuba 1959[edit]

172.129.15.180 (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC) *** 1959 I was off Cuba on a Destroyer when a Rogue wave hit our ship. It was a clear ,beautiful day when it came with no warning and washed a Sailor overboard with a power that that gashed his body greatly.He was dead.we were doing asw exercises and a blimp hovered over his body and they reported the sharks came to the blood like a cloud as there were so many of them. The crew on the blimp threw hand grenades to keep the sharks away.I would sure like to hear from any one that also experienced that wave. It must have covered a large area.[reply]

Rogue waves do not cover a large area... It is unlikely any other ship was hit. Falez (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Cyrus Fan Page Link?[edit]

Removed a bit of vandalism (Miley Cyrus fan page link) from the External Links section. I trust that this is something someone was trying to removed at some point but couldn't figure out how (it was camouflaged as a {{commoncat@|Rogue Wave}} tag in the edit page of the first group of External Links. I've added the @ to the tag to prevent a link to the same fan page here in Discussion. Please go to the edit tab of this Discussion page to see what the tag looks like and imagine it without the @ sign. Ultatri (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Template:Commoncat was vandalized by a spammer. Thanks for pointing the problem out. I will restore the page to what it was. -- Crowsnest (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction doesn't really make sense[edit]

In oceanography, they are more precisely defined as waves whose height is more than twice the significant wave height (SWH), which is itself defined as the mean of the largest third of waves in a wave record. Therefore rogue waves are not necessarily the biggest waves found at sea; they are, rather, surprisingly large waves for a given sea state.

Therefore? It didn't really provide an explanation as to WHY they're not the biggest waves found at sea. In fact it stated that they were twice as large as the largest waves =/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.105.199 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say they're not the biggest waves found at sea, it says they 'are not necessarily the biggest waves found at sea'. A 10 meter wave in a 5 meter sea state would be a rogue wave, but a 10 meter wave in a 15 meter sea state is nothing out of the ordinary and not a rogue wave. It's not about the raw height of a wave, it's the height of the wave in relation to the average height of the surrounding waves. Benea (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split of rogue wave list[edit]

This should be a no-brainer. The list of rogue wave occurrences is bulky and unnecessary for this article (only the most notable instances should be covered here). The "Reported encounters" section should be split into a List of rogue waves. I'll get to working on it myself eventually, but in the meantime it would be great if someone else could get it started. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 13:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos[edit]

I would urge fellow editors to try including a few more legitimate photos of rogue waves. Yes, rogue waves are seldom photographed and when they are, it's hard to get a license free photo. But I think that the photo found here ([1]) at least is available somewhere (like NOAA) and can be added. In fact I think it was in the article 2 years or so ago with proper licensing.--RossF18 (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lore of rogue waves.[edit]

Accounts of rogue waves are well known by seamen. The fact reports were ignored by scientists just shows academic arrogance. Like cold brittleness in steel ships it was not acknowledged until someone wrote an academic paper on the subject. We hit a wave after leaving Sydney on the Tasman Venture in the 80's which was at least three times the SWH which did considerable damage to the foredeck. . At the time it was considered a combination of effects from the Australian coast current, the wind which was about 60 knots after a tropical revolving storm had passed and the effect of the continental shelf. (Bathymetric).

Rogue wave definition[edit]

In many articles about rogue waves (freak waves) the definition for these waves is that they are higher than twice the significant wave height. I think there should be a minimum height for rogue waves as well. Now, if the significant wave height is 25cm, then waves higher than 50cm are - per definition - rogue waves. This doesn't seem correct to me. Has any research been done on this part? --FritsKoek (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The probability (per wave period) of encountering a rogue wave of 50cm height -- at a certain location -- in a Hs=25cm sea is the same as that for encountering a 30m individual wave height in a seas with significant wave height Hs=15m. There is no need for setting a minimum wave heigth (as long as the wavelength is long enough for surface tension to be negligible). Note that rogue wave effects are relative: a 10m rogue wave might have devastating effects on a small yacht, while hardly having an effect on a supertanker. -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waves hitting cliffs often spray hundreds of feet in the air, for instance on 8th March 2008 non-rogue waves were photographed spraying high over the top of Sennen cliffs which are about 100 foot high. Imovable objects like light houses on rocks generate the same effect so can also be damaged by bad weather without the free moving "wave" being as high as the lantern. I am therefore not sure that damage to light houses should be listed as evidence of rogue waves (though rogue waves can't be discounted). Oil rigs in open water are however as vulnerable as ships and damage to them and such open structures is evidence of rogue waves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.145 (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Texas Tower No. 4 -- January 15, 1961[edit]

Examination of the wreckage of the tower, which was overwhelmed and toppled by an Atlantic gale, indicates wave damage at 85 feet above sea level. See L. Douglas Keeney, 15 Minutes: General Curtis LeMay and the Countdown to Nuclear Annihilation (New York: St. Martin’s, 2011) Al-Nofi (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terrigal Tragedy[edit]

n the list of 20th-century rogue wave examples someone added -- out of list order, which appears chronological -- an incident in which two people were washed off some rocks by a "huge" wave in Australia in 1939. No estimates are given in the source material for the size of the wave, and what appears "huge" to witnesses on shore isn't necessarily a rogue wave. I'm going to delete the item until more information can be offered supporting the wave as "rogue." — Preceding unsigned comment added by McGehee (talk • contribs) 14:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error in References[edit]

Hello there,

I am new to Wikipedia editing, and tried inserting a reference "Laird1", which somehow screwed up the "Econ1" reference. As far as I can remember, I did not make any changes to "Econ1" and only removed "citation needed" and used the Citation tool to add a citation.

Can someone please help to fix that Econ1 reference?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanxue (talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which kind of wave production has been simulated?[edit]

Derek1G (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I like the video of the Lego boat in the wave tank, but I can't tell WHICH of the listed mechanisms of rogue wave formation were used in that experiment/video. This should noted in the caption under the video image.[reply]

Good idea. Done. Brycehughes (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommon?[edit]

The article claims rogue waves are uncommon. Of course that word is subjective. But I am not sure I would use that word. For example, a Natl. Geo. article mentioned that scientists found 10 rogue waves in one three week period ( via analysis of satellite imagery.) 75.71.200.117 (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Removed. Brycehughes (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hundred Year Wave?[edit]

In the Background section we have both: "Rogue waves, sometimes known as freak waves or "hundred-year waves"", "Rogue waves should not be confused with the so-called "hundred-year wave",". Is this an error, or is "Hundred-year wave" a nickname for rogue waves and also the name of an unrelated statistical prediction, and our wording isn't making this 100% clear? I don't know enough to fix it/correct it myself.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Wave Not a Rogue[edit]

The lede defines a rogue as a wave "...whose height is more than twice the significant wave height..." The body of the article talks about the RRS Discovery's encounter with big waves "...with a SWH of 18.5 metres (61 ft) and individual waves up to 29.1 metres (95 ft)..." which seems to mean that the 'big' wave was only 1.57 times the SWH. Whilst fascinating, why is this detail in the Rouge Wave article since it does not match the definition presented? 159.53.46.142 (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC) -- posted by User:Kevin.159.53[reply]

Invalid ISBN of The Shipwrecks of Lake Superior[edit]

The very last sentence in the section "History of rogue wave knowledge" cited the book "Lake Superior Shipwrecks" which has an invalid ISBN. The template of {{Listed Invalid ISBN}} states that "If a later edition of the source publication has a suitable, valid ISBN, please use it instead." The 1979 edition cited in the article has an invalid ISBN, whereas a revised edition was published in 1990. Since I do not have access to either book, I am unsure about the suitability of replacing the 1979 edition with the 1990 edition. Can anyone who has access to the book, perhaps in a library in the United States, to check about it? --Quest for Truth (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background Section[edit]

Is piling a loose/redundant term? Does piling refer to the constructive interference of multiple wave front intersections (as paragraph 1 seems to suggest)? Or nonlinear effects, where the energy within a wave set is redistributed to create some larger and some smaller individual waves (as paragraph 2 seems to suggest)? I vote for deletion of paragraph 2, and clarification or deletion of the term piling. Majermike (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need to clear up some conceptual confusion[edit]

I have spotted a few problems with this article. Firstly, the opening section talks about the "breaking force" of a wave, without defining this term at all. Moreover, the unit in which the quantity is expressed (megatonnes per square metre, I read it as meaning) is properly speaking a unit of aerial density (or, if – as I suspect – the unit "ton(ne)" is being abused as a measure of force, pressure). Checking the source, it seems that improper and confusing notation and terminology is used there also. The use of the US spelling "ton" is also problematic as it invites a further confusion with the non-metric short and long tons.

I propose removing this confusion by changing this text to talk about the pressure exerted by the wave (meaning the number of newtons of force exerted per square metre of the hull of a ship) and to use the more logical and less confusing unit substitution: 1 "megatonne of force" → 10 giganewtons (equivalently, 10 gigapascals for the pressures). I would also propose standardising the spelling of metre/meter since at present the article is inconsistent. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are not only conceptual confusions in the article, there are utter absurdities. The lead asserts:
A 12-meter wave in the usual "linear" model would have a breaking force of 6 million tons per square metre (MT/m2). Although modern ships are designed to tolerate a breaking wave of 15 MT/m2, a rogue wave can dwarf both of these figures with a breaking force of 100 MT/m2.
The source cited turns out to be a 10-year old inhouse newsletter for an insurance company. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems to me that this is not a reliable source. I think that even my proposal to salvage this material was probably too conservative, and that it might simply be best to remove it completely if no better alternative source can be found. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I read that, did some research and was going to tag it as [dubious – discuss] but you fixed it first. Well done! I have found some alternate sources which I will add. AWHS (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
pressure in kN/m2 is technically the correct unit of measure. In this case (a) static pressure (hydrostatic head) plus (b) dynamic pressure (slap pressure). Static pressure is easy to understand, if the rogue wave is 30m high, and the deepest part of the ship is at the bottom of it (or say 10m under for a large ship), then the static pressure of 40m head of water is 40 tonnes per square metre. In addition, it seems reasonable without doing the complex calculations that the pressure of the moving wave plus the motion of the ship i.e. the dynamic pressure could be greater than the static pressure and 60 tonnes per square metre appears reasonable. Logically the source that mentions 100 tonnes per square metre (being 40+60) is in the right ballpark. This order of magnitude is therefore likely to be correct. Any source that mentions millions of tonnes is in error. If anything suggest alternate sources that are more technical. There should be a separate section relating to the impact on ships because this material appears in the introduction but does not appear in the rest of the article.AWHS (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current research section[edit]

I added a new section to try and capture some of the key research currently (2016) being undertaken in this field. Given there are scientists all over the world working on this problem it seems appropriate.AWHS (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied research related material from elsewhere in the article to this section as well. AWHS (talk)
Have also added all of the leading books and texts to further reading heading. AWHS (talk)

I'm not entirely sure why this section is due. We don't have it on practically any other page, and almost everything in Wikipedia is under research - FDR, Ireland, Lobotomy and Happiness. It make the page cumbersome and it is very prone to mistakes, more then other parts of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerTiger5 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did that because this is an area of real break-through science over the past decade. Logic is that many of the <?> main theories are individually notable and the science is rapidly evolving. Rogue Waves were not even mentioned by text book authors when I went through University, and still lack a good theoretical model. There is an enormous amount of recent research in this field. This information is also important to the article, but it was scattered all over the place, so I attempted to pull it together. But happy to go with consensus. AWHS (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Rogue wave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rogue wave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rogue wave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to delete section (December 2019)[edit]

We have a section called "Ship failure mechanism". It's mostly bollocks. It begins: "Very few ship-wrecks have ever been fully investigated." Utter nonsense. Untrue and unverifiable.

"The most recent bulk-carrier loss on the open seas to have been subjected to thorough investigation (as at March 2011)..." How long ago is that? Untrue then; less true now.

"...was the UK-owned M.V. Derbyshire, which sank in 1980. Its entire crew of forty-four, all British citizens, perished. It took 14 years of pressure from the British public and a privately funded expedition to locate the wreck before a formal remote-camera search and investigation was done by the British government. Repeats what's in the section above.

"At least a couple of hundred bulk carriers have been lost since 1980 and none have been properly investigated.[citation needed] "Citation needed." Indeed. No citation has been forthcoming and none will be because the statement is false.

"A survey of 125 bulk carriers that sank between 1963 and 1996 found that seventy-six probably flooded, another four because of hatch-cover failure, the rest from unidentified causes. Nine other vessels broke completely in two. Causes of the remaining forty losses are unknown.[117] Montgomery-Swan has outlined the generic mechanism of ship failure when encountering a rogue wave:" What survey? The source is little more than a blog.

"The scenario is very simple: the weight of the ship accelerates her down the back slope of the previous wave, the bow sticks into the lower part of the front of the giant incoming wave, and thousands of tons of green water fall onto the fore part of the ship. What happens next depends on the structure of the vessel.[23]" All very well, but he's discussing powerboats.

"Professor Faulkner who did the forensic independent analysis of the loss of the M.V. Derbyshire explains why this is such a problem for bulk carriers. He states that "It is quite possible that some of the many unexplained heavy weather losses (of bulk carriers) may have been caused by hatch cover or coaming failures because fore end plunging due to flooding of large holds can be rapid." He noted in his report that "because of their high inertias and natural pitch periods, these large ships do not rise to the waves, as appropriately experienced masters have confirmed. They tend to bury into them." Faulkner concluded that "beyond any reasonable doubt, the direct cause of the loss of the M.V. Derbyshire was the quite inadequate strength of her cargo hatch covers to withstand the forces of Typhoon Orchid." He also noted that "It is not possible to say which of the eighteen covers failed first, or from which direction the waves came; but evidence and other arguments suggest that the no. 1 hatch covers were probably the first to yield, probably from waves over the bow with the ship hove-to."[13]" Quite so, but he's discussing general problems of marine architecture that have nothing to do with Rogue Waves.

None of this is relevant.

Sorry folks: I wrote the above ages ago and forgot to sign it. It's still a valid proposal. Patrick Neylan (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Merge Draupner wave into Rogue wave.
There doesn't seem to be much else that can be said about the Draupner wave that is not already contained in Rogue wave or could easily fit in. The Draupner wave article hasn't got a realistic chance to expand beyond the stub it currently is. --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that scientists didn't believe in rogue waves[edit]

Please see the following page which throws doubt on the claim that there was widespread doubt among scientists, and finds no source for the "30 feet" claim: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4823. I would be willing to edit this article but feel that someone else may be better qualified. Beeflin (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Ignorance[edit]

The very fact that this occurance was first discovered in 1826 by Captain Jules Dumont d Urville in the indian ocean but was only acknowledged only in 1995 from the draupner sensor shows the absolute ignorance of the academic people towards the community. The community was and still is put as folklore people, meanwhile the seamen who gathered the real data through traveling are to be honoured as the real scientists here. They reported on the facts from back in 1826 itself even if sensors was not available then. VJ Joseph India (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a prevailing misunderstanding that oceanographers (and academics in general) widely dismissed rogue waves as folklore but this simply isn't true.
The fact rogue waves occur was never disputed, but it was the frequency of their reports (about 1 per week) that academics disagreed with.
The old wave model, which utilized a graph to predict the odds of large waves in an otherwise unremarkable sea, featured a linear curve between windspeed and wave heights (which is accurate and still true to this day in that windspeed has a linear effect on wave height) where maximum likely wave heights only reached 30 feet. Using this model, a 50ft wave was calc'd to be a 1-in-1000-year chance with 100ft waves being a 1-in-10,000-year chance.
There were reliable ship reports (Lusitania and Queen Mary, for instance) coming out that described such massive waves coming out of nowhere, but these were dismissed as isolated incidents.
After using satellite tracking, we were able to ascertain that rogue waves were in fact occurring at the frequency of their reports following the Draupner wave (even though earlier scientific measurements do exist) Braechap94 (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add Mallory's paper of 1974[edit]

Mallory ought to be given credit for an early and comprehensive explanation of the rogue waves off the South Africa coast. His work predates and is no less important than many of the references in the article. "Abnormal waves on the south east coast of south africa", Mallory 1974 The International Hydrographic Review, 51(2). John Pons (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draupner wave correction[edit]

It is almost universally claimed that the Draupner wave in 1995 was the "first rogue wave ever recorded using scientific instrumentation" but this is not true.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains several dozen offshore weather buoys that log, among other metrics, average and peak wave heights at the zero-crossing point. Several of these buoys were in the appropriate vicinity to measure the wave activity during the Perfect Storm of 1991.

These 6m NOMAD weather buoys use scientific instrumentation to record and log relevant data every single hour (though it takes ~6hrs to process and log data, therefore the times given are actually 6hrs behind) and all historical buoy data is freely available in spreadsheet form, directly from NOAA's website. Three buoys in particular, buoys #44137, #44139 and #44141 (all covering some 300 or so nautical miles of ocean) log 100-foot waves from midnight til 1am on Oct 29th, and a few more later in the day.

Considering that these waves occured in seas that only averaged 30-40ft and are thus qualified as rogue (being well over 2.2x H.sig), this would be an example of scientifically-measured rogue waves 4 years before the Draupner wave.

I'm astounded by the ease of which I was able to obtain this historical weather data and perplexed why people keep saying the Draupner rogue was the first scientifically-measured when that simply isn't true.

I would also imagine these buoys, having existed for a decade or more before 1991, probably also log other rogue wave events in the area from even earlier. Braechap94 (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources that report on this finding? --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the actual weather buoy data, as measured by the NOMAD buoys in the vicinity. The data is hosted directly on NOAA's website.
https://www.meds-sdmm.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/isdm-gdsi/waves-vagues/data-donnees/index-eng.asp
Buoys #44137, #44139 and #44141 are the most relevant sources, and you'll need to navigate to October 28th and 29th, 1991.
You'll be provided with a spreadsheet file (NOAA has a legend on their website here; https://www.meds-sdmm.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/isdm-gdsi/waves-vagues/formats-eng.html#CSV). Weather phenomenon (wave heights, wind speed, etc) are indicated in rows while columns represent time. Data changes from top to bottom indicate changes in weather phenomenon over time.
The times presented in the data sheets are 6 hours behind. The Andrea Gail's final radio contact was at 6pm (local time), Oct 28th and the boat is assumed to have been overwhelmed when waves hit 30m from midnight to 1am that evening.
This 6hr window will be a bit tricky to locate, due to the 6hr data processing delay. So, in the spreadsheet, midnight on Oct 29th actually represents 6PM on Oct 28th. Braechap94 (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rogue_wave&oldid=1194317736"