Monster waves

This is our lounge area. Feel free to come in and get acquainted!
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 8500
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sweetheart
Location: USA

Post by robinson »

Now here I go, being skeptical of the shrimpers. They could have found out about the wave on the radio, and made up a story just to get attention or have a little fun with the public.

So there I go doing the same thing I talked about. I mean, cmon, a giant splash? Big waves? That sounds crazy.

If something big fell in the ocean we would know about it. Our meteor defense network would have lit up like crazy.

And if it was a real Tsunami, our Atlantic Tsunami warning system would have gone off as well.
oh really?

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

Not that major compared to some.

When they were building the lighthouse on top of Muckle Flugga they got hit by a few waves going right over the rock. Muckle Flugga is about 60 meters high. Bishop Rock Lighthouse I think has been overtoped a few times.

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

robinson wrote: Which illustrates the reason many people distrust and are skeptical of "scientist". Rather than investigate, try and discover the truth, they make claims with no evidence at all. And even worse, they use horrible reasoning to try and defend their stupidity.
Okey how would you investigate it. You have claims of a transitory events with no fixed patturn in terms of position or weather conditions.
A damaged ship, lives lost, and multiple eye witness accounts of a terrible freak wave that caused the event, IS evidence. Thousands of such reports, from all over the world, for thousands of years, is the kind if evidence people who live in reality understand.

Thousands? maybe 20 in the last century. Of those only a handful aproach solid reports. Video cameras were not common.
See? Using a horrible fallacy like, "Sailors also reported a lot of mermaids.", to shore up a claim is stupid. It is the sort of reasoning I mock people for.

That isn't an argument, a logical reason, or even close to scientific.

One could, if one was so inclined, use that sort of fallacy to dismiss everything else sailors reported, that you have no evidence for.

So just stop it.

You may not like it but history suggests that sailor testinomy hasn't always been the most reliable.
I mentioned the Daytona Beach wave, because it is about as solid a fact as one can find in the US, in recent history.

You can find the event listed by NOAA here
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/phi/reports/tsunami.htm

The event, which actually occurred, still baffles "scientist". A 27 mile long wave, from 10 to 20 feet high, (nobody is sure), smashed into a heavily populated beach area, at night. It swamped the fireworks barge, canceling the next evenings firework display. (The barge was anchored well offshore)
20 foot high shore breaking waves are well within the norm.
It injured at least 75 people, 20 of them needing emergency medical attention. It rushed up over 70 feet past the high water mark, smashing people into concrete seawalls, damaging beach equipment, smashing hundreds of cars and instilling sheer terror in those caught up in it.

For those not familiar with Daytona Beach, this was the night before the Fourth of July. The place was packed with party people, setting off fireworks on the beach. And doing other stuff. The ocean was flat. (This means no waves to speak of).

Nobody knows what caused the wave. The theory that it was an undersea landslide is not supported by seismic evidence, and the sea bottom there is very flat sand, no cliffs or other geology that lends itself to undersea slumping.

If it was a Tsunami, that doesn't change the facts. A really big freak wave hit the coastline with no warning, and it came out of nowhere. That is the definition of a freak wave.

You are missuseing the term freak wave.
Nobody knows what caused it. It was freak wave. There are historic reports of the same event on other beaches around the world.
Well yes tsunamis are well established.
To say nothing of the huge waves at sea.
Which are a completely seperate class of event and the actual subject of this thread.

User avatar
robinson
Posts: 8500
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sweetheart
Location: USA

Post by robinson »

20 foot high waves on Florida beaches are almost unheard of. Even in Hurricanes we don't get 20 foot waves.

You don't know what you are talking about.

I usually ignore trolling, but due to my recent revelation about not being able to tell the difference between a troll and somebody who is just wrong, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

As to the "testimony" of sailors, it wasn't like they went before a court and gave testimony.

But, here is another example of the subtle yet common thing I see online.

You just made a huge claim. That all sailors in all times are unreliable witnesses to events as sea.

See? You made a wild ass claim. One you can't know. One you can't prove.
You may not like it but history suggests that sailor testinomy[sic] hasn't always been the most reliable.
That is an interesting claim however. Why do you think that?
oh really?

User avatar
EvilYeti
Posts: 9222
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
Location: San Diego

Post by EvilYeti »

robinson wrote: Considering that until 1995 "scientist" refused to believe in Freak waves at all, I don't listen to skeptics when they dismiss stuff they know nothing about.
Denial is not the same as skepticism.

I've often pointed out that being skeptical of a real, natural phenomenon can be a hell of alot more dangerous than believing in something wooish.

For example, say I believe in ghosts but am skeptical of vaccinations.

User avatar
robinson
Posts: 8500
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sweetheart
Location: USA

Post by robinson »

Skeptical of vaccinations!! Burn him! Burn him! He's a witch!!


As for the term freak wave (the topic is monster waves), that is the term used in multiple reports. Freak wave is the same as Rouge wave, both can be monsters. Scary fucking monsters too. They can really kill you.
oh really?

User avatar
robinson
Posts: 8500
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sweetheart
Location: USA

Post by robinson »

EvilYeti wrote: Denial is not the same as skepticism.
To some people it is.

Side note, every time I see your avatar I think of that movie V for Vendetta.
oh really?

User avatar
EvilYeti
Posts: 9222
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
Location: San Diego

Post by EvilYeti »

robinson wrote:Skeptical of vaccinations!! Burn him! Burn him! He's a witch!!


As for the term freak wave (the topic is monster waves), that is the term used in multiple reports. Freak wave is the same as Rouge wave, both can be monsters. Scary fucking monsters too. They can really kill you.
Yes but they are different things than big waves or tsunamis.

I haven't looked at your clips yet, but some of those may just be big waves in rough seas.

The example you gave citing the 'splash' in the distance could very well have been a mega-tsunami caused by an asteroid impact. A mega-tsunami is unique in that its caused by displacement of surface water, vs. movement of the earths crust.

En folkefiende
Posts: 17511
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:38 am
Location: Waiting for an electrician

Post by En folkefiende »

robinson wrote:. Our meteor defense network would have lit up like crazy.
Meteor defense network?

Whazzat?

You mean the ICY BM defense network?
Formerly jj, the enemy of the people, aka the bullies who rant and lie here.

En folkefiende
Posts: 17511
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:38 am
Location: Waiting for an electrician

Post by En folkefiende »

robinson wrote:
EvilYeti wrote: Denial is not the same as skepticism.
To some people it is.

Side note, every time I see your avatar I think of that movie V for Vendetta.
With all due respect, Robinson, you're ignoring the simple FACT that when evidence (actual testable evidence, that is) arrived, the idea was accepted.

That's how science works.

Now, modelling waves, especially in shallower areas over uneven seafloor, is an "interesting" effort.

Would you like to try? :)
Formerly jj, the enemy of the people, aka the bullies who rant and lie here.

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

robinson wrote: That is an interesting claim however. Why do you think that?

Large collection of reports of sea monsters ghost ships and for that matter ghosts in general.

User avatar
EvilYeti
Posts: 9222
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
Location: San Diego

Post by EvilYeti »

robinson wrote:
EvilYeti wrote: Denial is not the same as skepticism.
To some people it is.

Side note, every time I see your avatar I think of that movie V for Vendetta.
I've spent a career unmasking denialist posing as skeptics for the frauds that they are.

I found my avatar by googling 'V for Vendetta avatar', so your observation is logical.

User avatar
EvilYeti
Posts: 9222
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
Location: San Diego

Post by EvilYeti »

Geni wrote:
robinson wrote: That is an interesting claim however. Why do you think that?

Large collection of reports of sea monsters ghost ships and for that matter ghosts in general.
Well, we all know ghost pirates are real.

User avatar
robinson
Posts: 8500
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sweetheart
Location: USA

Post by robinson »

Good one.

I think somebody imagines pirates when he hears the words "sailors". Historically, long distance sailing involved military ships, and merchant ships. Captains of both merchant and military ships are not only reliable witnesses, their log books are considered evidence in court.

Log books, kept by commanders of ocean going ships, are considered first rate evidence for a great many things.

Your reaching back and cherry picking stuff you heard, that has no evidence, is the sort of ridiculous thing you claim all sailors are known for doing.
oh really?

User avatar
robinson
Posts: 8500
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sweetheart
Location: USA

Post by robinson »

EvilYeti wrote: I've spent a career unmasking denialist posing as skeptics for the frauds that they are.
Does that pay well?

:D
oh really?

User avatar
EvilYeti
Posts: 9222
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
Location: San Diego

Post by EvilYeti »

robinson wrote:
EvilYeti wrote: I've spent a career unmasking denialist posing as skeptics for the frauds that they are.
Does that pay well?

:D
Well, my forum career.

User avatar
robinson
Posts: 8500
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sweetheart
Location: USA

Post by robinson »

jj wrote: With all due respect, Robinson, you're ignoring the simple FACT that when evidence (actual testable evidence, that is) arrived, the idea was accepted.

That's how science works.
What idea are you talking about? Satellite data shows that Freak, or Rouge waves occur all the time, especially in certain areas. We even have a good idea about why now.

A Rouge wave was recorded by a ships captain in 1934, a Military commander, on a Navy vessel, the USS Ramapo. This is published in the US Naval Institute Proceedings, August 1934. The height was officially recorded at 113 feet. It was a rouge wave. The unofficial estimate was 130 feet, but that was based on comparing the ship, 120 feet long, to the wave. The ship easily fit on the side of the wave.

The Captain of the Queen Mary reported a freak wave that almost capsized the ship, with 15,000 troops on board. It did great damage to the ship, and was officially recorded at 75 feet. 1942.

You see, these are sailors. Who reported freak, or rouge waves, that damaged the ships, or endangered the crew. So when people say something stupid about sailors not being reliable, they sound dumb to me. I think they are trolling.

But again, maybe not. Maybe you really just don't know any better. But can anybody really be that stupid?

There are many more examples, but if those don't convince you, why waste time with a hundred more official logs?

Modern methods are far easier for everybody to witness of course.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spi ... 53,00.html
British ship

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_n7071517

Satellite data.

Awesome stuff.

Monsters I tell ya, there be monsters out there on the sea.

So while landlubbers, "scientist", were busy dismissing the very idea that rouge waves could exist, Captains and people who actually go out on the high seas were well aware of the reality, the dangers, as were ship builders.

One more reason "scientist" are considered full of shit by people who live in the real world.
Last edited by robinson on Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
oh really?

User avatar
robinson
Posts: 8500
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sweetheart
Location: USA

Post by robinson »

EvilYeti wrote:
robinson wrote:
EvilYeti wrote: I've spent a career unmasking denialist posing as skeptics for the frauds that they are.
Does that pay well?

:D
Well, my forum career.
heh

I knew that, just having a little fun in the midst of this tempest.

In a teacup.
oh really?

En folkefiende
Posts: 17511
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:38 am
Location: Waiting for an electrician

Post by En folkefiende »

robinson wrote:A Rouge wave
Usually they're green or blue! Any idea why the color?

As to your ignorant ranting about scientists, well, I realize that you want to tear down what science has brought you, and go back to pre-soap, pre-boiled-water days.

Tell you what, you go ahead.

Science, meanwhile, will move on unless the human race all decides to suicide with you.

And science still responds to evidence. Unlike you, who claim to know everything (or so you imply) about evidence from sea captains, science doesn't claim to know it all.
Formerly jj, the enemy of the people, aka the bullies who rant and lie here.

User avatar
EvilYeti
Posts: 9222
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
Location: San Diego

Post by EvilYeti »

robinson wrote: So while landlubbers, "scientist", were busy dismissing the very idea that rouge waves could exist, Captains and people who actually go out on the high seas were well aware of the reality, the dangers, as were ship builders.

One more reason "scientist" are considered full of shit by people who live in the real world.
I don't believe any scientists have dismissed the idea that rogue waves could exist. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

You sound like those guys that claim scientists are 'teh stoopid' because one guy said the earth might be in a cooling trend in the 70's.

Scientists, as a group, understand the natural world better than anyone else. Even those that spend a lifetime observing it first-hand, as they are limited by their own biases and frail human perceptions.