The four-story wall of water was finally confirmed in February 2022 as the most extreme rogue wave ever recorded.
Such an exceptional event is thought to occur only once every 1,300 years. And unless the buoy had been taken for a ride, we might never have known it even happened.
For centuries, rogue waves were considered nothing but nautical folklore. It wasn't until 1995 that myth became fact. On the first day of the new year, a nearly 26-meter-high wave (85 feet) suddenly struck an oil-drilling platform roughly 160 kilometers (100 miles) off the coast of Norway.
At the time, the so-called Draupner wave defied all previous models scientists had put together.
Since then, dozens more rogue waves have been recorded (some even in lakes), and while the one that surfaced near Ucluelet, Vancouver Island was not the tallest, its relative size compared to the waves around it was unprecedented.
Scientists define a rogue wave as any wave more than twice the height of the waves surrounding it. The Draupner wave, for instance, was 25.6 meters tall, while its neighbors were only 12 meters tall.
A set of 3 rogue waves (as reported by other ships) are considered to be a possible explanation for the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald.
ReplyDeleteA series defies the very definition of what is a rogue.
DeleteI thought the sinking was due to a really strong Noreaster striking a heavily loaded ship where cargo shifting could cause the ship to roll over.
DeleteThe "3 Sisters". Big, bigger, and Whoa, Mamma! And hope you live to tell the tale. IIRC, the M.V. Arthur M. Anderson reported to the Edmund Fitz, being hit by something like, just before they lost contact with same.
DeleteSailed on the Lee A. Tregurtha for awhile, a shipmate had previously been the wheelsman aboard the Anderson when the Fitzgerald went down. He told me about it, and mentioned the waves.
DeleteIn the 1940s, officers aboard the oiler USS Ramapo testified of a wave on unusual height.
ReplyDeleteWorking out the geometry of the elevation of the observer's eye, the height of certain antennas or parts of superstructure, the wave was esitmated to have been 120'.
'Once in 1300 year Event.' But a rogue wave was recorded in 1995, and in 2020. Funny 1300 year separation there, Mr. Scientist.
ReplyDeleteExactly my thought.
Delete2022 wave highest ever BUT 1995 wave was 86ft vs 58ft.
DeleteAnd what are the effects of the rogue wave when it hits a shore ? I'm guessing a source of these waves could be caused by an earthquake and shift in ocean floor waaaay out in the middle of nowhere where nothing but ocean for thousands of miles exists.
ReplyDeleteRogues are ephemeral. The rogue exists but for a moment.
DeleteStrangely, rogue waves are mostly one of those deep water thingies that tend to disappear in shallower water.
DeleteThough you can 'see' them once in a while at the beach. The big swell that washes up farther on the beach than all the other waves. Again, one of those things that the scientists don't believe exist because they haven't seen them.
And... you can see rogue swells moving up rivers and estuaries from the ocean also. Again, they 'don't exist' because scientists don't acknowledge their existence.
Rogue waves bring a whole new definition to the phrase "surf's up."
ReplyDeleteWhen you're on the beach and that one wave way bigger than the others arrives ... I've always called it a sucker wave.
ReplyDeleteI'm a sucker for trusting the ocean enough not to be watching for that one wave.
Very interesting.
ReplyDeleteFishing off a S Texas jetty in the mid 70's. A kid off by myself at the end of the jetty, alone.
ReplyDeleteCaught my eye out a ways. Stood and got as high as I could to see better. Yep, it looked higher than me. good 1/4 mile out, no running.
Grabbed my rods and tackle box, got into a little gap in the granite blocks.
Poked my head up and watched that wave roll in. Washed right over me and the 8 to 10 foot high jetty I was on.
I came up sputtering. Grabbed my gear and walked back off the jetty looking over my shoulder the whole time.
Dry by the time I got back to the beach and the tent, never did tell my Dad about that one!
The US lost the USS Memphis in 1916, while anchored in Santo Domingo Harbor, to rogue wave action. Waves estimated to be 70+ feet high, 3 of them, rolled her on her beam and pounded her on the bottom, and she ended up on the shore. Anchored in 45 ft of water. She was scrapped on site, IIRC. Captain Edward L. Beach was the father of the author of "Run Silent, Run Deep".
ReplyDeleteThanks for that story, Will.
DeleteThe loss of USS Memphis was not, repeat, not due to rogue wave.
DeleteAccording to account given by Lt Commander Withers, who was aboard Memphis at the time, the ship was anchored in a rivermouth in 8 1/2 fathoms. The ledge
over which she was anchored was narrow extending out from the shore (cliff face) and dropped to 100 fathoms in a few yards. It was known by ship's officers that this presented a dangerous condition.
Waves traveling in over 100 fathoms suddenly arrive in fifty feet depth is the danger.
Too, rogue waves, by their very definition, do not travel in sets nor any distance more than a few yards.
Most likely, this was a tidal bore or tsunami. Notice too, the ship was lost because she was repeatedly slammed into the bottom.
What researchers have concluded is that it was a wave set generated by at least one of the two hurricanes that were passing by in the distance (might have been a combination from both). Ship was rolling so bad that it took water down the funnels, so they couldn't get enough steam up to move it out to sea. They saw a large wave heading toward them, but the time for it to arrive from the distance negates it being a tsunami. Crew and observers stated that it seemed to be three waves that did the most damage and finished her off.
ReplyDeleteWhat was reported by observers and her crew varied enough that nailing down actual details was very problematic. It was a wild ride for sure! IIRC, they were looking at trenching the beach for a couple hundred yards just to get her back to being wet, but then discovered she was too beat up to fix.
Will, I am curious where you say the time to arrive rules out the waves being a tsunami. What do you mean?
DeleteA tsunami travels a lot faster than a normal weather generated wave. What looked like a giant wave was first seen at the horizon by the sailors, but it took a long time to arrive, so researchers ruled out that possibility. I hadn't read anything about them being anchored to a shallow ridge, but so many stories have been written by the crew and others (two ships there, plus those on land) that not all of them have the same info, which is typical for witnesses to history.
DeleteRead this, it will answer your questions and the points raised by Anon 4:11 PM Jan 13:
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tennessee_(ACR-10)#Loss
The Tennessee was renamed Memphis, so don't be confused by the name. According to that article, tsunamis travel at much higher speeds than wind-generated waves.
We (CGC Bear) were down south, somewhere off the coast of Columbia, when we got hit by a rogue wave. Smashed the weather shield of the gunhouse (reinforced fiberglass on the Mk75) broke a ventilator loose on the deck, removed all the lifelines forward, and caved in the portholes forward (Co and Xo staterooms) but we saw it in time and turned into it. Hell of a mess repairing that gun.
ReplyDelete