Why Waves Look So Big

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nov 22, 2008
3,562
Endeavour 32 Portland, Maine
The recent discussions about the loss of the Bounty and statements by her captain that she had previously survived 70 foot waves make the subject of wave height perception timely.

Here is a graph showing the wave heights that can be expected in various conditions:



You can see that 70 foot waves are rather improbable. We certainly would have heard about the storm that produced them if the Bounty had been in them. Because of their circular flow, hurricanes don’t actually produce extremely large waves but large and confused waves. Waves larger than 50 feet only occur in deep water in a couple parts of the globe where very strong winds blow in the same direction for days at a time.

Waves always look higher than they are and there are two reasons for this:

One:

A lot of people looking at waves are nervous and scared.

Two:

This one is rooted in physics and explains how even an experienced mariner can report something shown to be so improbable by the graph above.

We first have to look at a little known aspect of wave physics. Imagine a vessel which sits flat on the surface of the water and rolls little such as a raft or an inner tube. Mount a tripod on this float with a plumb bob and watch it go over a very smooth swell. The plumb bob will not move but will continue pointing to the same place on the raft as it would in flat water. There are even wave tank movies of a plumb bob pointing straight up inside the curl of a breaking wave when the float is carried to the top.

Take a cup of water and swing it around with your arm so that you can keep the water from sloshing out. Once you have learned to do this so that the water stays in the cup even when momentarily inverted, watch the path your hand takes and you will see that it almost perfectly represents the path of an object being carried up into the curl of a breaking wave.

So, the down that you perceive in waves tends to be towards the surface of the water under you and not towards the center of the earth. It is the confusion in the brain that this effect causes which is at the heart of seasickness.

In a large and perfect wave, your perception of “down” as a reference point for estimating the height of the wave will therefore be like this:



You can see the difference between the height that you would report and the height that a device such as a weather buoy would report.

Most vessels roll and this further scrambles up the “down” perception. The way that you got your sea legs was by your brain learning to sort out the changes in “down” caused by the rolling motion and filtering out those motion effects. However, it does this primarily using the water surface as a reference. Once it thinks it knows where “down” is, it’s happy. When the waves get large enough that people ask themselves how big they are, the effect shown in the diagram above begins to effect perceptions and waves generally appear to be about twice as high as the actual vertical distance from trough to crest.
 
Oct 26, 2008
6,085
Catalina 320 Barnegat, NJ
Interesting ...

I started to get queasy just reading that explanation! ;) Damn, your writing is good ... I wonder if we have any ginger snaps in the kitchen!
 

Nodak7

.
Sep 28, 2008
1,250
Hunter 41DS Punta Gorda, FL
Roger, thanks for this very complete explanation! Now I know why those waves on the lake look like they are 70' tall when they are really only 4' tall! :D
 
Oct 2, 2008
3,807
Pearson/ 530 Strafford, NH
Well done Roger, a bit of perspective on perspective. When sitting in our cockpit the waves may look large, then I go below and see they're only 2 feet. Your graphic annotation gives a technical explaination to what causes the effect I was seeing. Thanks.
All U Get
 
Apr 22, 2001
497
Hunter 420 Norfolk, VA
Thanks for yet another piece of excellent knowledge.

Now I understand why I've always been confused by, and unable to properly gauge, the real heights of waves.

You would think that an excellent and very experienced captain of 30+ years (such as the Bounty's master) would have this knowledge and would discuss the subject of wave heights and storms more reasonably.
 

richk

.
Jan 24, 2007
488
Marlow-Hunter 37 Deep Creek off the Magothy River off ChesBay
Some surface vessels are required to report, in addition to standard weather parameters every six hours, sea state conditions. Wave height can be unreliably reported based on the training of the observer. As others in this thread have pointed out, it can be quite difficult to accurately report when other things are going on. For more information check out http://www.usno.navy.mil/NOOC/nmfc-ph/RSS/jtwc/pubref/References/WMOcodes.html

Rich
 
Jan 27, 2008
3,045
ODay 35 Beaufort, NC
On the other hand I went to see the Queen Mary in Long Beach once. It is a really big shp, On one of her voyages she hit a wave so large it knocked out the windows on the bridge deck. So rogue waves occur a lot higher than the chart suggests for the average conditions.
In 1942 while carrying 15,000 American troops 608 nautical miles (700 mi; 1,126 km) from Scotland during a gale, RMS Queen Mary was broadsided by a 92-foot (28 m) wave and nearly capsized. Queen Mary listed briefly about 52 degrees before the ship slowly righted herself.
 

richk

.
Jan 24, 2007
488
Marlow-Hunter 37 Deep Creek off the Magothy River off ChesBay
fully arisen sea

Roger’s graph is an excellent reference for how big the waves can be. Attached is a table of wave heights possible as a function of wind speed, fetch and wind duration. Duration is a key element in determining a fully arisen sea.
 

Attachments

Nodak7

.
Sep 28, 2008
1,250
Hunter 41DS Punta Gorda, FL
I have always used "reference" wind speed of 8kts when I see the waves breaking over themselves. Not certain where I picked that up but I can see from this discussion that there are other factors (such as fetch) that can effect that. Is there a rule of thumb regarding the wind speed and waves breaking?
 
Jun 28, 2005
440
Hunter H33 2004 Mumford Cove,CT & Block Island
The graphs only apply to "open waters" , areas which constrain or funnel wave energy, such as inlets, sounds, deep to shallow water, strong currents, etc., will amplify average wave heights. Also, waves from different storm sources, can "synch" to build occasional waves to exceed expected values even on the open sea. Extreme, low pressure storms actually raise the sea level significantly, in the vicinity of the storm center, independent of the actual wind speeds. In other words individual waves can be much higher than predicted.

However I doubt anyone has ever seen 70 foot swells that were totally benign, it's just another "fish tale".
 
Last edited:

LuzSD

.
Feb 21, 2009
1,009
Catalina 30 San Diego/ Dana Point, Ca.
I started to get queasy just reading that explanation! ;) Damn, your writing is good ... I wonder if we have any ginger snaps in the kitchen!

ha ha,Scott, exactly my same reaction, and I never gets seasick!! hand me a gingersnap if you end up finding some please!!! ;)
 
Feb 26, 2004
22,780
Catalina 34 224 Maple Bay, BC, Canada
I have always used "reference" wind speed of 8kts when I see the waves breaking over themselves. Not certain where I picked that up but I can see from this discussion that there are other factors (such as fetch) that can effect that. Is there a rule of thumb regarding the wind speed and waves breaking?
The Beaufort Scale. My "reference" from that is 12 knots. Yes, it's for open water. Yes, it does NOT account for wind over tide. But once I see little white horse, I check my speed and apparent wind and it works. Close enough for sailboating. :) Like rogue waves, it's all relative, not an exact science, but documented as well as can be.
 
May 27, 2012
1,152
Oday 222 Beaver Lake, Arkansas
I believe Fitzgerald experienced waves far in excess of 55 feet. The Anderson reported three sisters of 70 to 100 feet from astern that just about buried her aft quarters. Both ships reported gusts 100 knots plus. Just prior to last transmission Morley reported her anemometer had failed and her antennas were down. Those three sisters likely finished her off.

Why anyone of sound mind would want to purposely head into that kind of fury with a wooden ship with hundred foot masts is a question we'll have to ask of God.

A few of you mentioned Fantome. I didnt know the ship by name, but as i read the story realized I knew of it from the news at that time. Seemed Mitch followed her every movem every which way she turned. But in that case he was trying to evade the storm, not head straight into it.
 
Apr 13, 2009
53
Irwin 33 St Pete, FL
You would think that an excellent and very experienced captain of 30+ years (such as the Bounty's master) would have this knowledge and would discuss the subject of wave heights and storms more reasonably.
He was also probably hyping it a bit for the media. And who is not guilty of that at times, at least in the bar if not on camera.
 

dugout

.
Nov 15, 2008
40
Pearson P33 Maryland's Famous Eastern Shore
He was also probably hyping it a bit for the media. And who is not guilty of that at times, at least in the bar if not on camera.
"Maybe hyping it a bit" is acceptable in the roll of a Showman but the statements are totally irresponsible for a professional Master responsible for the lives of his crew; a crew, which in this case, should have been safe ashore waiting out the storm in some warm, cozy bar. The reckless and egregious decision to put to sea into the teeth of that storm is incomprehensible.
 
Nov 5, 2012
37
Catalina 36 Mumbai
Wow, I always wondered why the waves looked so huge but were not so much in reality. Nice to read the technical reason for the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.