The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use, Plus Cell tower neuroweapon, Who is the scientist J Marvin Herndon?

An Open Letter to Members of AGU EGU and IPCC Alleging Promotion of Fake Science

 

 

Author’s Introductory Note
Environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) for military use constitute, in the present context of global warfare, the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.
Rarely acknowledged in the debate on global climate change, the world’s weather can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated electromagnetic weapons. Both the US and Russia have developed capabilities to manipulate the climate for military use.
Environmental modification techniques have been applied by the US military for more than half a century. US mathematician John von Neumann, in liaison with the US Department of Defense, started his research on weather modification in the late 1940s at the height of the Cold War and foresaw ‘forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined’. During the Vietnam war, cloud-seeding techniques were used, starting in 1967 under Project Popeye, the objective of which was to prolong the monsoon season and block enemy supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
The US military has developed advanced capabilities that enable it selectively to alter weather patterns. The technology, which was initially developed in the 1990s under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), was an appendage of the Strategic Defense Initiative – ‘Star Wars’. From a military standpoint, HAARP  –which was officially abolished in 2014–is  a weapon of mass destruction, operating from the outer atmosphere and capable of destabilising agricultural and ecological systems around the world.
Officially, the HAARP program has been closed down at its location in Alaska. [I think it reopened and is functional]  The technology of weather modification shrouded in secrecy, nonetheless prevails.
Weather-modification, according to the US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report,  “offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary”, capabilities, it says, extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes:
‘Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.”
In 1977, an international Convention was ratified by the UN General Assembly which banned ‘military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.’  According to theConvention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques:
The term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space. (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,United Nations, Geneva: 18 May 1977)
While the substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, debate on weather modification for military use has become a scientific taboo.
Military analysts and scientists are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter and environmentalists are largely focusing on greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. The possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military and intelligence agenda, while tacitly acknowledged, is not part of the broader debate on climate change under UN auspices.
Rest of article press  HERE
Please follow and like us:

PG&E and CPUC Email Exchange – these are the emails in the YouTube Video “Plan to Burn Up Northern California”

 

From: Clanon, Paul

Sent: 8/22/2011 10:04:42 AM

To: Cherry, Brian K (/0=PG&E/0U=C0RP0RATE/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BKC7)

Cc: Cooke, Michelle (michelle.cooke@cpuc.ca.gov); Lindh, Frank (frank.lindh@cpuc.ca.gov)

Bcc:
Subject: RE: Space Weather

Ah, the good old days.

From: Cherry, Brian K [mailto:BKC7@pge.com] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 10:03 AM
To: Clanon, Paul
Cc: Lindh, Frank; Cooke, Michelle

Subject: RE: Space Weather

Just a reminder, we are the first to propose a solar generator in space that will beam RFwavesdowntoareceptorsiteandconvertittoDCcurrent. Wehavechangedour receptor site from the Mojave desert to Sebastopol.

From: Clanon, Paul [mailto:paul.clanon@cpuc.ca.gov] Sent: Monday, August 22, 20119:50 AM
To: Cherry, Brian K
Cc: Lindh, Frank; Cooke, Michelle

Subject: Space Weather

Brian,I assume you’re assembling a high-level task force of washed-up
and never-were, yet somehow movie-star-handsome, former astronauts to handle PG&E’s response to the upcoming “damaging space weather”? Also, please dribble out one at a time over the next few months all internal memos, lawsuits, PowerPoint presentations, and officer-coverup directives in which PG&E is repeatedly warned about damaging space weather and chooses to do nothing, then has its lawyers blame its customers, aka “earthlings”, for any adverse consequences resulting. Thank you.

Please follow and like us:

WATER LIES: A Guide for Private Domestic Well Owners . . . California State Water Resources “Control” Board . . .

WATER LIES: A Guide for Private Domestic Well Owners . . . California State Water Resources “Control” Board . . .

Please follow and like us:

Hail cannons weather modification in Mexico

Hail cannons weather modification in Mexico
This summer, German automaker Volkswagen (VW) began using “hail cannons,” shockwave generators that curb the formation of hail in the atmosphere, to protect vehicles in its outdoor car lots in Mexico’s Puebla state. Farmers, however, claim the practice has disrupted all precipitation in the area, pushing the region into drought. The Puebla government says it will work with VW and the farmers to reach an agreement on the issue. Deutsche Welle

VW ‘hail cannons’ anger drought-hit Mexican farmers

A practice employed by German automaker Volkswagen (VW) to protect its new vehicles from hailstorms has led to a dispute with local farmers in Mexico, who claim their crops are being damaged.

Bildergalerie weltweite VW-Standorte Puebla (Volkswagen)Mexican farming communities accused Volkswagen (VW) on Tuesday of “arbitrarily” provoking a drought in the central state of Puebla, where the German automobile manufacturer operates its largest car factory outside of Germany.

Read more: Climate change and farming: ‘Unpredictability is here to stay’

Farmers in Cuautlancingo, the rural municipality where the plant is located, claimed that VW’s use of “hail cannons” was causing a drought that has made them lose 2,000 hectares (5,000 acres) of crops.

In June, VW started using the shockwave generators — sonic devises that purport to disrupt the formation of hail in the atmosphere — to prevent its newly-built vehicles, which are parked in an outdoor lot, from being damaged by the falling ice pellets. The practice purportedly disrupts the formation of hailstones.

Gerardo Perez, a farmers’ representative in the area, said the devices not only disperse hail storms, but all precipitation that has occurred since May, which marks the beginning of the rainy season in Mexico. “The sky literally clears and it simply doesn’t rain,” he told the news agency AFP, adding that the cannons were “affecting the Earth’s cycles.”

Read more: The global heat wave that’s been killing us

Farmers in the municipalities of Puebla, Amozoc and Cuautlancingo are now seeking more than 70 million pesos ($3.71million, €3.2 million) in compensation from the automaker.

Unproven technology

In June and August, farmers staged protests and blocked access to VW’s Puebla plant, which is the German carmaker’s largest outside Germany, employing 15,000 people who produce more than 450,000 vehicles a year.

The Puebla government said it would meet with both the factory’s management and the affected farmers to reach an agreement. State Governor José Antonio Gali Fayad didn’t rule out the possibility that the affected farmers would be awarded compensation.

Meanwhile, Volkswagen has tried to defuse the conflict this week by announcing it was taking the cannons off automatic mode and would only fire them when potential hail storms approached. It also pledged to invest in protective mesh to serve as its first line of defense against hail.

But local farmers’ representatives described the offer as “unacceptable” as long as VW continued using the cannons.

“The company can take other measures to protect its cars, but people here can’t live off anything but their land,” Rafael Ramirez, the top local environmental official, told AFP. “Volkswagen claims to be an environmentally friendly company, but they’re not showing it.”

VW has officially been granted permission to use hail cannons, although the technology still lacks scientific evidence supporting its efficacy. Ironically, Mexican farmers themselves often deploy the machines as a storm approaches as a means to protect their crops from being damaged.

Please follow and like us:

Why the Bay of Biscay is Dangerous for Ships? Dating back to WWII . . . Maybe the Blast Wave Accelerator?

EXCERPT From Article Below:  
 

It’s not now that the Bay is feared. It has been an “age old story dating back to the beginning of the Second World War”. Located between France and Spain, the bay has been dangerous and often feared. The German U-boats ruled the Bay and many British and American ships were reported sunk that entered her waters. There were as many as 15,000 casualties and another 5,000 ships that sunk. Despite the danger faced by the ships, they had no choice but to take the route so as to reach with supplies as well as troops to France.

INSIDER COMMENT:  KEEP in Mind that it was during WWII that the U.S. and New Zealand created “the Blast Wave Accelerator” called Operation Seal.  This operation was secret and created waves up to 33 feet . . . We discovered this in the Nasa War document on StopTheCrime.net
 

 

Why the Bay of Biscay is Dangerous for Ships?

Located in the Celtic Sea, a gulf of the northeast Atlantic Ocean is called the Bay of Biscay. It is located in the northern coast of Spain and the western coast of France and is named after the Spanish province of Biscay. The average depth of the bay is 1745 meters and the maximum depth is 2790 meters and parts of the continental shelf extend into the bay those results into fairly shallow water at places.

Some of the fiercest weather conditions of the Atlantic Ocean can be witnessed in the Biscay Bay. The area is home to large storms during the winter months and there have been countless ships wrecks reported from the area as a result of the gruesome weather. The late spring and the early summer in the area are cool and cloudy and large fog triangles fill the south-western part of the inlet.

The weather in the Bay of Biscay is the most vital thing to be worried and talked about. As winters begin, the weather turns harsh and severe. Depressions are formed and enter the bay from the west. They eventually dry out and are born again in form of thunderstorms. They also bring in constant rain in the region often bringing thunderstorm that look like hurricane and crash at the bay. One such example can be the Klaus Strom.

Photograph by Sohit ShuklaPhotograph by Sohit Shukla

The Bay of Biscay has always been feared by the seamen. There have been several incidents reported of merchant vessels loosing direction in Biscay storms. At few instances lives have been lost as a result. However, with improved ships and other amenities, the accidents have been reduced to considerable amounts.Ships going to the Mediterranean chose options like the French river rather than taking the route from Biscay Bay due to the legendary reputation of the bay. Many times, the Atlantic swells form near the coasts and often make many ports inaccessible.

There have been quite a few incidents in the recent years of ships facing difficulties, sometimes resulting in grave consequences. In May 2000 two yachts faced disastrous journey even when they left with no signs of bad weather in the Bay of Biscay.

It’s not now that the Bay is feared. It has been an age old story dating back to the beginning of the Second World War. Located between France and Spain, the bay has been dangerous and often feared. The German U-boats ruled the Bay and many British and American ships were reported sunk that entered her waters. There were as many as 15,000 casualties and another 5,000 ships that sunk. Despite the danger faced by the ships, they had no choice but to take the route so as to reach with supplies as well as troops to France.

Additional Info

Various kinds of Dolphins and whales are seen in the waters of Bay of Biscay. Another commonly found animal species are Cetaceans. The greatest area to spot larger cetaceans lies in beyond the continental shelf, in the deep waters. Other seabirds can also be seen across the bay. The alga Colpomenia peregrina was found and first noticed in the bay way back in 1906.

 

Please follow and like us:

Water Restrictions & Conservation | Palm Beach Gardens, FL – Official Website – police department is assisting with oversight of residential compliance.

Water Restrictions & Conservation | Palm Beach Gardens, FL – Official Website – police department is assisting with oversight of residential compliance.

Please follow and like us:

WATER LAWS – Fines, Restrictions POLICED . . .Chapter 74 – UTILITIES | Code of Ordinances | Palm Beach Gardens, FL | Municode Library

WATER LAWS – Fines, Restrictions POLICED . . .Chapter 74 – UTILITIES | Code of Ordinances | Palm Beach Gardens, FL | Municode Library

Please follow and like us:

WATER ALERT: State’s offer of working group to oversee water flows “a joke,” MID official says | The Modesto Bee

WORKING GROUP INPUT ILLUSION (THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE)  . . . These meetings are controlled by directives not only from the United Nations, NGO’s, universities, The World Bank and many many more to establish policies based upon fraudulent water science. .   We have Primary Water – water is a renewable, we are NOT running out of water. . .  We MUST as individuals access primary water, independently from the water takeover power structure that is set to ration water resources that are endlessly available to all.  Learn more go to PrimaryWater.org
 
EXCERPT:
 

An important role of irrigation district board members is deciding how much water to allocate for agriculture and city customers each year and how much to hold in storage, said Michael Frantz, a TID board member. “In certain years, (the STM Group) would take that control away from our elected leaders and transfer it to a Sacramento bureaucrat.”

The so-called “STM Working Group” would include state water board staff and its executive director, the state and federal wildlife agencies, and water users. The group would implement the flows downstream from the dams and assess their effectiveness in boosting salmon numbers.

“The STM Group is a joke,” said John Mensinger.

In a statement Friday, the state agency said it would not be operating the reservoirs. The STM group would assist with implementation and monitoring of the flow requirements and would be comprised of the current operators, who are experts on reservoir management, and fisheries experts, who know how to manage flows for fish protection, the board’s statement said.

“The STM working group is all about having experts that understand the local problems make recommendations to best manage the system,” the board said.

 

 

State’s offer of working group to oversee water flows “a joke,” MID official says

Key elements of a State Water Resources Control Board plan for restoring fisheries are not acceptable to local irrigation districts, which are likely to sue if the state board does not compromise, district board members said Friday.

Most people know by now that the Bay Delta update would require 40 percent of unimpaired flows from February through June on the Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Merced rivers to restore salmon and support the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary.

To implement the plan, the state board would create a working group for the rivers that would exert far too much influence over the operation of Don Pedro, New Exchequer and New Melones reservoirs, two board members said.

The so-called “STM Working Group” would include state water board staff and its executive director, the state and federal wildlife agencies, and water users. The group would implement the flows downstream from the dams and assess their effectiveness in boosting salmon numbers.

“The STM Group is a joke,” said John Mensinger, who sees himself as a moderate board member of Modesto Irrigation District, which co-owns Don Pedro with Turlock Irrigation District. “We are never going to accept it.”

An important role of irrigation district board members is deciding how much water to allocate for agriculture and city customers each year and how much to hold in storage, said Michael Frantz, a TID board member. “In certain years, (the STM Group) would take that control away from our elected leaders and transfer it to a Sacramento bureaucrat.”

In a statement Friday, the state agency said it would not be operating the reservoirs. The STM group would assist with implementation and monitoring of the flow requirements and would be comprised of the current operators, who are experts on reservoir management, and fisheries experts, who know how to manage flows for fish protection, the board’s statement said.

“The STM working group is all about having experts that understand the local problems make recommendations to best manage the system,” the board said.

The water board, which held a two-day hearing on the plan Tuesday and Wednesday, says it will vote on the Bay Delta water quality update Nov. 7. Local and state officials who spoke at the Sacramento hearing said they would prefer to negotiate voluntary agreements that could include other tools for improving the fisheries in the delta.

If there are no agreements, the state could impose the flow requirements through conditions on water rights starting in 2022.

The irrigation districts, including MID and TID, along with districts with rights to Stanislaus and Merced river water, take issue with the final flow proposals, which were issued in July, but also can’t live with proposals for year-to-year carryover storage behind the dams for environmental purposes.

With a more civil tone prevailing at the hearing this week, local officials had thought that Gov. Jerry Brown’s appointees on the board might compromise. But board members’ comments near the end of the meeting Wednesday evening suggested they won’t budge and were disappointing, Frantz said.

Felicia Marcus, chairwoman of the five-member board, is a former western director for the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group. Other board members have professional backgrounds with regulatory agencies.

Negotiations are still possible with the state’s Natural Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources and Department of Fish and Wildlife. Representatives of those agencies said at the hearing they’re committed to discussing voluntary settlements before the Nov. 7 decision.

“If the state board adopts this program, as it stands, we are going to sue them because the environmental document is deficient and a lot of things they are asking for are unlawful,” Mensinger said, noting he has seen a rough draft of a lawsuit.

Legal challenges to the Bay Delta update are also anticipated from environmental groups that have called for 50 to 60 percent river flows to benefit the fisheries.

Frantz said the carryover storage requirements are a lesser-known piece of the state’s plan and one reason for dire predictions of economic losses for the region.

He said it would result in cuts or total elimination of water deliveries to farmers and city of Modesto customers amid multiple dry years. As an example, he cited the severe drought from 2012 to 2015. No water would have been delivered to TID customers in the last two years of the drought if the state proposals had been in place, Frantz said.

Some special drought provisions in an agreement might help appease the districts.

“We expect to see more droughts,” Frantz said, noting that weather patterns suggest that dry spells could be longer and more severe in the future. Aside from the farm-related industries served by the districts, more than a million people live in the area affected by the water board’s plan.

The state plan would allow the increased river flows or an equivalent amount of water to be managed and shaped for creating river conditions and cooler water temperatures that support the salmon. The releases, starting at 40 percent of the natural runoff in the watersheds, could be adjusted in future years between 30 and 50 percent based on whether the measures are effective in boosting the fisheries.

Mensinger said the upper end of the range is too high — the MID won’t sacrifice half its water.

The irrigation districts are faced with convincing the water board to accept some of their ideas for salmon restoration in the three rivers. They contend more can be done with less water by providing habitat and suppressing nonnative bass that feed on young salmon swimming downstream.

Some have suggested the state should remove June from the requirements since the young salmon are no longer in the river that month.

If the flow requirements are approved in November, a signoff is required from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It could be another flashpoint in the process given the recent efforts by the Trump administration to intervene in water resource policies in the delta. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has said the updated Bay Delta plan contradicts the congressional priorities for the federally run New Melones reservoir and has threatened legal action.

The state water board has not conceded that the federal EPA has approval rights over all of the Bay Delta water quality update.

 

Please follow and like us:

List of rogue waves

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rogue_waves

List of rogue waves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The Draupner wave, a single giant wave measured on New Year’s Day 1995, finally confirmed the existence of freak waves, which had previously been considered near-mythical.

This list of rogue waves compiles incidents of known and likely rogue waves – also known as freak waves, monster waves, killer waves, and extreme waves. These are relatively large and spontaneous ocean surface waves that occur in deep water, usually far out at sea, and are a threat even to large ships and ocean liners.

Background[edit]

Anecdotal evidence from mariners’ testimonies and damages inflicted on ships have long suggested rogue waves occurred; however, their scientific measurement was only positively confirmed following measurements of the “Draupner wave“, a rogue wave at the Draupner platform, in the North Sea on 1 January 1995. During this event, minor damage was inflicted on the platform, confirming that the reading was valid.

In modern oceanography, rogue waves are defined not as the biggest possible waves at sea, but instead as extreme sized waves for a given sea state.

It should be noted that many of these encounters are only reported in the media, and are not examples of open ocean rogue waves. Often a huge wave is loosely denoted as a rogue wave, when it is not.[citation needed] Although extremely large waves offer an explanation for the sudden, inexplicable disappearance of many ocean-going vessels. However, although this is a credible explanation for unexplained losses, the claim is contradicted by information held by Lloyd’s Register.[1][2] One of the very few cases where evidence suggests a freak wave incident is the 1978 loss of the freighter München.

In 1991, the American fishing boat, Andrea Gail, was caught in a storm near the NE Atlantic coase of the USA. Junger reported that the storm created waves in excess of 100 ft (30 m) in height, but ocean buoy monitors recorded a peak wave height of 39 feet (12 m), and so waves of 100 ft (30 m) were deemed “unlikely” by Science Daily.[4] However, data from a series of weather buoys in the general vicinity of the vessel’s last known location recorded peak wave action exceeding 60 ft (18 m) in height from October 28 through 30, 1991.[2]

Known or suspected rogue wave incidents[edit]

Before 1950[edit]

  • On 11 March 1861 at midday the lighthouse on Eagle Island,[3] off the west coast of Ireland was struck by a large wave that smashed 23 panes, washing some of the lamps down the stairs and damaging beyond repair the reflectors with broken glass. In order to damage the uppermost portion of the lighthouse, water would have had to surmount a seaside cliff measuring 40 m (133 ft) and a further 26 m (87 ft) of lighthouse structure.
  • On 13 November 1865, the wooden cutter Aenid was in the Tasman Sea near Long Reef off New South Wales, Australia, when her helmsman sighted three huge waves approaching from her starboard quarter. Before he could turn the cutter to face them, they swamped Aenid and wrecked her with the loss of two lives. Four others on board survived. The wreck later was found washed up on Long Reef with part of its side stove in.[4]
  • On 15 December 1900, three lighthouse keepers mysteriously disappeared from the Flannan Isles Lighthouse in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland during a storm. Although there were no surviving witnesses, a rogue wave that hit the west side of the island has been hypothesized to be responsible.
  • On 10 October 1903, the British passenger liner RMS Etruria was only four hours out of New York City when, at 2:30 p.m., a freak wave struck her. The wave was reported to be at least 50 feet (15 m) high and struck the ship on the port side. The wave carried away part of the fore bridge and smashed the guardrail stanchions. There were a number of first-class passengers sitting in deck chairs close to the bridge and they caught the full force of the water. One passenger was fatally injured and several other passengers were hurt.
  • The Blue Anchor Line luxury steamer SS Waratah, an Australian ship of 16,000 gross tons, disappeared without trace south of Durban, South Africa, in July 1909 with 211 passengers and crew aboard. No survivors or wreckage were found. The most plausible theory for her disappearance is that she encountered a rogue wave which either caused her to capsize or flooded her cargo holds, sinking her almost instantly.
  • On 7 November 1915 at 2:27 a.m., the British battleship HMS Albemarle suffered severe damage during a storm in the Pentland Firth when two large waves struck her in rapid succession. Water rose as high as the bottom of her lower foretop, filling it with water, sweeping her forward deck clear, smashing her forebridge – much of which was found in pieces on her upper deck – wrecking her chart house, shifting the roof of her conning tower, and flooding her forward main gun turret, mess decks, and flats. Five of her crew died, and 17 others suffered serious injuries.[5][6][7]
  • At midnight on 5–6 May 1916 the British polar explorer Ernest Shackleton was at the tiller of the small sailboat James Caird in the Southern Ocean during a storm when he thought he saw the bad weather clearing in the west, astern. He then realized that what he thought was a line of white clouds above a clear dark sky was actually the crest of a single enormous wave that struck and nearly swamped the boat. Shackleton reported that the wave was larger than any he had ever seen before in his 26 years of seafaring.[8][2][9]
  • On 29 August 1916 at about 4:40 p.m., the United States Navy armored cruiser USS Memphis was wrecked in Santo Domingo harbor in the Dominican Republic when struck in rapid succession by three waves of up to 70 feet (21 meters) in height, causing 40 men to be killed and 204 to be injured. The waves also damaged and nearly capsized the U.S. Navy gunboat USS Castine, which also was in the harbor. Once described as a tsunami, the waves have more recently been assessed as exceptionally large, freak wind-driven waves generated by passing hurricanes.[10][11][12]
  • In February 1926 in the North Atlantic a massive wave hit the British passenger liner RMS Olympic, smashing four of the bridge’s nine glass windows and doing some other damage.[13]
  • In 1933 in the North Pacific, the U.S. Navy oiler USS Ramapo (AO-12) encountered a huge wave. The crew triangulated its height at 112 feet (34 m).[14]
  • In 1934 in the North Atlantic an enormous wave smashed over the bridge of the British passenger liner RMS Majestic, injuring the first officer and the White Star Lines final commodore, Edgar J. Trant, who was hospitalised for a month and never sailed again.[13][15]
  • In 1942 while operating as a troopship and carrying 16,082 United States Army troops, the British passenger liner RMS Queen Mary was broadsided during a gale by a 92-foot (28 m) wave 608 nautical miles (700 mi; 1,126 km) from Scotland and nearly capsized. Queen Mary listed briefly about 52 degrees before slowly righting herself.
  • In 1947, the crew of the raft Kon-Tiki reported encountering three gigantic waves in the Pacific Ocean on a calm day. Author Thor Heyerdahl, the leader of the Kon-Tiki voyage, said that they seemed to come out of nowhere.

Second half of the 20th century[edit]

  • On 5 February 1963, the French Navy light cruiser Jeanne d’Arc encountered a rogue wave while serving as the training ship of the French Naval Academy.[16]
  • In 1966, the Italian liner Michelangelo was steaming toward New York City when a giant wave tore a hole in its superstructure, smashed heavy glass 80 feet (24 m) above the waterline, and killed a crewman and two passengers.[14]
  • The Wilstar, a Norwegian tanker, suffered structural damage from a rogue wave in 1974.[14]
  • SS Edmund Fitzgerald was a lake freighter that sank suddenly during a gale storm on 10 November 1975, while on Lake Superior, on the Canada–United States border. The ship went down without a distress signal in Canadian waters about 15 nautical miles (17 mi; 28 km) from the entrance to Whitefish Bay (at 46°59.9′N 85°6.6′W / 46.9983°N 85.1100°W / 46.9983; -85.1100). At the location of the wreck the water is 530 feet (160 m) deep. All 29 members of the crew perished.
  • In October 1977, the tanker MS Stolt Surf ran into a rogue wave on a voyage across the Pacific from Singapore to Portland, and the engineer took photos of a wave higher than the 72-foot (22 m) bridge deck.[17]
  • The six-year-old, 37,134-ton barge carrier MS München was lost at sea in 1978. At 3 a.m. on 12 December 1978 she sent out a garbled mayday message from the mid-Atlantic, but rescuers found only “a few bits of wreckage.” This included an unlaunched lifeboat, stowed 66 feet (20 m) above the water line, which had one of its attachment pins “twisted as though hit by an extreme force.” The Maritime Court concluded that “bad weather had caused an unusual event.” It is thought that a large wave knocked out the ship’s controls (the bridge was sited forward), causing the ship to shift side-on to heavy seas, which eventually overwhelmed it. Although more than one wave was probably involved, this remains the most likely sinking due to a freak wave.[18]

21st century[edit]

  • The Bahamian-registered cruise ships MS Bremen and MS Caledonian Star encountered 30-meter (98 ft) freak waves in the South Atlantic in 2001. Bridge windows on both ships were smashed, and all power and instrumentation lost.
  • Naval Research Laboratory ocean-floor pressure sensors detected a freak wave caused by Hurricane Ivan in the Gulf of Mexico in 2004. The wave was around 27.7 meters (91 ft) high from peak to trough, and around 200 meters (660 ft) long.[26]
  • Norwegian Dawn, (three waves in succession, off the coast of Georgia, 16 April 2005)
    “The sea had actually calmed down when the 21-metre (69 ft) wave seemed to come out of thin air… Our captain, who has 20 years on the job, said he never saw anything like it.”[27]
    “The water exerted enough force to shear off the welds for the aluminum rail supports on the [ninth and tenth level] balconies of two cabins, allowing the teak balcony rails to break loose and crash into the cabin windows. The broken glass filling the drains compounded the water damage by allowing a large amount of water to enter the two cabins and damage the carpets in 61 other cabins. The ship’s operating at reduced speed when the waves hit probably limited the damage.”[28]
  • Aleutian Ballad, (Bering Sea, 2005)
    Footage of a rogue wave appears in an episode of Deadliest Catch from Season 2, Episode 4 “Finish Line” (Original airdate: 28 April 2006). While sailing through rough seas during a night time storm, a “freak wave”, believed to be around 60 feet (18 meters) high, violently hits the fishing vessel’s starboard side. The wave cripples the vessel, causing the boat to tip onto its side at a 30-degree angle. The boat manages to right itself; some of the crew suffer minor injuries. One of the few video recordings of (what might be) a rogue wave.[29]
  • 38 miles off Merritt Island, Bahamas, June 2005 – two participants in a fishing competition, struck by pair of rogue waves which capsized their 34 ft boat. Described in print: “One second everything is going great. The next second we’re upside down in the Atlantic Ocean, 30 miles out … We weren’t going fast, but the speed of the wave – the back wave pushed us into the front one”,[30] and on radio: “The sea had essentially dropped out … It was just like we were just tumbling straight down and picking up speed at a wave that was triple the size of what we were just dealing with”.[31] Rescued by Coast Guard 30 hours later, after an extended search.
  • Norwegian Spirit, (off the coast of Tortola, January 2006)
  • Brittany FerriesMV Pont-Aven was struck by a wave estimated at between 40 feet (12 m) and 50 feet (15 m) in height during a Force 9 gale in the Bay of Biscay on 21 May 2006.
  • On 1 February 2007, Holland America‘s cruise ship MS Prinsendam was hit by two 12-meter (39 ft) tall rogue waves near Cape Horn. There were around 40 injuries, with some requiring hospitalization.[32]
  • 5 February 2008 The ferry Riverdance was struck and disabled by a rogue wave in the Irish Sea on its journey from Northern Ireland to Heysham in Lancashire.[33]
  • 14 April 2008, half a nautical mile off Kleinbaai, near Gansbaai, South Africa – freak wave hit tourists diving to see sharks. The shark diving boat capsized. Three tourists died, two were seriously injured and a number treated for shock. Multiple other shark boats witnessed the wave.[34][35][36][37][38][39]
  • On 3 March 2010, in the Mediterranean Sea off Marseille, France, a 26-foot (8-meter) wave hit the Cypriot liner Louis Majesty, killing two people on board. The height of the wave was reported to be abnormally high with respect to the sea state at the time of the incident.[40]
  • On 4 February 2013, a 19-metre (62-foot) wave was recorded by an automated buoy between Great Britain and Iceland.[citation needed]
  • It has also been suggested that these types of waves may be responsible for the loss of several low-flying aircraft, namely United States Coast Guard helicopters on search and rescue missions.[41]
Please follow and like us:

Rogue wave theorem

Rogue wave theorem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation Jump to search

The rogue wave theorem [1] suggests that a rogue wave in the ocean can be formed whenever:

a) there is a momentaneous surplus of energy perturbed on the momentum or in the kinetic term of a wave train, induced either by a sudden change in the atmosphere leading to strong winds appearing suddenly over large volumes of water.

b) there is a collision of large volumes of water with highly different temperatures and densities.

c) there is a constructive overlap of waves, in opposite directions, in traverse directions or running in the same direction, and the duration of the rogue wave is determined, when occurring in the same direction, by the slight deviations in the momenta of the overlapping waves.

Please follow and like us: