|
JGS wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:29:14 GMT, WaIIy wrote: On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:56:54 GMT, "Roger Long" wrote: I've been kind of interested in some of the posts about Lake Erie conditions to see references to 12 foot waves. I know the waves are shorter and steeper there due to the lighter water and shallow depths. Twelve footers would considered pretty big however, even on the ocean. I've been pretty involved in past years with marine safety and accident investigation projects and this gave me a chance to look into wave height reports. There is a pretty consistent tendency for even experienced seaman to over estimate wave heights by about 100 percent. I lived on Lake Erie (near Cleveland) for 6 years and near the lake for 50 years and have never see or reliably heard of 12 footers. The highest I have been in are 7- 8 footers and wouldn't like to do that again. Lake Erie is notorious due to the closeness of the waves. Everything is a chop 1ft-2ft-6ft chop. Of course, when it is rolling or fairly flat, it's wonderful (if quite brown). See: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=45005 Look at the data significant wave height: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/images/climplot/45005_wh.jpg Looks like it came close to a 12 footer at least on one occasion. Perhaps in the Central Basin it may have reached 12'. But you're right, a 12 footer seems quite rare if it ever did quite make it. If you look at the text data you'll see that that the "significant wave height" only reached 4 meters (13 feet) once in a 20 year period. However, it did get over 3 meters several times a year, and over 2 meters numerous times. Of course, the worst weather is in the Spring and Fall (and the the buoy is pulled in the Winter) so the Summer sailor will not likely see these conditions. "Significant wave height" is the average of the higher third of all waves, measured over the course of an hour. If that is 3 meters, then the average of the highest tenth of all waves would be about 4 meters. Thus, many individual 12 foot waves have happened, though usually no one was there to witness them. Anyone who goes out when the wave height is 6 feet (as it was the last time I was on Lake Ontario) will likely see some 8 footers and maybe, if they're out all day, a few 10 footers. BTW, in a hurricane significant wave height will get much larger - 10 meters would easily be possible. |
JAXAshby wrote:
jeffies, you sure are a slow thinker. your wife, yo-yo, balances your checkbook for you. she must, for you are not capable of doing so. Balance a checkbook? What's that? |
ask your wife, dood. she'll tell you once again, unless she is growing weary
from repeating always repeating what she told you last week. jeffies, you sure are a slow thinker. your wife, yo-yo, balances your checkbook for you. she must, for you are not capable of doing so. Balance a checkbook? What's that? |
JGS wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:43:05 -0500, Jeff Morris wrote: Snipped See: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=45005 Look at the data significant wave height: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/images/climplot/45005_wh.jpg Looks like it came close to a 12 footer at least on one occasion. Perhaps in the Central Basin it may have reached 12'. But you're right, a 12 footer seems quite rare if it ever did quite make it. If you look at the text data you'll see that that the "significant wave height" only reached 4 meters (13 feet) once in a 20 year period. However, it did get over 3 meters several times a year, and over 2 meters numerous times. Of course, the worst weather is in the Spring and Fall (and the the buoy is pulled in the Winter) so the Summer sailor will not likely see these conditions. "Significant wave height" is the average of the higher third of all waves, measured over the course of an hour. If that is 3 meters, then the average of the highest tenth of all waves would be about 4 meters. Thus, many individual 12 foot waves have happened, though usually no one was there to witness them. Anyone who goes out when the wave height is 6 feet (as it was the last time I was on Lake Ontario) will likely see some 8 footers and maybe, if they're out all day, a few 10 footers. BTW, in a hurricane significant wave height will get much larger - 10 meters would easily be possible. Jeff Thanks for that clarification. The significant wave height data did not have a clear legend for interpretation. (I didn't poke through the site too much) I appreciate your time to explain it. Wally is right though, the chop sure can get rough and my dear wife doesn't like it then. Guess I am, and will always be, a "fair weather" boater. I noticed elsewhere on the site that they used 20 minutes as the sampling period, not one hour. The concept of "the average of the higher third" is a little hard to understand. I find it interesting that it sort of corresponds with the old adage "the highest wave is the seventh." |
jeffies, once again you show one and all you are not to be left alone without
adult supervision. from the noaa site comes this quote: "The term parametric refers to the prediction of parameters that describes a single representative wave. " ask your wife, jeffies, just what the words "single" and "representative" mean. here is the complete site: http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/csdl/op/cbwavesd.htm kriste, jeffies, it took less than 30 seconds on google to find a specific quote that once again you are wrong. what a fumb duck. From: Jeff Morris Date: 12/19/2004 5:43 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: JGS wrote: On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:29:14 GMT, WaIIy wrote: On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:56:54 GMT, "Roger Long" wrote: I've been kind of interested in some of the posts about Lake Erie conditions to see references to 12 foot waves. I know the waves are shorter and steeper there due to the lighter water and shallow depths. Twelve footers would considered pretty big however, even on the ocean. I've been pretty involved in past years with marine safety and accident investigation projects and this gave me a chance to look into wave height reports. There is a pretty consistent tendency for even experienced seaman to over estimate wave heights by about 100 percent. I lived on Lake Erie (near Cleveland) for 6 years and near the lake for 50 years and have never see or reliably heard of 12 footers. The highest I have been in are 7- 8 footers and wouldn't like to do that again. Lake Erie is notorious due to the closeness of the waves. Everything is a chop 1ft-2ft-6ft chop. Of course, when it is rolling or fairly flat, it's wonderful (if quite brown). See: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=45005 Look at the data significant wave height: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/images/climplot/45005_wh.jpg Looks like it came close to a 12 footer at least on one occasion. Perhaps in the Central Basin it may have reached 12'. But you're right, a 12 footer seems quite rare if it ever did quite make it. If you look at the text data you'll see that that the "significant wave height" only reached 4 meters (13 feet) once in a 20 year period. However, it did get over 3 meters several times a year, and over 2 meters numerous times. Of course, the worst weather is in the Spring and Fall (and the the buoy is pulled in the Winter) so the Summer sailor will not likely see these conditions. "Significant wave height" is the average of the higher third of all waves, measured over the course of an hour. If that is 3 meters, then the average of the highest tenth of all waves would be about 4 meters. Thus, many individual 12 foot waves have happened, though usually no one was there to witness them. Anyone who goes out when the wave height is 6 feet (as it was the last time I was on Lake Ontario) will likely see some 8 footers and maybe, if they're out all day, a few 10 footers. BTW, in a hurricane significant wave height will get much larger - 10 meters would easily be possible. |
Do you have any idea what that means, jaxie? No? We didn't think so.
It has very little to do with the issue at hand. You continue to embarrass yourself. Here's the link that defines the terms used in the buoy data. http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/measdes.shtml Where it explains "Significant wave height (meters) is calculated as the average of the highest one-third of all of the wave heights during the 20-minute sampling period." It turns out that individual wave data is not sent from the buoys, it is transformed by FFT into frequency data before being transmitted. (Sorry about the FFT reference, jaxie. Don't let it bother you, you wouldn't understand it.) JAXAshby wrote: jeffies, once again you show one and all you are not to be left alone without adult supervision. from the noaa site comes this quote: "The term parametric refers to the prediction of parameters that describes a single representative wave. " ask your wife, jeffies, just what the words "single" and "representative" mean. here is the complete site: http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/csdl/op/cbwavesd.htm kriste, jeffies, it took less than 30 seconds on google to find a specific quote that once again you are wrong. what a fumb duck. From: Jeff Morris Date: 12/19/2004 5:43 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: JGS wrote: On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:29:14 GMT, WaIIy wrote: On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:56:54 GMT, "Roger Long" wrote: I've been kind of interested in some of the posts about Lake Erie conditions to see references to 12 foot waves. I know the waves are shorter and steeper there due to the lighter water and shallow depths. Twelve footers would considered pretty big however, even on the ocean. I've been pretty involved in past years with marine safety and accident investigation projects and this gave me a chance to look into wave height reports. There is a pretty consistent tendency for even experienced seaman to over estimate wave heights by about 100 percent. I lived on Lake Erie (near Cleveland) for 6 years and near the lake for 50 years and have never see or reliably heard of 12 footers. The highest I have been in are 7- 8 footers and wouldn't like to do that again. Lake Erie is notorious due to the closeness of the waves. Everything is a chop 1ft-2ft-6ft chop. Of course, when it is rolling or fairly flat, it's wonderful (if quite brown). See: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=45005 Look at the data significant wave height: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/images/climplot/45005_wh.jpg Looks like it came close to a 12 footer at least on one occasion. Perhaps in the Central Basin it may have reached 12'. But you're right, a 12 footer seems quite rare if it ever did quite make it. If you look at the text data you'll see that that the "significant wave height" only reached 4 meters (13 feet) once in a 20 year period. However, it did get over 3 meters several times a year, and over 2 meters numerous times. Of course, the worst weather is in the Spring and Fall (and the the buoy is pulled in the Winter) so the Summer sailor will not likely see these conditions. "Significant wave height" is the average of the higher third of all waves, measured over the course of an hour. If that is 3 meters, then the average of the highest tenth of all waves would be about 4 meters. Thus, many individual 12 foot waves have happened, though usually no one was there to witness them. Anyone who goes out when the wave height is 6 feet (as it was the last time I was on Lake Ontario) will likely see some 8 footers and maybe, if they're out all day, a few 10 footers. BTW, in a hurricane significant wave height will get much larger - 10 meters would easily be possible. |
jeffies, that is the problem when you google trying to prove you are not dumber
than a shoe box. you read the terms but miss the exact meaning of the words. English, at least English as used by people who graduated high school, is a foreign language to you. jeffies, ever watch a foreign immigrant trying to catch a taxi cab across town? you are even more off base. From: Jeff Morris Date: 12/19/2004 7:04 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: Do you have any idea what that means, jaxie? No? We didn't think so. It has very little to do with the issue at hand. You continue to embarrass yourself. Here's the link that defines the terms used in the buoy data. http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/measdes.shtml Where it explains "Significant wave height (meters) is calculated as the average of the highest one-third of all of the wave heights during the 20-minute sampling period." It turns out that individual wave data is not sent from the buoys, it is transformed by FFT into frequency data before being transmitted. (Sorry about the FFT reference, jaxie. Don't let it bother you, you wouldn't understand it.) JAXAshby wrote: jeffies, once again you show one and all you are not to be left alone without adult supervision. from the noaa site comes this quote: "The term parametric refers to the prediction of parameters that describes a single representative wave. " ask your wife, jeffies, just what the words "single" and "representative" mean. here is the complete site: http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/csdl/op/cbwavesd.htm kriste, jeffies, it took less than 30 seconds on google to find a specific quote that once again you are wrong. what a fumb duck. From: Jeff Morris Date: 12/19/2004 5:43 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: JGS wrote: On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:29:14 GMT, WaIIy wrote: On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:56:54 GMT, "Roger Long" wrote: I've been kind of interested in some of the posts about Lake Erie conditions to see references to 12 foot waves. I know the waves are shorter and steeper there due to the lighter water and shallow depths. Twelve footers would considered pretty big however, even on the ocean. I've been pretty involved in past years with marine safety and accident investigation projects and this gave me a chance to look into wave height reports. There is a pretty consistent tendency for even experienced seaman to over estimate wave heights by about 100 percent. I lived on Lake Erie (near Cleveland) for 6 years and near the lake for 50 years and have never see or reliably heard of 12 footers. The highest I have been in are 7- 8 footers and wouldn't like to do that again. Lake Erie is notorious due to the closeness of the waves. Everything is a chop 1ft-2ft-6ft chop. Of course, when it is rolling or fairly flat, it's wonderful (if quite brown). See: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=45005 Look at the data significant wave height: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/images/climplot/45005_wh.jpg Looks like it came close to a 12 footer at least on one occasion. Perhaps in the Central Basin it may have reached 12'. But you're right, a 12 footer seems quite rare if it ever did quite make it. If you look at the text data you'll see that that the "significant wave height" only reached 4 meters (13 feet) once in a 20 year period. However, it did get over 3 meters several times a year, and over 2 meters numerous times. Of course, the worst weather is in the Spring and Fall (and the the buoy is pulled in the Winter) so the Summer sailor will not likely see these conditions. "Significant wave height" is the average of the higher third of all waves, measured over the course of an hour. If that is 3 meters, then the average of the highest tenth of all waves would be about 4 meters. Thus, many individual 12 foot waves have happened, though usually no one was there to witness them. Anyone who goes out when the wave height is 6 feet (as it was the last time I was on Lake Ontario) will likely see some 8 footers and maybe, if they're out all day, a few 10 footers. BTW, in a hurricane significant wave height will get much larger - 10 meters would easily be possible. |
OK, jaxie, please, explain. You've implied several times that I'm
wrong, but you haven't even hinted at why. All you've done is provide a meaningless link. Do you have anything meaningful to contribute? No? We didn't think so. JAXAshby wrote: jeffies, that is the problem when you google trying to prove you are not dumber than a shoe box. you read the terms but miss the exact meaning of the words. English, at least English as used by people who graduated high school, is a foreign language to you. jeffies, ever watch a foreign immigrant trying to catch a taxi cab across town? you are even more off base. From: Jeff Morris Date: 12/19/2004 7:04 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: Do you have any idea what that means, jaxie? No? We didn't think so. It has very little to do with the issue at hand. You continue to embarrass yourself. Here's the link that defines the terms used in the buoy data. http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/measdes.shtml Where it explains "Significant wave height (meters) is calculated as the average of the highest one-third of all of the wave heights during the 20-minute sampling period." It turns out that individual wave data is not sent from the buoys, it is transformed by FFT into frequency data before being transmitted. (Sorry about the FFT reference, jaxie. Don't let it bother you, you wouldn't understand it.) JAXAshby wrote: jeffies, once again you show one and all you are not to be left alone without adult supervision. from the noaa site comes this quote: "The term parametric refers to the prediction of parameters that describes a single representative wave. " ask your wife, jeffies, just what the words "single" and "representative" mean. here is the complete site: http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/csdl/op/cbwavesd.htm kriste, jeffies, it took less than 30 seconds on google to find a specific quote that once again you are wrong. what a fumb duck. From: Jeff Morris Date: 12/19/2004 5:43 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: JGS wrote: On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:29:14 GMT, WaIIy wrote: On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:56:54 GMT, "Roger Long" wrote: I've been kind of interested in some of the posts about Lake Erie conditions to see references to 12 foot waves. I know the waves are shorter and steeper there due to the lighter water and shallow depths. Twelve footers would considered pretty big however, even on the ocean. I've been pretty involved in past years with marine safety and accident investigation projects and this gave me a chance to look into wave height reports. There is a pretty consistent tendency for even experienced seaman to over estimate wave heights by about 100 percent. I lived on Lake Erie (near Cleveland) for 6 years and near the lake for 50 years and have never see or reliably heard of 12 footers. The highest I have been in are 7- 8 footers and wouldn't like to do that again. Lake Erie is notorious due to the closeness of the waves. Everything is a chop 1ft-2ft-6ft chop. Of course, when it is rolling or fairly flat, it's wonderful (if quite brown). See: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=45005 Look at the data significant wave height: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/images/climplot/45005_wh.jpg Looks like it came close to a 12 footer at least on one occasion. Perhaps in the Central Basin it may have reached 12'. But you're right, a 12 footer seems quite rare if it ever did quite make it. If you look at the text data you'll see that that the "significant wave height" only reached 4 meters (13 feet) once in a 20 year period. However, it did get over 3 meters several times a year, and over 2 meters numerous times. Of course, the worst weather is in the Spring and Fall (and the the buoy is pulled in the Winter) so the Summer sailor will not likely see these conditions. "Significant wave height" is the average of the higher third of all waves, measured over the course of an hour. If that is 3 meters, then the average of the highest tenth of all waves would be about 4 meters. Thus, many individual 12 foot waves have happened, though usually no one was there to witness them. Anyone who goes out when the wave height is 6 feet (as it was the last time I was on Lake Ontario) will likely see some 8 footers and maybe, if they're out all day, a few 10 footers. BTW, in a hurricane significant wave height will get much larger - 10 meters would easily be possible. |
JAXAshby wrote:
I am a SOCIOPATH and come here to prove it. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com