Wave heights
 

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.

There is a way to estimate wave height with fair accuracy. I've done it and
then looked at what I know to be six foot waves a minute or two later and
still been unable to convince my brain that I was not looking at twelve
footers. There are some physical as well as perceptual reasons for this.

For reasons that are more psychological, there is also a tendency to
overestimate heel angles by about the same proportion. This has influenced
accident investigations when observations have been accepted as fact.

If you'd like a good sea story, and to get some idea where I'm coming from,
read "Pride of the Sea" by Tom Waldron. My name pops up frequently through
this story of the loss of the "Pride of Baltimore."

A drier, but in some ways more technically interesting book is, "Tall Ships
Down" by Daniel S. Parrott. I also have a couple lines of page numbers after
my name in the index of this book and was involved in the post mortum of
three of the five accidents discussed.

If you saw the History Channel "Deep Sea Detectives" show about the sinking
of the ship that took Admiral Byrd's aircraft to Antarctica, you also saw me
at the end discussing her loading and stability.

I just mention these things because I'll be pretty active in this news group
now that I'm getting back into sailing and cruising and people may as well
know who I am.

--

Roger Long

Welcome back, Roger. Glad to have you here. Wait around a bit and hoary will
tell you of the 40 foot waves menancing Annapolis.

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.

There is a way to estimate wave height with fair accuracy. I've done it and
then looked at what I know to be six foot waves a minute or two later and
still been unable to convince my brain that I was not looking at twelve
footers. There are some physical as well as perceptual reasons for this.

For reasons that are more psychological, there is also a tendency to
overestimate heel angles by about the same proportion. This has influenced
accident investigations when observations have been accepted as fact.

If you'd like a good sea story, and to get some idea where I'm coming from,
read "Pride of the Sea" by Tom Waldron. My name pops up frequently through
this story of the loss of the "Pride of Baltimore."

A drier, but in some ways more technically interesting book is, "Tall Ships
Down" by Daniel S. Parrott. I also have a couple lines of page numbers after
my name in the index of this book and was involved in the post mortum of
three of the five accidents discussed.

If you saw the History Channel "Deep Sea Detectives" show about the sinking
of the ship that took Admiral Byrd's aircraft to Antarctica, you also saw me
at the end discussing her loading and stability.

I just mention these things because I'll be pretty active in this news group
now that I'm getting back into sailing and cruising and people may as well
know who I am.

--

Roger Long

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.

....

But, if there are a lot of 7-8 waves in a confused pattern, wouldn't
that mean that on occasion there would be a 10 footer from constructive
interference? IIRC, Van Dorn has a chapter in predicting the frequency
of wave heights. If the "significant wave height" is 8 feet, then there
will be some 10-12 footers.

In article , WaIIy To 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).

I grew up on the northwest end of Lake Erie and was out on it frequently in
my younger days.

It wasn't dangerous so much for wave height as short period. I've been on
it in 6 footers that felt like they were on a 2 second period, and did
similar things to the boat. It was NOT fun.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

In article ,
Jeff Morris wrote:


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.

...

But, if there are a lot of 7-8 waves in a confused pattern, wouldn't
that mean that on occasion there would be a 10 footer from constructive
interference? IIRC, Van Dorn has a chapter in predicting the frequency
of wave heights. If the "significant wave height" is 8 feet, then there
will be some 10-12 footers.

Yep.

I did the crossing from Clearwater to Appalachicola in 6-8s a couple of
years ago, and there were definitely some 10s and a couple of 12s in there.

The latter were easily identified - the crests were well above my sight line,
which is roughly 16' off the water.

That crossing sucked.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

jeffies, knock it off. if you don't understand the meaning of the term "wave
height" get your wife to explain it to you. stop argueing with two guys who
clearly do know what the term means.

From: Jeff Morris
Date: 12/19/2004 2:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

...

But, if there are a lot of 7-8 waves in a confused pattern, wouldn't
that mean that on occasion there would be a 10 footer from constructive
interference? IIRC, Van Dorn has a chapter in predicting the frequency
of wave heights. If the "significant wave height" is 8 feet, then there
will be some 10-12 footers.

Thanks for admitting up front you have no understanding what we're
talking about. This saves a lot of time. Now shut up before you
embarrass yourself again.


JAXAshby wrote:
jeffies, knock it off. if you don't understand the meaning of the term "wave
height" get your wife to explain it to you. stop argueing with two guys who
clearly do know what the term means.


From: Jeff Morris
Date: 12/19/2004 2:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

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.


...

But, if there are a lot of 7-8 waves in a confused pattern, wouldn't
that mean that on occasion there would be a 10 footer from constructive
interference? IIRC, Van Dorn has a chapter in predicting the frequency
of wave heights. If the "significant wave height" is 8 feet, then there
will be some 10-12 footers.

jeffies, do check with your wife. tell you what you believe the term means,
and let her help you out. if she is patient, maybe you can come back here
better informed. if she is sick and tired of your antics she may tell you to
sit in the corner for a while.

btw, jeffies, you have already told the two newcomers you don't have a clew
what you are talking about re wave height but that you are more than insistent
that you do. way to go, dog pile. way to go.


From: Jeff Morris
Date: 12/19/2004 3:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

Thanks for admitting up front you have no understanding what we're
talking about. This saves a lot of time. Now shut up before you
embarrass yourself again.


JAXAshby wrote:
jeffies, knock it off. if you don't understand the meaning of the term
"wave
height" get your wife to explain it to you. stop argueing with two guys
who
clearly do know what the term means.


From: Jeff Morris
Date: 12/19/2004 2:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

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.


...

But, if there are a lot of 7-8 waves in a confused pattern, wouldn't
that mean that on occasion there would be a 10 footer from constructive
interference? IIRC, Van Dorn has a chapter in predicting the frequency
of wave heights. If the "significant wave height" is 8 feet, then there
will be some 10-12 footers.

Twelve footers would considered pretty big however, even on the ocean.

ROFL!

What's this fetish you have with my wife you have, jaxie? More of your
jealousy showing? Do we need a restraining order?


JAXAshby wrote:
jeffies, do check with your wife. tell you what you believe the term means,
and let her help you out. if she is patient, maybe you can come back here
better informed. if she is sick and tired of your antics she may tell you to
sit in the corner for a while.

btw, jeffies, you have already told the two newcomers you don't have a clew
what you are talking about re wave height but that you are more than insistent
that you do. way to go, dog pile. way to go.



From: Jeff Morris
Date: 12/19/2004 3:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

Thanks for admitting up front you have no understanding what we're
talking about. This saves a lot of time. Now shut up before you
embarrass yourself again.


JAXAshby wrote:

jeffies, knock it off. if you don't understand the meaning of the term

"wave

height" get your wife to explain it to you. stop argueing with two guys

who

clearly do know what the term means.



From: Jeff Morris
Date: 12/19/2004 2:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

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.


...

But, if there are a lot of 7-8 waves in a confused pattern, wouldn't
that mean that on occasion there would be a 10 footer from constructive
interference? IIRC, Van Dorn has a chapter in predicting the frequency
of wave heights. If the "significant wave height" is 8 feet, then there
will be some 10-12 footers.

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.

From: Jeff Morris
Date: 12/19/2004 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

What's this fetish you have with my wife you have, jaxie? More of your
jealousy showing? Do we need a restraining order?


JAXAshby wrote:
jeffies, do check with your wife. tell you what you believe the term
means,
and let her help you out. if she is patient, maybe you can come back here
better informed. if she is sick and tired of your antics she may tell you
to
sit in the corner for a while.

btw, jeffies, you have already told the two newcomers you don't have a clew
what you are talking about re wave height but that you are more than
insistent
that you do. way to go, dog pile. way to go.



From: Jeff Morris
Date: 12/19/2004 3:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

Thanks for admitting up front you have no understanding what we're
talking about. This saves a lot of time. Now shut up before you
embarrass yourself again.


JAXAshby wrote:

jeffies, knock it off. if you don't understand the meaning of the term

"wave

height" get your wife to explain it to you. stop argueing with two guys

who

clearly do know what the term means.



From: Jeff Morris
Date: 12/19/2004 2:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

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.


...

But, if there are a lot of 7-8 waves in a confused pattern, wouldn't
that mean that on occasion there would be a 10 footer from constructive
interference? IIRC, Van Dorn has a chapter in predicting the frequency
of wave heights. If the "significant wave height" is 8 feet, then there
will be some 10-12 footers.

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.

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.

Years ago, when I used to fly tests for the US Navy, part of the test
report was the sea state. Even though it's not the same as wave height,
sea state is closely related to wave height, wind speed, etc. It's more
a "roughness" measure and is determined from the air by the density of
whitecaps and goes from 0 to 9, but we usually wouldn't conduct tests in
anything higher than 5. It was usually a coordinated test, me in the
air and some surface and/or subsurface assets. The number I came up
with from 200 to 1000 feet up was almost invariably at least one lower
than what the boat came up with bobbing on the surface.

Steve

The method for getting accurate wave height data from a boat is to know the
height above the waterline of some points at different heights. You then
stand on one and stretch or crouch until you find yourself looking across
the tops of the waves when the boat is in the trough. It usually takes a
few waves to get an average but it's quite striking when you get the right
position. You then measure from eye to feet and add it to the height known.
That's the average wave height.

The first time you do this, you'll probably find yourself lying flat on the
deck trying to get the right angle. Like I said, waves always look a lot
higher than they really are.

It's almost impossible to measure the height if individual waves. However,
if you know the average wave height, you can then proportion by eye and get
a reasonable estimate. I still wouldn't trust my own estimates just looking
quickly without going through the above procedure. There are just too many
illusions and too few reference points.

I've often been amused to have even fairly experienced sailors say that the
waves must be eight feet. I usually don't point out that our eyes are
perhaps six feet above the surface and we can still see all the tops when we
are down in the trough.
--

Roger Long



"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
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.

Years ago, when I used to fly tests for the US Navy, part of the test
report was the sea state. Even though it's not the same as wave height,
sea state is closely related to wave height, wind speed, etc. It's more a
"roughness" measure and is determined from the air by the density of
whitecaps and goes from 0 to 9, but we usually wouldn't conduct tests in
anything higher than 5. It was usually a coordinated test, me in the air
and some surface and/or subsurface assets. The number I came up with from
200 to 1000 feet up was almost invariably at least one lower than what the
boat came up with bobbing on the surface.

Steve

Roger Long wrote:

The method for snip


Your question has certainly sparked a bunch of babble, with a few key
ideas...
If you would like one of last years answers, take a look at the site:
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=45005
then select the link labeled "significant wave ht" about 7/8 down the page.
This suggests April and October are the most likely for larger waves,
all under 4 meters in west Lake Erie.

Depending on how much you to explore, you will find other sources with
different answers...
All of which are perhaps rhetorical, your new boat will probably be
uncomfortable well under the max. and you will probably have the good
sense to hide from them until you can be comfortable in the seaway.

I've numerous friends confirm the great lakes are often more difficult
for the shorter period than open ocean.
In your 32, and depending on your crews stomachs, you might find about
1.5meter to be your limit on your trip.
No matter if it is 1 or 5, a green crew is about worthless...most
certainly not having fun.

Hope you fully enjoy the delivery, with your history on the water it
should be a good trip...

Skip

I have seen crew on the boat I have been on report waves as 8 feet high, when
the wave did not come above the boat's freeboard, and crew on other boats in
the same water at the same time report waves of 20 feet. All in water that
won't support 8 foot waves without breaking.

The method for getting accurate wave height data from a boat is to know the
height above the waterline of some points at different heights. You then
stand on one and stretch or crouch until you find yourself looking across
the tops of the waves when the boat is in the trough. It usually takes a
few waves to get an average but it's quite striking when you get the right
position. You then measure from eye to feet and add it to the height known.
That's the average wave height.

The first time you do this, you'll probably find yourself lying flat on the
deck trying to get the right angle. Like I said, waves always look a lot
higher than they really are.

It's almost impossible to measure the height if individual waves. However,
if you know the average wave height, you can then proportion by eye and get
a reasonable estimate. I still wouldn't trust my own estimates just looking
quickly without going through the above procedure. There are just too many
illusions and too few reference points.

I've often been amused to have even fairly experienced sailors say that the
waves must be eight feet. I usually don't point out that our eyes are
perhaps six feet above the surface and we can still see all the tops when we
are down in the trough.
--

Roger Long



"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
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.

Years ago, when I used to fly tests for the US Navy, part of the test
report was the sea state. Even though it's not the same as wave height,
sea state is closely related to wave height, wind speed, etc. It's more a
"roughness" measure and is determined from the air by the density of
whitecaps and goes from 0 to 9, but we usually wouldn't conduct tests in
anything higher than 5. It was usually a coordinated test, me in the air
and some surface and/or subsurface assets. The number I came up with from
200 to 1000 feet up was almost invariably at least one lower than what the
boat came up with bobbing on the surface.

Steve

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 02:56:36 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

The method for getting accurate wave height data from a boat is to know the
height above the waterline of some points at different heights. You then
stand on one and stretch or crouch until you find yourself looking across
the tops of the waves when the boat is in the trough. It usually takes a
few waves to get an average but it's quite striking when you get the right
position. You then measure from eye to feet and add it to the height known.
That's the average wave height.

I'm reassured. That's the approach I take when trying to make
estimates and I'm usually fairly consistent with what the Coast Guard
is broadcasting. I was wondering if you had some other secret trick.

I've often been amused to have even fairly experienced sailors say that the
waves must be eight feet. I usually don't point out that our eyes are
perhaps six feet above the surface and we can still see all the tops when we
are down in the trough.

Losing all the shoreside lights in the troughs can be quite dramatic,
and they are definitely higher off the water than the rest of the wave
crests.

Ryk

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:29:14 GMT, WaIIy
wrote:

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).

Lake Ontario is not dissimilar. Wave heights given on the Canadian
marine weather channels are for mid-lake...the place where the longest
fetch will produce the highest waves.

I have been out in sustained south to west to north 40 knot winds off
Toronto. After a very short time this produced six-seven foot waves
(with a 30 mile fetch up lake) or four-five from the south (23 miles).
By contrast, the strongest winds were from the north (40-45 knots
sustained in an October gale), but the waves were two feet or so due
to the short (1-2 mile) fetch.

Probably the worst (and the rarest) is a north-east to east gale due
to the 200 mile fetch. I went west to east right into the teeth of a
sustained 30 knot September gale and got very choppy six-footers. We
have an aft-cockpit sloop and with a No. 3 and a double reefed main we
were making hull speed close hauled. Lots of falling down waves and
green water on deck, but as it was sunny, it was fun. Took all day
(seven hours, maybe) to get eight NM back to our club due to the long
boards we had to make inshore and then off again. Terrific sailing,
however.

To sum up: it depends where you are in the Great Lakes and where the
wind (obviously mainly westerlies) is coming from. A huge wind with
little fetch can give you a great run down the lakes on beam reaches.

R.

Check out some real waves :)
http://seriesdrogue.com/stormyseas/

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:56:54 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:
Twelve footers would
considered pretty big however, even on the ocean.

==============================================

Roger, if you can believe the NOAA weather buoys, 12 footers on the
open ocean are almost routine anytime the wing is blowing 25+, and
that happens with a great deal of frequency.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:57:23 -0500, "Bruce on horizon"
wrote:

Check out some real waves :)
http://seriesdrogue.com/stormyseas/

There was one tanker shot there I thought she was going straight to
the bottom. My father was in the British Merchant Marine and said the
worst part of a storm was when the wave period was rapid enough to
produce crests shorter than the ship's length. More than once during
the war, large frieghters snapped in half because they spanned two
crests, he's said.

Everything's relative. You wouldn't notice a bad day on Lake Erie at
sea (unless you were on a rapidly shoaling inlet, I suppose).

The thing about Great Lakes waves is their very short period and
irregular presentation, usually called "heavy chop" or "square waves".
If five midgets are rapidly pummeling a heavyweight fighter with
short, sharp blows, he'll feel it and he'll eventually go down. Same
on the Great Lakes, with the caveat that the small-boat crew in a blow
can become physically exhausted by the whipping motion before the boat
fails them in any serious way. You see this at C&C regattas in heavy
air, where people come back from a day's racing with busted arms,
sprains and smacked heads, because the motion can get so violent in
those three-to-five foot "square waves".

The Great Lakes have a pretty good record of taking down big, capable
ships. Learn to sail them in horrible weather on a lightweight boat
and I have heard it said you will be well on the way to mastering
offshore heavy weather.

12 average or 12 max? What I'm talking about here is 12 foot, wind driven
waves, average height so that wave after wave is in the twelve foot range.
This means that the occasional big sea will be 18 to 20 feet. These will be
intimidating conditions to the average coastal sailor. They are not
uncommon overall but not frequently encountered by people who listen to
weather forecasts and have a choice about going out.

The distinction between swell and waves is significant. A 12 foot, long
period swell would hardly hamper a 30 foot boat at all whereas wind driven 8
footers could give it a real beating.

There is much more to it than the measurement from trough to crest which is
what got me asking about Lake Erie in the first place.

--

Roger Long



"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:56:54 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:
Twelve footers would
considered pretty big however, even on the ocean.

==============================================

Roger, if you can believe the NOAA weather buoys, 12 footers on the
open ocean are almost routine anytime the wing is blowing 25+, and
that happens with a great deal of frequency.

Subject: Wave heights
From: "Roger Long"

There is a way to estimate wave height with fair accuracy.

Do you mean knowing your height of eye and using that to measure the wave
height?

Capt. Bill

A National Weather Service table shows probable wave heights of 12 feet
being produced by 27 to 28 knot winds. These heights are for fully
developed seas and it takes several hours for them to build up.

Another common over estimation is wind speed. I was quite surprised when I
started carrying a pocket wind gauge with me while sailing. We tend to
perceive wind force rather than speed; especially when observing the
response of a sailboat. Adding a bit less than half to the wind speed
doubles its pressure. If a breeze feels twice as strong as one we know to
be 15 knots, most people would call it 30 knots whereas it would actually
only be 21.

The formula is Velocity squared x .0041.

--

Roger Long

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
( snip )
There is much more to it than the measurement from trough to crest which
is
what got me asking about Lake Erie in the first place.
Roger Long
Hi Roger.
In my more than 40 years of boating on the Great Lakes there is one thing
that I have learned about boating on Lake Erie. I do not take my 9 meter
power boat out into the waves of Lake Erie if the forecast is for waves of
over one meter. My boat is a Doral and I know that it can take the
pounding, but, I can not!

Jim Carter, Port Captain
"The Boat"
Bayfield

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:31:58 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:
If a breeze feels twice as strong as one we know to
be 15 knots, most people would call it 30 knots whereas it would actually
only be 21.
=============================

Somewhere between 30 and 35 knots the wind begins to rip off the wave
tops and send them through the air like the stream from a fire hose.
I've found it to be an infallible guide to near gale force conditions.
Also, the rigging begins to howl like a banshee in that wind range and
above.

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.

Like my new pal Wally, I've been on, in and over Lake Erie for 50 years.
I worked as a lifeguard at Pt. Pelee National Park for 5 years in the
mid- 70's and we used to see lots of 6ft-8ft days. It was great for
body-surfing but not so hot for sailors. One day we watched a guy in
what looked like a Sirius 15 or 17 trying a beam reach to outrun a
westerly squall. Lee shores can be a bitch. When he finally got pushed
into the breakers, his small boat got pitched over and he got tossed
out. You can imagine the scene when a boat with a 20ft mast is being
turned turtle in 5 ft of water. The next breaker lifted the boat up and
onto the tip of the mast, which snapped under the pressure. As the boat
dropped, the broken section of the mast punched a hole through the hull.
Most impressive! He was wearing a PFD and got pushed safely in the
last 200ft or so to shore, but the boat was beaten to pieces over the
next few hours.
I can only recall one event where the waves may have reached the 12 foot
level and maybe even higher. In the 80's there was a ENE storm that ran
up the length of the lake. When it hit the eastern shore of Pt. Pelee,
it washed away approximately 1 mile of the tip. It also knocked flat a
construction block building situated behind cedars approximately 100
feet back from, and about 6ft higher than the water's edge. It also
ripped out about 1500 ft of asphalt roadway also located well back from
the water's edge. I think 12 footers are once in a lifetime events on
Erie, but I could be wrong.

the wind starts blowing the tops off waves in streaks of foam about 24 knots.

Somewhere between 30 and 35 knots the wind begins to rip off the wave
tops and send them through the air like the stream from a fire hose.
I've found it to be an infallible guide to near gale force conditions.
Also, the rigging begins to howl like a banshee in that wind range and
above.

Those are streaks on the water surface. He's talking about the tops blowing
off and keeping right on going. It really gets your attention the first
time you see it.

--

Roger Long



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
the wind starts blowing the tops off waves in streaks of foam about 24
knots.

Somewhere between 30 and 35 knots the wind begins to rip off the wave
tops and send them through the air like the stream from a fire hose.
I've found it to be an infallible guide to near gale force conditions.
Also, the rigging begins to howl like a banshee in that wind range and
above.

what ever would you expect from bunch of canucks. the tops of waves are blown
off in streaks of foam starting about 24 knots. That that 35 knots or 85
knots, or whatever makes you think that little chickie is going to be so
impressed when you tell her about your seagoing adventure that she is going to
strip off her clothes and drop back to the floor, her legs in the air and open.

From: Jack Dale
Date: 12/21/2004 7:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

On 22 Dec 2004 00:15:39 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

the wind starts blowing the tops off waves in streaks of foam about 24
knots.

Somewhere between 30 and 35 knots the wind begins to rip off the wave
tops and send them through the air like the stream from a fire hose.
I've found it to be an infallible guide to near gale force conditions.
Also, the rigging begins to howl like a banshee in that wind range and
above.


Here is a site with wind speeds and wave heights:

http://lavoieverte.qc.ec.gc.ca/meteo...eaufort_e.html

On a delivery from Honolulu to Vancouver Island, after we picked up
the westerlies, we were broad reaching in 25 - 30 knots with gusts to
35. Our estimate of wave height (trough to crest) was 12-15 feet.

Jack

_________________________________________________ _
Jack Dale
Swiftsure Sailing Academy
Director/ISPA and CYA Instructor
http://www.swiftsuresailing.com
_________________________________________________ _

Roger, you said it yourself right from the start. most people (and even more
so on this ng) over report wave height by a factor of 2x to 3x and wind
strength by almost as much.

I have seen people reefed when no whites are anywhere, and tell tales later of
25 knots gusting to 35.

Those are streaks on the water surface. He's talking about the tops blowing
off and keeping right on going. It really gets your attention the first
time you see it.

--

Roger Long



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
the wind starts blowing the tops off waves in streaks of foam about 24
knots.

Somewhere between 30 and 35 knots the wind begins to rip off the wave
tops and send them through the air like the stream from a fire hose.
I've found it to be an infallible guide to near gale force conditions.
Also, the rigging begins to howl like a banshee in that wind range and
above.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 01:30:40 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

Those are streaks on the water surface. He's talking about the tops blowing
off and keeping right on going. It really gets your attention the first
time you see it.

==================

Oh yes. It also gets your attention when it hits you or flys
horizontally through your companionway.