Sunday, September 07, 2014

Hey I don't believe the definition!

Hey I have a problem! 

I am becoming a heretic in the freaque wave studies because I don’t believe the famous, overwhelmingly accepted definition on freaque waves -- I don’t believe a wave height barely greater than twice the significant wave height is necessarily a freaque wave! Everyone uses this criteria simply because of it's simplicity, easily accessible, everyone can understand -- but it is not very meaningful.

But what is it?

We don’t really know what a freaque wave is! How can we effectively define something we don’t even know?

According to Longuet-hioggins’s 1952 analysis, based on the surface fluctuation being assumed to follow Gaussian mdistribution, wave heights are expected to follow Rayleigh distribution, then a maximumwave height in the record is about twice the significant wave height. So anything greater than the maximum wave height must be considered a freaque. Make sense?

But, but, what is a freaque wave?

First and foremost, a freaque wave does not jump out of Rayleigh distribution. No apology to Lord Rayleigh. Lord Rayleigh has never heard of freaque wave.  Neither has Carl Friedrich Gauss, for that matter. Now we are expected to frame our mind on ocean waves be put under the confine of Rayleigh and Gauss had formulated – so that we can conveniently manipulate the numbers we measured.

When we can not handle the unruly numbers we called them random. And when the number does not follow the rim the smart ones prescribed we call it freaque!

A freaque wave is most certainly greater than twice the significant wave height, but a wave height greater than twice the significant wave height is not necessarily a freaque wave!

So we can not, at the present, successfully define a freaque wave, but people know it happens only when they unfortunately encounter one!

Now mind you, the essense of a freaque wave is not, NOT, its size.  The main characteristics of a freaque wave  that can cause damage and disasters is because it happened unexpectedly, unexpectedly!

Yes, a freaque wave that’s dangerous is not because of its size, it is more because of the fact of it’s unexpectedness! (Yes, not all of of them were out of the blue. Some may even roaring over but still give us no time to prepare, that's also part of the unexpectedness!)

Now how do we define, or quantify, the unexpectedness of the occurrence?  

Well, if you can answer this question you'll have the whole basis of studying ocean freaque waves solved!  Nonlinear dynamic physicists, eat your heart out!.HGH

So far, we don't have an answer, no one ever even try! As a matter of fact, no one ever even ask!

So it happens, freaque wave is unexpected, so what?

Everyone knows significant wave height is the average of the highest one-third waves, that's easy to calculate for a single point gage measured time series data. But what does it have anything to do with the real open ocean out there?

I ask experts what is the significant wave height in the real ocean, not a single point, no one has the answer!

The academic oceanographic world is basically regimented by the single point wave measurements, the whole ocean waves field of study is distilled into a single point that's where all of our knowledge stemmed from! We defined a freaque wave at a single point and the whole ocean is supposed to follow from there!

Make sense or not that's the base of our knowledge basis on ocean waves.

That's my difficulty lies, I can not believe or accept what that implies.

The freaque waves are out there in the real ocean world, happening, but we don't know where, when, how, and why. We are still stuck at looking for 2 time significant wave height. If something higher, wow, that's freaque wave!

In my humble opinion, we know nothing about freaque waves, we can not define waht a freaque wave is. Greater than twice the significant wave height doesn't cut it. We don't even know what is a significant beyond a single point.  Ocean is certainly by no means a single point!

We need improved understanding on freaque waves we need new definition!!!

No comments: