The last great storm on the lakes

[Norskellunge]

Any idea where these three prints can be purchased?

[Les Weston]

Here's the third:

Thanks for the photo. I have no idea why I only saved two of them when I found them on the web

My Dad had these photos in his Cleveland office.

[Jared]

Now imagine a solid wave near the height of the forward mast about 10 or so feet above the pilothouse and then I could see what a monster freshwater rogue would look like.

[TWilush]

Here's the third:

[Les Weston]

The attached are a couple of famous pictures of the William H. Truesdale in a storm. These keep showing up at odd times.

There are three of them, but I only have two.

[BigB]

I talked to Capt. Jimmie Hobaugh back in 1988 and he related to me how the waves were from the west-northwest the night the Fitz went down and that they would get reflected off the Canadian shoreline come back into the lake interfering with the waves from the west-northwest.
Marine meteorologist's when forecasting wave heights for a given fetch and wind speed use a "wave nomogram" http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/ ... wksht.html
So, using a given wind speed and fetch length, waves generally won't get any higher. But, and it's a big but waves can become higher given an unstable atmosphere, something that happens on the Great Lakes in the fall. This is a meteorological phenomena called "Momentum Transfer" where in an unstable atmosphere (where air above the marine boundary layer is colder then the lake.) This allows stronger winds above the marine boundary layer to mix down to the surface causing waves to become higher than would be expected.
Others have talked talked about rogue waves and their possible occurrence on the Great Lakes. That is a possibility, but we don't have direct observations as such. The time of year when you have the strongest storms is traditionally in November, but the buoys that provide measurement of such a possible phenomena such as rogue waves are removed for the winter.
Other areas of the world are known for occurrences of rogue waves, such as the Agulhas Current, in the Mozambique channel off eastern South Africa. There, a powerful, warm current flowing southward often times meets a storm system moving north can cause wave lengths to shorten and allowing waves to become steeper.
Paul Liu of the GLERL (Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory) has written a number of scientific papers on waves an rogue waves that people will find interesting..
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/about/pers/pr ... llpub.html

[Guest]

It seems that it would be very difficult to visually estimate wave height under any conditions.

[mhillm]

The BBC show called "Freak Waves" is on the internet, and will give you the mathematic equations dumbed down for us simple folk to understand.

A link to this program is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUn8WQ4Y1bM

[Jared]

The math behind rogue waves is in its infancy. There are multiple theories after another on how to use it. The easiest and most controversal way is to use quantum physics. The second way is to use the wave linear pattern and try and see results through those equations. The third way is to use enviromental circumstances to justify the existence of these waves. The fourth has seen some support in which the linear pattern of the wave becomes unstable and a singular or pair of waves start sucking the energy from the waves around them creating these monsters for only a certain period of time. The fourth reason uses both the Linear Pattern and quantum physics to justify itself. One problem I have with large freshwater rogues is how do they retain their shape? An ocean wave is a roller and can make itself into a large entity which collapses on itself in a very short period of time, while a large freshwater wave is already at breaking point and I have a hard time understanding how a monster of 70-90ft can retain any resemblance to wave for a period of time. After all is said and done, no small waves can bring down a steel freighter, it takes quite a bit of firepower to do so. The BBC show called "Freak Waves" is on the internet, and will give you the mathematic equations dumbed down for us simple folk to understand.

[Jon Paul]

I have posted before in the News Photo Gallery the copy of the weather report we kept on the Charles M. White of the Late January(26-28) 1978 storm on Lake Michigan. We were a weather reporting ship as many others were. There were gale force winds for more than 36 hours, storm force for most of 1 day and at the height of the storm we recorded sustained winds over 80 mph for several hours.
The only 3 ships I'm aware of that were on Lake Michigan were the White, the Sykes and the tanker Saturn. The Saturn reported 20 ft waves but made port shortly after that earlier in the storm. The Sykes said they were in 20-25 ft waves but they arrived in Escanaba before the height of the storm. We were in 20-30 ft waves headed north bound for Escanaba but it was really hard to determine wave heights as it was a blizzard that cut visibilty to practically zero. It was a storm that dumped several feet of snow over the Great Lakes region. Statistically and in size and scope it was a much bigger storm than the Fitz, Morrell or Bradley storms. It would easily rival the Armistice Day Storm of 1940 on the same lake. The fact that it occurred during late January when few ships were running prevented further first hand accounts of conditions on the open lake.

[Guest]

Lots of contradictory opinions and thoughts on how high waves can get. Anyone have a scientific study showing what is possible or can explain the math?

[hayhugh2]

"." The physical size and depth of the great lakes prevents waves of that size from existing. "" As with most theories, that one is based on the assumption of things being one way - wind from one direction at a certain velocity for a given time span. When gusting winds shift and you get a confused sea, no one can predict the outcome.

[Jared]

This topic has been covered before. In short, there are parts of the lakes which are plenty deep enough and wide enough to bring these monsters into being. The physics behind the waves are still a science and the causes are still under investigation. I saw a great program called freak waves on the tv. It talked about the MS Munchen in the Atlantic 3 years after the Fitz went down. In a way she is the Fitz of the Atlantic. The show describes theories that have been put forth.

[Denny]

In one of my Fitzgerald DVD videos, they interviewed Thom Holden from Duluth and he talked about Rogue Waves during the storm that sank the Fitzgerald in 1975. It is also possible that Cooper at one point may have indicated or stated once that he thought that there were Rogue Waves out on Lake Superior the night that the Fitz sank. It has also been said as I mentioned earlier that there were two 35 foot waves that hit the Anderson a half hour before the Fitz sank. This has been mentioned a few times in DVD and videos about the "three sisters theory." The three sisters meaning that there are large rogue waves that come in sets of three as it is reported and said on some of my DVD and videos about the Fitz.

[hausen]

Extremely rare is one way to put it. Another way would be, "If you believe that, I have great ocean front property to sell you in Colorado." The physical size and depth of the great lakes prevents waves of that size from existing. 35 is pushing the max possible on either Superior or Michigan. Smaller on the other lakes. Its just physics.

What about the newly-understood physics of rogue waves? I thought the fetch and depth limitations had to do with linear calculations of significant wave height, but not the theoretical maximum wave height for the brief and temporary existence of a rogue wave.

[Guest]

The waves in the Morrell and Bradley sinkings where between 18-25ft according to the Coast Guard reports. Like mentioned before the "official" recording was 40ft by the Blough, unofficially rogues have been said to reach between 70-90ft, although Extremely rare. The Coast Guard said the Fitz storm was in excess of 25ft if I recall.

Extremely rare is one way to put it. Another way would be, "If you believe that, I have great ocean front property to sell you in Colorado." The physical size and depth of the great lakes prevents waves of that size from existing. 35 is pushing the max possible on either Superior or Michigan. Smaller on the other lakes. Its just physics.

[Jared]

The waves in the Morrell and Bradley sinkings where between 18-25ft according to the Coast Guard reports. Like mentioned before the "official" recording was 40ft by the Blough, unofficially rogues have been said to reach between 70-90ft, although Extremely rare. The Coast Guard said the Fitz storm was in excess of 25ft if I recall.

[Denny]

Thank you all for the great and wonderful replies and response to my questions. Lots of great and interesting information on past storms and wave heights. I just wonder regarding the Blough recording a wave height of 43 feet though in the 1990's if they had waves that high during the Fitzgerald storm of 1975? About a half hour before the Fitz sank the Anderson has said and told in videos and DVD's was hit and rocked by two 35 foot towers of water or waves that smashed through the lifeboat dodger. So at least they had waves as high 35 feet or higher on that night that the Fitz sank. I don't know about the wave heights in any of the other storms like the Morrell and Bradley but, I am sure they had to have waves at least 35-45 feet in height. Mr. Dennis Hale and also Mr. Frank Mays both of which would probably know for sure.

[riverbear]

A weather station at the Blue Water Bridge recorded a wind gust of 75 mph early Tuesday morning. The nearby Holiday Inn in Point Edward, ON. sustained major water damage to at least 50 rooms when a portion of the roof was torn loose at roughly the same time.

[Guest]

The largest wave I know of was recorded by the Roger Blough, back in the late 90s. 43 feet I think it was.

This storm has been bad, but have seen worse. Gusts to 60 here near port inland