Colossal 35 metre waves detected in the Pacific spark fierce debate as some see evidence of climate collapse and others dismiss media hysteria

The first warning didn’t come from a scientist, but from a sailor.
Somewhere between Hawaii and Alaska, in the early hours of a grey morning, a cargo ship reported a wall of water that blotted out the horizon, then slammed into its bow like a moving cliff. Instruments later confirmed the height: close to 35 metres, higher than an 11‑storey building, roaring out of an already angry Pacific.

Within days, more buoys across the North Pacific told a similar story.
Not just one freak giant, but a cluster of extreme waves, recorded by machines that don’t scare easily.

Screenshots of the buoy data hit X, TikTok and Telegram.
Some saw the graphs and whispered “climate collapse.”
Others rolled their eyes and muttered: media hysteria, again.
Somewhere between those two camps, the ocean kept moving, indifferent.
And that’s where the real story begins.

Also read

Legendary rock band calls it quits after 50 years the hit everyone knows was never really that good

When the Pacific suddenly feels taller than usual

Ask anyone who spends their life at sea and they’ll tell you the Pacific has a mood.
This winter, that mood shifted. Commercial crews in the North Pacific shipping lanes began radioing in stories that sounded almost exaggerated: waves so big they swallowed deck lights, swells that stacked on top of each other instead of rolling in neat, predictable lines.

On satellite maps, the storm systems didn’t look especially biblical.
Yet the wave buoys out in the open water quietly logged numbers that made veteran oceanographers sit up a little straighter in their chairs.
Thirty metres. Then 31.5. Then that peak close to 35.
Spikes in red on charts that usually look like the gentle hum of a sleeping heart.

One data set, from a buoy west of Vancouver Island, went viral after a weather blogger circled the sharp peak in angry red and wrote, simply: “This is insane.”
Within hours, climate activists were reposting the graph alongside photos of flooded subways and burning forests, stitching together a visual collage of catastrophe.

Newsrooms followed, hungry for a headline that would punch through the doomscroll.
“Colossal 35m waves recorded in Pacific,” screamed one tabloid banner, just above a photo of a surfer dwarfed by a CGI monster wave that wasn’t even from the same ocean.
Oceanographers sighed. That wave, at least, wasn’t real.
The data was.

So what actually happened out there?
Scientists point to a messy cocktail: a strong El Niño pattern warming parts of the Pacific, brutal winter storms stacking energy across wide fetches, and long‑period swells aligning in just the wrong way for ships, and the perfect way to build a rogue giant.

A 35‑metre wave is still rare. It requires timing, geometry and bad luck.
But the envelope of what’s “normal” is slowly shifting as warmer oceans feed more energy into the atmosphere.
The climate system is like a casino subtly changing the odds.
You still get the same games, the same roulette wheel, the same storm tracks.
You just roll extreme numbers more often than before.

Between collapse and clickbait: how to read a monster wave

There’s a quiet method behind the flashing headlines and viral clips.
When a buoy records something extraordinary, researchers don’t just tweet the graph and go home.
They cross‑check with nearby stations, compare with satellite altimeters, and dig into wind data and storm tracks.

If three independent systems all whisper the same thing — “this wave was colossal” — the odds of a sensor glitch drop fast.
That’s roughly what happened in the North Pacific this season: multiple buoys, a handful of ship reports, and satellite snapshots steering the story away from pure myth.
The trick, for the rest of us, is learning to separate those hard checks from the heat of the online reaction.

We’ve all been there, that moment when you see a jaw‑dropping clip on your phone and instantly feel a knot in your stomach.
This time, millions watched videos of towering grey walls of water and assumed they were looking at the exact 35‑metre wave making headlines. Many of those clips were from older storms, different oceans, or even marketing edits from surf brands.

The emotional reaction was very real.
The source material was often… flexible.
Let’s be honest: nobody really reverse‑image‑searches every dramatic wave video they see while waiting for the bus.
That gap between what’s real and what’s shareable is where “climate collapse” and “media hysteria” both start breeding.

Also read

Bird experts expose the winter fruit trick that turns robins into garden addicts

Scientists tend to move slower than social media.
By the time careful analyses landed — explaining that **extreme waves are expected in a warming world, but one event does not prove collapse** — the narrative had already polarized.

Climate doom accounts latched onto the word “colossal” as proof we’d entered a terminal phase.
Skeptics pointed to the same word as evidence the press had lost its mind.

“Rising wave extremes are a serious signal,” says physical oceanographer Maya Torres, “but not every huge wave is an apocalypse. The danger is when we only listen to the stories that match our fears — or our comfort.”

• Check the source of the wave image or clip before sharing.
• Look for at least one link to real instrument data (buoys, satellites, or research centers).
• Notice the verbs: “may”, “could”, “suggests” usually mean early analysis, not certainty.
• Keep an eye out for context on El Niño, storm systems, or regional trends.
• Remember that **one extreme event sits on top of long‑term patterns** — both matter.

Living with a taller ocean, without shutting down or tuning out

The Pacific has always produced monsters.
Sailors’ logs from the 19th century described “walls of water that erased the sky.”
What’s changing now isn’t that such giants exist, but how often the dice come up extreme — and how many people, ships and coastal cities are exposed when they do.

For coastal communities, ports, and shipping companies, these 35‑metre readings are not abstract climate warnings.
They’re a planning headache.
Do you raise breakwaters? Reroute winter shipping lanes? Update design standards for offshore platforms built in a milder era?
Each new colossal wave recorded tips the safety calculations a little further.

In that space, emotional fatigue is a real risk.
Some people cope by leaning into total doom: every storm, every flood, every wave graph becomes proof that collapse is underway and resistance is pointless.
Others cope by tuning out completely, calling every alarm “hysteria” and clinging to the idea that this is just how nature behaves.

Neither stance helps much when you’re trying to decide if your coastal house insurance is still worth paying.
Or whether your city’s seawall is built for a world that no longer exists.

The plain truth is uncomfortable: **we’re in a shifting climate, and we’re still writing the rulebook while the waves keep rolling in.**

Somewhere between panic and denial lies a quieter, steadier path: stay curious, demand good data, and push for real‑world changes that match the risks.
*The ocean doesn’t care what headline we write about it, but our choices still shape how hard its blows land on us.*

Those 35‑metre waves in the Pacific are not a final verdict, and they’re not a hoax.
They’re a loud knock on the door, reminding us that energy is building in the system we depend on for weather, trade, food and shelter.

What we do with that knock — shrug it off, scream about it, or use it to argue for stronger infrastructure, smarter policy and less fossil fuel — is still up to us.
The ocean, for now, is just telling us it has more to say.

FAQ:

• Are 35‑metre waves really possible in the Pacific?Yes. While rare, the Pacific can generate waves above 30m under specific conditions, especially during powerful winter storms over long stretches of open water.
• Does one colossal wave prove climate collapse?No. A single extreme event does not prove collapse, but a trend toward more frequent and intense extremes is consistent with a warming climate.
• Could the buoy data have been a sensor error?Instrument errors happen, but in this case multiple sources and nearby readings support the reality of unusually large waves.
• Are coastal cities directly threatened by these 35‑metre waves?Open‑ocean heights are typically larger than waves reaching shore, yet rising extremes still raise risks for ports, sea walls, and low‑lying neighborhoods over time.
• What can an ordinary person actually do about this?Stay informed from credible sources, support policies that cut emissions and fund coastal adaptation, and pay attention to local flood and storm‑surge planning where you live.