Season 1 Episode 7: From Classic to Closeout - The 3rd Edition of Waves and Beaches

Willard Bascom’s Waves and Beaches first appeared in 1964 and quickly became a classic of coastal and wave science. Favored by readers who wanted to dig deeper into the physics of waves, it has stood for decades as a clear and engaging introduction to the subject.
​
But the new third edition? It wipes out. The wave science remains largely outdated, and new sections insert climate commentary that doesn’t reflect the current state of research. If you want to learn more, check out the episode. For some bonus material that didn't make the cut, read on.

​Let’s talk about a pair of figures; one from the original 1964 edition of Waves and Beaches and one from the new third edition. I will describe them, but please look below and check them out. The comparison tells you everything you need to know about the 3rd Edition.

---

The original figure is a classic conceptual representation of the ocean’s wave energy spectrum, first produced by Walter Munk in 1951. It’s a single continuous curve plotted against timescales from hours down to seconds. Bascom labeled each section according to the type of water wave that corresponds to that period: tides at the hour mark, wind-generated ripples at the second mark. The y-axis reads “relative amount of energy present.” This isn’t a measured spectrum, but a conceptual one, the height of line represents the relative importance of different kinds of wave motions. There’s a clear peak for swell and sea, reflecting the fact that wind waves dominate ocean surface energy in most places most of the time.

The fact that the line is continuous is conceptually important. It shows that ocean waves form a spectrum across scales. While there may be a separation in scales between ripples and tides, there is often no clear difference between wind seas and swell. The categories of wind sea and swell are just convenient labels; there are no sharp boundaries in nature. 

Now, compare this to the updated figure in the third edition. Instead of a continuous curve, we get a series of discrete bubbles. The y-axis is labeled “change in sea level,”. What does “change” even mean here? Is it absolute change, variation, or something else? The units of the y-axis are in terms of length [m]. But a wave spectrum isn’t a plot of raw heights, it’s a distribution of variance with frequency or period, and its proper units are variance density, typically [m²/Hz]. This isn’t a trivial detail, the caption still calls this a “wave spectrum,” which it clearly is not. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a spectrum represents.

The x-axis still represents periods with units of time (note the axis has been flipped), but now runs from fractions of a second to millennia. There are little bubbles for capillary, ripples, chop, sea, swell, etc. To me, this implies that these should be separate, discrete phenomena, which is wrong. Beyond tides, we have “seasons,” “El Niño,” "sunspot cycle" (what!?), and even a bubble labeled “industrialization.” If I’m generous, I’d interpret that last one as sea level rise from post-industrial warming, but the figure gives no explanation. In fact, since the y-axis begins with msl (mean sea level) you might assume we are talking about variations in reference to the mean sea level, but anything beyond tsunami is variations of the mean sea level. Then we have Milankovitch cycles on scales off 100k years? Even if these are periodic phenomena, they are not ocean waves (if this needs to be stated), and on these scales the ocean basins and sea levels change, rendering msl meaningless.

What was once an elegant conceptual diagram showing the continuous nature of ocean waves has been replaced with a careless hodgepodge that reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what water waves are and what a spectrum represents.

Climate change is real, important, and worthy of serious discussion, but climate is not a wave. A book like Waves and Beaches exists to define and explain physical phenomena in the natural world with clarity and accuracy. When that mission is abandoned, when metaphor is confused with mechanism, and sloppy language replaces careful explanation, it does more than misinform. It undermines public understanding of science at a time when precision and trust matter most. That is the real failure of this new edition.

---

Bascom's figure from the 1st edition, published 1964.

The same figure from 3rd edition, published 2023.

---

Summary

Full Transcript Here.

0:00 – 8:00

• Introduction to the episode and why this review is different from your usual positive tone.
• Waves and Beaches (1964) introduced as a classic of wave science by Willard Bascom.
• Background on its origin in Scientific American articles and the Science Study Series.
• Brief history of editions: 1st (1964), 2nd (~1980), and 3rd (2023, Patagonia).
• Praise for Bascom’s original—accessible, descriptive, and beloved for decades.
• Criticism begins: The 3rd edition feels like a picture book with little connection between text and images.

8:00 – 16:00

• Bascom’s influence: only popular-level wave science book for decades; alternatives too technical.
• Comparisons to Susan Casey’s The Wave (different audience, more surf-focused).
• Bascom’s background: mining, the Waves Project, nuclear test measurements, Project Mohole.
• His reputation as a provocative public communicator (example: waste disposal in oceans).
• Bascom’s writing as readable and poetic, a major reason for the book’s legacy.
• Questions arise: Why was McCoy chosen for this edition, and who is he?

16:00 – 24:00

• McCoy’s background: few publications, mostly in ocean instrumentation, and self-mythologizing stories.
• Criticism of the edition’s lack of updated wave science—ignores advances in spectral modeling, GPS buoys, and satellite observations.
• McCoy’s two main contributions: forced climate-change insertions and personal adventure anecdotes.
• Example of incoherent climate writing: “The wave of climate change is another very long wave…”
• Your argument: Climate science belongs, but McCoy’s treatment is shallow and confusing.
• Contrasts in tone: Bascom’s clear, textbook-like writing vs. McCoy’s tall tales and poor analogies.

24:00 – 32:00

• Extended critique of McCoy’s climate discussions as unscientific and buzzword-heavy.
• Example: “We have become part of the spectrum”—a meaningless metaphor in context.
• ENSO confusion: McCoy conflates climate oscillations with literal ocean waves.
• Exasperation at editing failures: questionable sections published without fact-checking.
• Praise for Bascom’s fieldwork descriptions: his transition from lab theory to real-world wave observation still resonates.
• McCoy’s interludes occasionally entertaining (stellar navigation story) but likely embellished.

32:00 – 40:00

• The notorious blender analogy: comparing ACE (tropical cyclone energy) to blender settings—debunked in detail.
• Discussion of climate attribution: you consult Dr. Kevin Walsh, who clarifies what science actually says about storms.
• Walsh’s insights: detection vs. attribution, observed vs. projected trends in tropical cyclones.
• Current consensus: fewer total storms, stronger intense storms, higher rainfall rates, and storm surge worsened by sea level rise.
• Critique of McCoy’s misunderstanding of basic wave physics (e.g., fetch-limited growth in cyclones).
• Beach change mischaracterized as “permanent,” which misunderstands coastal dynamics.

40:00 – 47:00

• Broader frustration: lack of curiosity and scientific rigor in McCoy’s writing.
• Humorous but telling critique of his reckless approach—likened to his free-diving story.
• Suggestion that Patagonia prioritized making a coffee-table book rather than a serious science update.
• Acknowledgment of Bascom’s enduring value—recommend reading 1st or 2nd editions instead.
• Appreciation for Bascom’s poetic lines and communication style; “go and see” highlighted as a motif.
• Closing thanks to Dr. Kevin Walsh and invitation to explore show notes and further discussion.