Talk:Iceberg B-15/Archive 1

Archive 2005–2013

Comment from 2005

currently ... summer ? When is currently? Gerrit ^CUTEDH 15:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Photo position of Ice Tongue

I'm not sure that the position of the Ice Tongue is marked correctly on the satellite image - I think it is actually slightly further to the north (i.e. towards the bottom-right of this image)...

I checked the position of the Drygalski ice tongue, and it is located exactly where it says. You can actually see the deteriorating outer part quite clearly in the image. In visible images such as this the ice tongue can be quite hard to distinguish from sea ice, and therefore does not appear as clearly as in radar images. - Leif Toudal.

It is not clear to me exactly which date the image was acquired,

B-15 isn't the largest iceberg on record. This article, from usatoday.com describes an iceberg roughly 3 times the size that broke off in 1956. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/coldscience/2005-01-20-1956-antarctic-iceberg_x.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.225.51 (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if they saw it, they didn't properly measure or record it. B-15 is the largest recorded iceberg. Leo (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, how could this be only 3 billion tonnes? If its 11,000 square kilometers, and 1 square km = 1000 * 1000 meters, that makes 1 million meters squared per km squared... So if it was only 1 meter thick, then its 1 million tonnes of ice per km2. So if it was 1 meter thick, its 11 billion tonnes. Guessing its 10 meters thick, lets say 110 billion tonnes. As ice can be hundreds of meters thick, i'd say 10 meters is not unreasonable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.111.201.26 (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you that there may've been holes, cracks, voids? Leo (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Crash of B15-K

Underwater microphone listened in on B15-K crashing into the Antarctic ice-shelf on 11 feb 2010 at 16:42 UTC. mp3 and press release of Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung. --Chin tin tin (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

WOW! This should be added to the article! Leo (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

One of the largest?

The list of largest icebergs name this one as THE largest. Why say otherwise and confuse the readers? Leo (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Any first source documentation of this -- http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/coldscience/2005-01-20-1956-antarctic-iceberg_x.htm -- allegedly far larger iceberg to clarify this point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.54.42 (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it more confusing, or even misleading, to say "the world's largest recorded iceberg" without any indication of what "recorded" means? Especially if it (apparently) does not mean the same thing as "[T]he largest iceberg on record", as mentioned in the Iceberg article. AlexFekken (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps phrase it in a similar manner as they did here to distinguish it from the 1956 iceberg, as the largest recorded iceberg to be confirmed by satellite photography? http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-03-24/news/0003250001_1_new-iceberg-b15-ross-island 94.11.250.7 (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy?

If the given mass/weight of 3G tonnes is correct, the average depth would be about .3m. Is that credible? Is there a source for that? It seems pretty thin for an iceberg that remained largely intact for years. I've seen ice 1' thick broken up and stacked high by Great Lakes storms, which aren't likely to rival Antarctic ones.

Also, the link for the first citation is a bad link.

Learjeff (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just thought about the same, and came to check here. I would estimate such iceberg should be around 100 meters high, and therefore the volume at 1,100 cubic k"m, or about 990 giga tons! I am taking this sentence out. בורה בורה (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)