Talk:Iceberg/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Beautiful image, but it covers up the text, which cannot be read without clicking on "Edit this page". Michael Hardy 19:25 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

It looks fine for me (with IE). - Patrick 20:49 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

Works for me, with Galeon (Mozilla based). -- John Owens 21:06 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the composed image is inacurate. An iceberg would not stay vertical like that, it would tip over and float on it's 'side.' The only possible way it could stay in this position would be if the bottom of the submerged section would be made up of 'heavier' ice (denser, or if it contained other matter such as rocks etc.) --Voodoo 19:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're probably right about that. It is nice eye candy, though. • Benc • 19:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you are talking about the main image that was the image of the day today (feb 7 2008) then look in the bottom right hand corner of the picture. if you are viewing the large version of the pic it is easy to spot two gorilla men, i knew they existed. now i just have to go to the iceberg that doesnt exist to find them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.97.218 (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is currently far too short to add a third inline image, so I'm adding it to the talk page for now. • Benc • 19:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the image being faked. It is supposed to be a representation, not a photo, done on a graphics program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.142.19 (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2005 (UTC)

This image is included in Windows XP (at least Home edition)'s sample images.

Drive:/Documents and Settings/User Name/My Pictures/Sample Pictures/

.. Maybe this will help resolve issue..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.106.19 (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The picture being discussed is a fake (there are several obvious signs). See Snopes for a very similar picture and description. It is a cool picture, but a fake is not really suitable for an encyclopedic treatment. I'm removing it, but maybe it can find another home somewhere. Superclear 19:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This lead gives German as the etymology but OED says its taken from Dutch. --Chroniclev 02:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think too it's from the German word Eisberg altought eis is different spelled it is pronounced in the same way as in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.93.204 (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Note that the Dutch word for iceberg IJsberg is. Same pronunctation.SoothingR 23:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the cognation can be accurately traced, so I added a ref to the german word as well. Bobby1011 23:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It might also be from the swedish word isberg, also menaing mountain of ice. 217.209.101.155 17:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

this is a foolish description of size of iceberg. it is easy and accurate to measure (by plane or satelite). but it does not really show how big the iceberg is ... volume is much more meaningful. consider a thin layer of fresh water spilling into the ocean and being kept on top due to some freak conditions ... a downblast of cold air ... and you have a thin large area sheet. this is very very different to a 100+ metre thick iceberg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.250.101 (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to research the thickness of the iceberg in question and add it to the article. I haven't found anything specific, but a height above water of 50m suggests something very thick.~~ furrybarry —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC).

it is the standard international measurement system for icebergs. It might be stupid but its the one we all use! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgemarchant (talk • contribs) 13:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot read the first article phrase

   An iceberg (a partial) loan translation from Dutch ijsberg (literally: mountain of ice),[1] cognate to Danish 
   Isbjerg, Swedish Isberg, Low Saxon Iesbarg and German Eisberg) is a large piece of ice 

As anyone could see, there is an unclosed parenthesis after "German Eisberg". --_N_e_g_r_u_l_i_o 10:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In an episode of the 1960s series Batman, Mr. Freeze was somehow able to "magnetically" attract icebergs from all over the world to quickly (contrary to inertia) arrive and clog the harbor of Gotham City. The Coast Guard had never needed an ice-breaker at Gotham City and so did not have one to immediately clear the harbor.

Is this worthy of adding to the article? It's the only pop culture reference I know of for icebergs, other than the movies about the Titanic. GBC 19:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added an article on one of the 3 "kinds" of icebers, but this article doesn't even list them. Should I add that information? i kan reed 06:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's nice that the US government tracks ice conditions on the Great Lakes and in Chesapeake Bay, but the pack ice that may be found in those bodies of water has nothing to do with icebergs as defined on this page.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The image situation is a bit out of hand. I'm going to remove some if there are no objections. --Chroniclev (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What is this phrase supposed to say: "an ice shelf about the size of Connecticut is "hanging by a thread", scientists told March 25, 2008."

"Scientist told March 25, 2008"?

Ergonaut2001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC).

After receiving a chain email showing several photos of brilliantly striped icebergs, I wondered if they were manufactured photos. This article doesn't say anything about it. Second stop was snopes which says it's true. http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/stripedicebergs.asp. I would think this is an appropriate topic to add to the article, right? —EncMstr (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there any sources for the reference to 'icebergers' camping on icebergs? It seemed like an interesting topic, but I couldn't find any references to the practice on google other than references to this page. --80.42.149.37 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to talk more about the origin of icebergs, how they are made, the formation process, where do they come from, are they made of water from the see? or water from somewhere else?? sweet water? salty water? etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.20.240.106 (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming they eventually melt, but how exactly does this happen? A section regarding the demise of a floating iceberg would be helpful 99.53.171.95 (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)eric

I do not know if it belongs in the article, but I once had the possibility to follow an iceberg during one month, where I photo documented how it deterioated by repeated calving. The photo sequence is here: commons:Valued image set: The deterioration of an iceberg. This might give you some insight in what happens. Its really a combination of calving which breaks the iceberg into minor chunks and then melting, which is accellerated due to the larger water/ice area in calved iceberg. To see how an iceberg calves, I one filmed the calving of a quite large iceberg shown to the right. If you see the film you can see how big chunks fall of the iceberg. --Slaunger (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why does all the historical information start in 1912 with the Titanic sinking? Were there not any iceberg collisions in the 15th/16th/17th/18th/19th century? Did not the Roman or Viking ships have any encounters with them? Some more historical information would be useful but as I'm not an oceanography or boat expert I'm not sure where to start. -Rolypolyman (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is because iceberg monitering did not officially occur until after the Titanic hit an iceberg and sunk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeimii (talk • contribs) 22:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone provide the formula/ratio for the proportion of an iceberg that sits underwater in relation to the proportion that is above the waterline? BlueRobe 22:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRobe (talk • contribs)

As stated in the article, iceberg is written almost the same way in any germanic language. Why would it be a dutch loan word? Clearly, icebergs were around long before the dutch language derived from germanic languages 500 AD 192.33.93.20 (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A number of sentences need editing. In particular, many sentences in this article use words like "however" and "though," although it is not clear exactly what the contradiction is within the sentence. They assume knowledge by the reader that the reader is not likely to possess and that has not been presented in the article. 74.85.70.232 (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have suggested that the Tabular iceberg article be merged into this Iceberg article - as a new section. I have expanded the Tabular iceberg from a 2-sentence stub with no pics and 2 references, both which seem to be dead external links now, to a ~2000 byte stub 4 sentences long with the same 2 references and 3 pics and also a gallery of more pics. I have considered adding a list of largest tabular icebergs to expand the Tabular iceberg article. However, the largest icebergs are all tabular icebergs, so a list of historically large tabular icebergs would correspond to the existing list in the Iceberg article. It does not seem worthwhile to duplicate this list in Wikipedia. Other than that, I cannot think of very much to say about tabular icebergs that cannot be included in the Iceberg article. The Iceberg article is presently only ~16000 bytes long, so there is ample room to merge and still expand further.

This is only a suggestion for which I will await input on whether the merger should proceed or not. H Padleckas (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Under the 'Technology' sub-paragraph it states that Titanic was carrying '2228 passengers'. It wasn't. Firstly, the wiki page on Titanic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic gives a figure of 2201, and, secondly, this 2201 includes passengers and crew, not just passengers. The main Titanic page also gives a figure of 1514 killed, while this page on bergs states 1523. There is dispute over these figures, but wiki pages should agree or note the dispute.

82.26.14.192 (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Because the density of pure ice is about 920 kg/m³, and that of sea water about 1025 kg/m³, typically only one-ninth of the volume of an iceberg is above water." Why? Let's ${\displaystyle V}$ is the volume of the iceberg and its volume ${\displaystyle \beta V}$ is above the water. Apparently, according to Archimedes' principle, ${\displaystyle 920V=1025V(1-\beta )}$, so ${\displaystyle \beta =1-920/1025\simeq 10.2\simeq 1/10}$. Where this one-ninth from? --Vladimir Ivanov (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Density of ice = 917 kg/m3 (See wikipedia page on ice) Density of sea water = 1025 kg/m3

Consider an iceberg 1m X 1m X 1m floating in the sea water. Mass of ice = 917 kg. Vol of sea water displaced = mass/density = 917kg / 1025kg/m3

                                         = 0.8946 m3

ie. vol of ice underwater = 0.8946 m3 therefore vol of ice above water = 1 - 0.8946 = 0.1054 m3

                                             ≈0.11 = one ninth.

0.8946 / 0.1054 = 8.49 ie for every 1m of freeboard ice above water, there is 8.49m below.

A951832525 (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You both are getting the 0.9 calculation right. Then we have to do (1-0.9)/0.9 to know how much of the iceberg will be seen i.e. 1/9 part. This is the same when we say that a wood is 1/3 dense as water then the part seen above water is (1-.3333)/.3333 ie two thirds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.131.239 (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

An Object floats on the surface of a liquid because the buoyant force is equal to its weight (and, Archimedes' principle states that the buoyant force is given by the weight of the displaced liquid):

Object's weight = density_object × volume_total × gravitational_acceleration

Buoyant force = density_liquid × volume_submerged × gravitational_acceleration

volume_submerged / volume_total = density_object / density_liquid = 0.9

90% inside and 10% outside, that is, nine-tenth inside and one-tenth outside.

Iceberg B15 295 X 37 km

Density of ice = 917 kg/m3 (from wikipedia page on ice)

Stated mass = 3 billion tonnes = 3 X 10⁹ tonnes = 3 X 10¹² kg

Mass = density X volume

3 X 10¹² kg = 917 kg/m³ X 295000m X 37000m X h

where h = total height of the iceberg (above and below water)

h = 0.3m or 30 cm which is obviously wrong.

If someone can accurately tell us what was the height of B15 above water, then we can work out the depth below water (see my contribution to the previous talk topic), total height and mass of B15.

A951832525 (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

From the Iceberg B-15 page on wikipedia, height above water = 37m

∴ depth below water = 8.49 X 37 = 314.1m

Total height = 37 + 314.1 = 351.1m

Stated surface area = 11000km² = 11000000000m² = 11X10⁹ m²

Mass = density X volume

    = 917 X 11000000000 X 351.1

    = 3.54X1015 kg

    = 3541 billion tonnes

This is an estimate of the mass of B15.

A951832525 (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Why no mention? Sea packs and growlers are a distinct danger to shipping. 86.129.68.115 (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

According to NASA expert:
"...icebergs are moved by winds and currents, drifting either north or south toward Earth's equator, where they eventually melt." So far everything is clear to me.
Now, Wiki reads:
"Though usually confined by winds and currents to move close to the coast , the largest icebergs recorded [...] "
Hmm... weird English, weird logic. Please can you translate it from English to English? 85.193.218.118 (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about my snap opinion. The first part of the sentence, when isolated, looks good, but has nothing to do with "the largest icebergs". I have decided to split this sentence. 85.193.218.118 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. Thank you for the correction. Bede735 (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)