MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
NASA and BAS tracking major Antarctic iceberg, B31, now in open waters
NASA has lately spotted a gigantic iceberg in Antarctica, identified as B31 and together with UK's BAS (British Antarctic Survey), is busy tracking the monster island of ice, which has now escaped into open waters. Despite its sheer size and mass, --experts estimate that the giant iceberg is approximately 600 square kilometres in size--, monitoring is not going to be an easy task with the coming of the Antarctic winter and ensuing darkness. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSell it to Saudi Arabia for fresh water.
Apr 26th, 2014 - 08:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0There's got to be a copper or two in that!
That iceberg can expect an Argentinian invasion via kayak (supported by a kazzoo band) at any minute. Perhaps it will be lead by El Think?
Apr 26th, 2014 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0@2 What makes you think argieland knows where it is? Surely they wouldn't stoop to asking BAS and NASA where it is? Or would it just steal the data?
Apr 26th, 2014 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well as they do say ?
Apr 26th, 2014 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if it moves , tax it, it is moving so it should be taxed,
all they have to do now, is find out how..
hang on, are we missing something.
Apr 26th, 2014 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps this is CFK's invasion plan.
Wait for a large ice berg, then drop a load of soldiers on it, in summer outfits and wait for it to float near the islands.
Then everyone jumps off and they try to disable the nuclear missiles, only to get pecked as they interfere with the penguins bottoms
“NASA has lately spotted a gigantic iceberg in Antarctica,....which has now escaped into open waters”
Apr 26th, 2014 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a clever iceberg, do the argies know about this lump of ice which has more sense than TMBOA?
Anyway, shall we all have a little guess at what happens when an iceberg breaks off at the NORTH pole, the one on the top of the world for you argies?
When it melts, as it will on the journey south does the sea water level:
1) RISE?;
2) STAY THE SAME?;
3) GO DOWN?
Hands up all those that answered 1); sorry you are wrong!
Hands up all those that answered 2); sorry you are wrong!
Hands up all those that answered 3); YES!
You are correct and can hand the crayons out when you go back to BsAs Uni for you physics degree!
Now for all you doubters who do not remember anything from BIG school the answer is very easy to understand.
ICE floats on water thus proving that it’s specific gravity is less than unity (1) [actually 0.9168] which is the standard for water [actually 0.9998 for the nerds] (YES, I know the clever dick at the back is telling us that SEAWATER has salt in it and has a specific gravity of 1.02) great, this actually makes it easier for “pure” water to float on it.
So the iceberg has LESS water in it than the seawater and the local sea level goes DOWN, not by a lot but it does NOT rise like some numb-nuts of the IPCC would have you believe.
NORTH Pole ice does NOT come from land as is the case for Antarctica and therefore cannot ADD to the sea level in any event.
Naysayers take your best shot.
@6
Apr 26th, 2014 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I hear sea levels are rising, is this an accurate, scientifically arrived at conclusion? What melting is contributing to this?
Part of the iceberg is below sea level and is displacing water. Ice has more volume than when the same is water. So, the water level will go down based on that part of the iceberg.
But what about the part of the iceberg that is above water level and isn't displacing water. When that melts won't that be a net gain of volume at sea level and therefore contribute to a rise?
@ 7 bushpilot
Apr 27th, 2014 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I hear sea levels are rising, is this an accurate, scientifically arrived at conclusion? What melting is contributing to this?”
Yes, seawater levels are rising but only by a few millimetres (and that varies around the globe) and not by the third of a meter nonsense the IPCC predicted would happen by now.
Icebergs and water have a relationship which needs to be considered elementally. You cannot consider the iceberg as two parts (one below the water and one above) because the iceberg is a whole integrated volume (or it would break up for instance) and the bit above sea level has a direct relationship to the relative specific gravities between freshwater ice (Antarctic) which is 0.9168 to liquid seawater which is 1.02. You can therefore see why icebergs float and the relationship to the mass (weight) above water caused by the differential in S.G.
Now, consider that the iceberg starts to melt; as the weight is reduced (of the complete ‘berg, even to the point of the ‘berg rolling over if only the underwater part is liquefied due to changes in the balance point) the part above water ALSO reduces. Eventually, as the ‘beg melts to part above the water will get successively lower until the waves wash over it. This of course is the point most dangerous to shipping, there is still a lot of weight floating level to just above to just below the observable surface and invisible to radar. Not good situations to be in if you are in a ship or worse still a sailing boat. Floating 40 foot containers are the same risk.
“When that melts won't that be a net gain of volume at sea level and therefore contribute to a rise?”
YES, but ONLY if the ‘berg is a freshwater one like those from Antarctica. North Pole ‘bergs, apart from when free falling snow drops on the ‘berg are of course seawater ice formed from the ocean itself. When this melts it does not raise the seawater levels but just returns the volume that was frozen to a liquid state.
@8
Apr 27th, 2014 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OK, so the top portion of the B31 iceberg when melted contributes to a rise, because B31 is an Antarctic iceberg (freshwater).
But, when the whole iceberg melts, the net change in local sea level is negative, is that right?
Icebergs come from glaciers that are calving, I think. If of freshwater, their melting slightly lowers a local sea level.
But don't melting/receding glaciers contribute to an increase in the volume of water the oceans hold? Even if only slightly?
@ 9 bushpilot
Apr 27th, 2014 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“OK, so the top portion of the B31 iceberg when melted contributes to a rise, because B31 is an Antarctic iceberg (freshwater).” AND “But, when the whole iceberg melts, the net change in local sea level is negative, is that right?” AND “Icebergs come from glaciers that are calving, I think. If of freshwater, their melting slightly lowers a local sea level.”
No, No and No.
The calved ‘berg is ALL freshwater and when it melts WILL add to the level of seawater. But don’t panic, the planet is very big and 75% is covered by seawater so a few millions of tonnes don’t really matter that much.
As I said above the ‘berg is a unified system whilst it’s frozen and the amount above the seawater level (or height of the ‘berg) is directly proportional to the difference in the two specific gravities. This applies to seawater ‘bergs as well as freshwater ‘bergs.
5
May 02nd, 2014 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0like most Argentine ships Ice bergs tend to roll over as well and tin mans face would drop again
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!