Talk:Ross Ice Shelf
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Antarctica, which collaborates on articles related to Antarctica. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||
|
|||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Glaciers WikiProject, a collaborative WikiProject related to glaciers and glaciology worldwide. It may include the Glacier infobox. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information). |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Height and volume
How high is the ross ice shelf, what's its volume? --Abdull 03:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- The nearly vertical ice front above the open sea surface is 15 to 50 meters high, and 90 percent of this is below the water surface, so the total thickness would be 165 to 550 meters. If one assumes an average thickness of 300 meters (roughly the geometric mean of 165 and 550), one would calculate a volume of 150 000 km³, and that's all freshwater! By contrast, the Great Lakes have a water volume of 23 000 km³, which is 20 percent of the world's (liquid) freshwater. Ratzer 09:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mentioned in fiction
the ross ice shelf is mentioned in various works of fiction as breaking off/melted by volcanoes/being nuked by terrorists and causing catastrophic tsunami/sea level rise. is this worth mentioning? Mang 05:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Popular culture section
I think that the info in the popular culture section should be in a history section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernstein2291 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Editing
I spent a lot of time and effort to add to this particular topic. The editing done after my additions removed important material and changed the meanings of key pieces of information such that the information was either incorrect or not useful. One such change was the size comparison. The British Antarctic Survey compares the size of Ross to France. This was changed to Spain. No citation to corroborate that fact was given. I have citations backing the comparison to France. Also, the information about the Amundsen-Scott parties was changed. It is key that Amundsen made the Ross Ice Shelf his base camp. Scott started from Ross Island -- this is the distinction that made all the difference in their trips. It should not have been changed. We all want this article to be a good one, but don't make changes that compromise the factual integrity of the piece, please. A little mollusk (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Point of no return
A little mollusk has provided a very strange definition of the term point of no return which defies normal English usage and actual facts. I have attempted to get him/her to see that it is inappropriate usage but he/she persists in reinserting it at every attempt. I would like to point out that the starting point of a land expedition cannot ever be a point of no return as is demonstrated by Amundsen's return to his starting point, Scott's return to his starting point and Shackleton's return to his starting point. It might be said that the Farthest South positions achieved by Scott and Shackleton were points of no return because they would have died had they not returned from those points. Anyway I am not going to continie to bang my head against this brick wall as it is raising my Wikistress levels far too high. Dabbler (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed William M. Connolley (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
