Talk:Vatnajökull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Iceland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project’s quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Not largest anymore 2 Pronounciation 3 Hvannadalshnjúkur 4 "possibly" 5 Contradiction

[edit] Not largest anymore

Austfonna on Nordaustlandet, Svalbard in Norway is bigger in area. But Vatnajökull is bigger in volume.

Numbers: Vatnajökull is 8100 km². In 1980 it was 8300 and in 1958 8538. 400m thick in average. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Austfonna in Norway is 8200 km², slightly less than 300m thick in average, so Vatnajökull has a greater volume: [12] [13] [14]
--KRISTAGA^α-ω 11:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Austfonna is 8492 km² according to the main article. When comparing volumes it is convenient to calculate them and express them in km³ (one km³ being equivalent to 1,000,000,000 m³). Given the figures for area and average thickness, Vatnajökull is 3200 km³ in volume, while Austfonna is about 2500 km³ (trying to avoid artificially high precision).--Ratzer (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Several wikipedias give a volume of 1,900 km³ for Austfonna. I haven't been able to locate the original source for that. If the value can be verified, it would be important to observe whether Vegafonna in the southwest is included. In any case, the average thickness would have to be corrected.--Ratzer (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just found it: [15], which mentions an area of 8,105 km² at the same time, meaning that Vegafonna is not included.Ratzer (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounciation

Are you sure those IPA stress markers are not misplaced? Currently, they indicate a primary stress on the second and on the last syllable. For what I know, Icelandic, like all Germanic languages, favors stress on the initial syllable. --Salleman 10:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

In Icelandic pronounciation the stress is ALWAYS on the fyrst syllable Pési 17:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely the caption on the last photo should be Jökulsárlón

[edit] Hvannadalshnjúkur

It is 2,110 m high according to new measurements -- see [16] and our page about it. Stefán Ingi 14:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I gave the worng number here, it is 2,110 m. I will correct it. Stefán Ingi 09:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "possibly"

How about "likely because of. . ."? Possibly conveys that this is just sort of a guess. Haven't the causes of recession been studied and resonably established? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.161.218 (talk • contribs) .

If you have a source that says that's the likely reason, then by all means add it and strengthen the wording. As it is, it's bordering on weasel words. —Keenan Pepper 23:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

Both articles state that both glaciers are the second largest, while this one states that Austfonna is the largest. I think there's a misunderstanding between volume and area, but in any case it's a contradiction in the way it is worded now. Clarification is needed, and I certainly have no idea about glaciers or their current size. --Joffeloff 19:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it depends on whether ones considers Greenland part of Europe, which it is politically. --MacRusgail 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction in the text. Both articles states that Austfonna is largest in area, and that Vatnajökull is largest in volume. (Greenland and the Greenlandic icesheet is a part of America geographically and is not of importance to this question). --KRISTAGA^α-ω 00:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of America geologically, but not politically - that's my point. But then again, it's hard to claim Iceland as part of Europe - or any other continent... it's part of the Mid-Atlantic ridge --MacRusgail 19:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)