Talk:Vatnajökull

Area discrepancy?

The "summary" box on the right (don't know how it's called) mentions an area of 8,100 km2 (3,100 sq mi). The Size section in the main text however mentions an area of 13,600 km². Which one is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.199.164.32 (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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]

--

Glaciers High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glaciers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Glaciers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlaciersWikipedia:WikiProject GlaciersTemplate:WikiProject GlaciersGlacier articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iceland High‑importance

	Iceland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Scholarly consensus seems to put the current size of the Austfonna ice cap at 7,800 km², see e.g., Moholdt, G. & Kääb, A. A new DEM of the Austfonna ice cap by combining differential SAR interferometry with ICESat laser altimetry. Polar Res 31, 18460, https://doi.org/10.3402/polar.v31i0.18460 (2012); Schomacker, A, Welsey, R. et al. Postglacial relative sea level change and glacier activity in the early and late Holocene: Wahlenbergfjorden, Nordaustlandet, Svalbard. Scientific Reports 9, Article no. 6799 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43342-z (2019). --Sylgja (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Surely the caption on the last photo should be Jökulsárlón

I'm a native speaker, should I upload an audio file of me pronouncing it? Klandri (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

volume vs area

Re the line it is the largest glacier in Europe in volume (almost 3,000 km²), "km²" (square kilometers) is a measure of area, whereas km³ (cubic kilometers) is a reference to volume. Which should it be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.27.158.254 (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Volcanic activity, melting and positive mass balance

This article covers a few issues with mass, and volcanic melting http://www.raunvis.hi.is/~oliverh/vatnajo/eismint.html#mtg How to insert it?FX (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation 2

Ehrenkater tagged the pronunciation with the following comment:

The Icelanders pronounce it in 2 syllables, with the "tna" replaced by a glottal stop

Anyone know? — kwami (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that even means but I am a native speaker so should I upload a file of me pronouncing it? Klandri (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Means "Glacier of Rivers"?

No it doesn't. It means "Glacier of Water(s)" or "Glacier of Lakes". River is "á". - 213.176.153.100 (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on context and local customs. Vötn (plural of vatn) can also mean a river. Héraðsvötn in Skagafjörður is one example, the word "vatnavextir" for river flooding is another. I don't now about this particular case but it would make sense that the glacier was named after the large glacial rivers that flow from the southern edge to the sea. --Bjarki (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism or idiot ?

"With an area of 8,1 km², Vatnajökull is the largest ice cap in Europe by volume (3,100 km³) "

Neither of the numbers in this sentence can possibly be correct.Lathamibird (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vatnajökull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vatna Glacier, not Water Glacier

Just fixed an issue with the page where it was incorrectly stated that Vatnajökull is sometimes called Water Glacier in English. Water Glacier is not a name by which Vatnajökull has ever been known, and not a fully accurate translation. When I checked through the history of the page, it turned out that the sentence originally had "Vatna Glacier", but Vatna was mistakenly changed to Water at some point. "Vatna Glacier" is an existing, if not common, name for this glacier in English-language sources (including some printed ones). I think what has confused some readers is that it's a partial translation of the Icelandic, but as a place-name found on some maps it shouldn't be altered. --Sylgja (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, was having a hard time verifying that. – Þjarkur (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How much water in it

That's it 62.195.25.68 (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]