It appears to be called A68a, and it is heading for South Georgia Island.
I think This is it…
(It’s very cloudy down there !)
Whenever I get an order on my Amazon account, I Google the address to verify that it exists. (Learned my lesson about that!) A couple days ago, I got an order and the picture showed a vacant lot with a bunch of construction equipment, and the bottom of the picture said it was taken in 2013.
And now, a quote: “Smell ice, can ya? Bleedin’ Christ!”
I’m intrigued now - did you cross your fingers and press the Pay button?
Could you be sure it was a new building going up, rather than one being torn down (presumably they just reverse the image)?
Google Maps showed that it was a real neighborhood.
I wouldn’t be too worried about the iceberg itself causing environmental destruction. Human efforts to intervene? That’s another story.
The problem I’ve seen discussed is that the berg might block penguins that live on the island from getting to their feeding areas. They have chicks they have to feed at this time of year. It’s so big, it would take way too long for them to swim around. Even broken up, all three pieces are way too big.
I’m not sure what we could do anyway. Perhaps some explosives that could cause them to break up faster would do the trick. Getting the explosives to the right spots would be difficult.
Hey @pjd: NASA APoD has you covered:
I’m thinking @nearwildheaven was the seller, not the buyer on Amazon.
Are you talking about how much of the iceberg is above water? Because that doesn’t sound right, although it would partially depend on the shape of the berg. I’ve always understood the above-water portion to be about one-tenth of it. Wikipedia says: Because the density of pure ice is about 920 kg/m3 (57 lb/cu ft), and that of seawater about 1,025 kg/m3 (64 lb/cu ft), typically about one-tenth of the volume of an iceberg is above water.
This is a remarkable visualization of that fact:
The fact I read it does not make it true, nor does one picture prove much. I don’t know if it even refers to the vertical distance, which might be 1/5 in your picture, or the volume, which is much less. It almost certainly depends on shape. But I would believe 1/10 as readily as 1/5. Thanks for the info.
It’s a height vs volume issue in the numbers being quoted. If the cross-sectional area reduces significantly at the top vs the middle, which it would almost always naturally tend to do, this would equate to much more than one-tenth of the height of the iceberg being above water.
In the picture you’ve shown, I measure about 1/6 of the height above water.
Yes, of course the height definitely depends on the shape of the iceberg. The correct statement in Wikipedia is that about one-tenth of the total volume will be above water (assuming a homogenous mass distribution).
Anyway, the point of that picture is not to convey any mathematical precision, but to show rather vividly that even though an iceberg may appear as a giant mountain rising out of the sea, that ain’t nuthin’ compared to its total size.
Note of course that picture is totally an “artist’s impression”, not reality.
Every few years one of these goes viral being pitched as an actual underwater photo of an actual full-sized berg. The rubes love to forward it around with breathless comments.
Sure, but I think it’s drawn fairly accurately.
If the iceberg is spherical (not necessarily a cow, which tends to have uneven density), 10% of the volume being above water means 19.6% of the height is above water.
Of course. But it’s a pretty good approximation of reality, much more so than, say, “artists’ impressions” of exoplanets or black hole collisions! 
Agreed it’s a reasonable depiction. Just didn’t want more people to start measuring the image and drawing real world conclusions from that.
Here’s an interesting question I don’t know the answer to. Assuming the berg is of uniform density when it first gets loose, do the surface layers of the above water part or the underwater part get porous more quickly?
We often see pictures of the above-water parts of bergs that are heavily wind- and melting-sculpted. The many pix we have of the underside of pack ice and of frozen lakes shows the bottom surface of that ice is far from flat & far from solid.
So he was. I had too much Christmas all at once, I think.
1/6 of the height, but not even 1/10 of the volume, because the one shown is wider underwater.