Speculation goes that part of the problem for the RMS Titanic, which set out on its maiden voyage 102 years ago today, was bad luck; an exceptional number of icebergs.
Not really, according to a new analysis. There are more icebergs now.
Previously it had been suggested that the seas which sank the famous cruise ship had an exceptional number of icebergs, caused by lunar or solar effects, but using data on iceberg locations dating back to 1913 – recorded to help prevent a repeat of the Titanic – they have shown that 1912 was a significant ice year but not extreme.
University of Sheffield Professor Grant Bigg who led the research, said, “We have seen that 1912 was a year of raised iceberg hazard, but not exceptionally so in the long term. The year 1909 recorded a slightly higher number of icebergs and more recently the risk has been much greater – between 1991 and 2000 eight of the ten years recorded more than 700 icebergs and five exceeded the 1912 total.
“As use of the Arctic, in particular, increases in the future with the declining sea-ice the ice hazard will increase in water not previously used for shipping. As polar ice sheets are increasingly losing mass as well, the iceberg risk is likely to increase in the future, rather than decline.”
The iceberg which sank the Titanic was spotted just before midnight on April 14th,1912 about 500 meters away. Efforts to slow the ship weren't enough and the ship sank in two and a half hours. 1,517 people perished and only 700 were saved.
Published in Weather.
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Sexual Fantasies: Threesomes Are Normal, Golden Showers Not So Much
- Ghost Light From Dead Galaxies - A Hubble Halloween
- Mediterranean Diet Linked To Better Kidney Health
- Greenpeace Says Its GMOs Are Better Than Science's GMOs, Still Hates Golden Rice
- Game Theory: When Are Groups Social? Or Insufferable?
- US Wildlife Bans On GMOs And Neonics Lack Transparency And Scientific Rationale
- Coulrophobia: Are Clowns Scary? Ha Ha Aaaargh
- "Twelve years in a major urban public school system, and I couldn't once bring myself to eat a school..."
- "Hardly a day goes by without some creative new take on the eternal Evil White Man meme. Without..."
- "There would be no controversy if it were all balloons and ponies stories like that. But I hope..."
- "Let's talk about this disaster: I lost a course at the university where I work and became ineligible..."
- "Partisan nastiness doesn't advance dialogue. We are all in this together. You asked for solutions..."
- Battle of Britain: NGOs and scientists clash over proposal to loosen EU GMO restrictions
- Genetically modified clean energy from bacteria
- Designer babies: You can screen for cystic fibrosis but intelligence is a ways off
- Science as profane: What superstition of 1752 and 2014 share in common
- What’s so “natural” about “natural crop breeding”?
- Worried you have cancer? Take a Google pill!
- Report examines health care challenges for pregnant women enrolled in covered California
- NYU research: Majority of high school seniors favor more liberal marijuana policies
- ESA Frontiers November preview
- Sexual fantasies: Are you normal?
- Synthetic lethality offers a new approach to kill tumor cells, explains Moffitt researcher