Beautiful photos of icebergs like this (these are not my pics) have been floating around the Net for three years now, and some viewers still believe they were found in Lake Michigan.
Don't believe it-- and be skeptical of 'fantastic' pictures on the net--because there are no ethical standards for most bloggers. Anything goes. Often, as in this case, the photos may be untouched and wonderful images, but attributed to the wrong location, person, situation or time, giving the viewer incorrect information. Icebergs are exquisite sights, but in Lake Michigan, they would be a miracle--flowing upstream on the St. Lawrence and all. The location was woefully off, 'only' a hemisphere away.
According to Snopes and the London Times, these photos were taken by a Norwegian sailor who was aboard a research ship 1,700 miles south of South Africa, or between Capetown, South Africa and Antarctica. Yep, nearer Antarctica than Lake Michigan, or as another mail claimed, Lake Huron.
I'm still searching for a date the sailor shot the pictures.
But before you hurry off to Snopes or Google to check facts, just look at the photos. Location is obviously wrong. Since only ten per cent of an iceberg is above water level, this an outrageously big hunk of ice formed by Lake Michigan's typical winter freezing. When I lived in Ohio, the Sandusky Bay froze to 26 INCHES thick during an extremely rugged winter. A chunk of ice as big as this is just not going to happen.
Lake Michigan's average depth is about 280 feet, which means the iceberg shown would be dragging bottom through much of the lake.
By definition, according to World English Dictionary, an iceberg is 'a large mass of ice floating in the sea, especially a mass that has broken off a polar glacier'. Last I heard, there were no polar glaciers near Lake Michigan.
Chicago likes it that way.
Leave a comment