Bowhead whale cracks through ice in order to breathe
Fredrik Oscar Christiansen of Aarhus University in Denmark posted the footage on his Instagram page, describing it as 'an ice whale breathing through a hole in the ice.'
'This behavior happens frequently during the colder winter and spring months in Disko Bay, when few open water patches exist in the ice,' Christiansen told Discover Wildlife.
Bowhead whales reside almost exclusively in Arctic and subarctic waters and have become adapted to life in icy water, according to NOAA Fisheries. That includes being able to break through ice to take a breath.
They are so named because of their very large triangular skull that they use to break through heavy ice to come up for air, according to AZ Animals.
Christiansen told Discover Wildlife that a bowhead whale, also referred to as a polar whale and Arctic whale, can break through nearly 2 feet of ice.
Bowhead whales can grow up to 62 feet and weigh up to 200,000 pounds.
Christiansen, who is studying the effects between climate change and how much these mammals are eating, uses a drone to film the huge creatures.
Bowhead whales are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act in 1970 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and are listed as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
This article originally appeared on For The Win: Bowhead whale cracks through ice in order to breathe
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
What will the Earth be like in 500 years?
Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you'd like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@ What will the Earth be like in 500 years? — Lotte, Brookline, Massachusetts Scientists can make some pretty accurate forecasts about the future. But predicting what the Earth will be like 500 years from now is a difficult task because there are many factors at play. Imagine Christopher Columbus in 1492 trying to predict the Americas of today! We do know that two main types of processes change our planet: One involves natural cycles, like the way the planet rotates and moves around the Sun, and the other is caused by life forms, especially humans. The Earth is constantly changing. It wobbles, the angle of its tilt changes and even its orbit changes to bring the Earth closer to or farther from the Sun. These changes happen over tens of thousands of years, and they have been responsible for ice ages. Five hundred years isn't very long in terms of geology. The second big influence on the planet is living things. The effects of life on the planet are harder to predict. Disrupting one part of an ecosystem can knock a lot of other things off kilter. Humans in particular are changing the Earth in many ways. They cut down forests and break up important wildlife habitats to build cities and grow crops. They move invasive species around the planet, disrupting ecosystems. They also contribute to global warming. People are causing the climate to change, mostly by burning fossil fuels that release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the planet and atmosphere can handle. Normally, greenhouse gases trap heat from the Sun the way the glass of a greenhouse does, keeping Earth warmer than it would be otherwise. That can be useful – until we get too much. The result of too much carbon dioxide is that temperatures rise, and that can lead to dangerously hot summer days and melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica. Melting ice sheets raise the oceans, causing coastal areas to flood. That's what Earth is facing right now. These changes could lead to a very different planet in 500 years, depending in large part on how willing humans are to change their ways. A warming planet can also contribute to extreme weather like heat waves, storms and droughts that can change the land. All of Earth's living forms are at risk. Looking back at the past 500 years, the living part of the Earth, called the biosphere, has changed dramatically. The number of humans has increased from around 500 million people to over 7.5 billion today. More than 800 plant and animal species have become extinct because of human activities over that period. As the human population grows, other species have less space to roam. Sea level rise means even less land, and rising temperatures will send many species migrating to better climates. Not all of Earth's changes are caused by humans, but humans have worsened some of them. A major challenge today is getting people to stop doing things that create problems, like burning fossil fuels that contribute to climate change. This is one global problem that requires countries worldwide and the people within them to work toward the same goal. Getting back to Christopher Columbus, he probably couldn't have imagined a highway full of cars or a mobile phone. Technology will no doubt improve over the next 500 years, too. But so far, tech solutions haven't scaled up fast enough to solve climate change. To keep doing the same things and expect someone else to fix the mess later would be a risky, expensive gamble. So, the Earth in 500 years may be unrecognizable. Or, if humans are willing to change their behaviors, it may persist with its vibrant forests, oceans, fields and cities for many more centuries, along with its most successful residents, humankind. Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you'd like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@ Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live. And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you're wondering, too. We won't be able to answer every question, but we will do our best. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Michael A. Little, Binghamton University, State University of New York and William D. MacDonald, Binghamton University, State University of New York Read more: Scientists understood physics of climate change in the 1800s – thanks to a woman named Eunice Foote Extreme heat waves in a warming world don't just break records – they shatter them Coral reefs are dying as climate change decimates ocean ecosystems vital to fish and humans The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Research project at Churchill facility raises alarm about potential impact of oil spill in Arctic waters
A natural remedy that has previously helped counter oil spills will be too slow to "do any useful work" if there's a spill in the Canadian Arctic, increasing chances of "catastrophic" harm, researchers say. Preliminary findings from the GenIce II research team, led by Eric Collins from the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, suggest oil-degrading microbes respond very slowly to oil-contaminated Arctic waters. "We do see that it takes at least a few weeks or a month for the microbes to respond and actually start to break down the oil, and that's just too long in the case of a real oil spill," said Collins, who has a doctorate in biological oceanography and is a Canada Research Chair in Arctic Marine Microbial Ecosystem Services. In November, the GenIce II research team (GenIce is short for genomics and ice) began work at the $45-million observatory in Churchill, Man., to better understand and observe the potential impact of an oil spill in the Arctic marine environment. Collins said the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill served as a "wake-up call" for researchers to study the impact of "natural microbial communities" in oil-contaminated water. It is believed that during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, microbes cleaned up nearly 10 times more than humans did. The spill released more than half a billion litres of oil into the Gulf of Mexico over an 87-day period, killing thousands of marine species and contaminating the natural habitat. Collins's research team is focused on how microbes respond to oil in Arctic waters, as opposed to water in warmer regions like the Gulf of Mexico, where the Deepwater Horizon spill happened. With the shipping season in the Hudson Bay extending due to melting Arctic ice and an expected increase in shipping and marine traffic through the bay, experts say the chance of an oil spill is increasing. An oil spill near the coastline is particularly concerning to Collins because the current circulation in Hudson Bay could spread the contamination all along the coastline, endangering the ecosystem and, in turn, surrounding communities, many of which depend on the natural environment for sustenance. Collins' team is conducting research at the new Churchill Marine Observatory — without which Collins says the GenIce II project "wouldn't be possible." "There's no way we would get permission to put oil directly into the water in order to test the effects of an oil spill on the Arctic community, so the fact that we have these large tanks that we can pump water from Hudson Bay into and do the experiments in a controlled setting is really important," Collins said. The facility runs seawater through a pumphouse into two pools where the experiments occur. One pool remains uncontaminated, while oil is placed in the other pool; after the experiment is complete, the oil is removed and the water is cleaned using an on-site wastewater treatment facility, and then released back into the ocean after a third party tests its cleanliness. Feiyue Wang, who heads the Churchill Marine Observatory, says the facility's ability to perform controlled experiments in natural Arctic waters is unique. Since plans for the facility were announced in 2015, it has captured the attention of international researchers, particularly from Arctic countries, Wang said — interest he expects will lead to more collaborative research with international partners. "We're [other Arctic countries] facing similar types of challenges and opportunities," said Wang, who has a doctorate in environmental geochemistry and is a Canada Research Chair in Arctic Environmental Chemistry. "What's happening in Hudson Bay is really just a forecast of what's happening elsewhere in the Arctic." According to a government study in 2022, over the past 30 to 40 years, it has taken three to four days longer each decade for ice to cover Hudson Bay fully. Over the course of each decade, the ice cover has started to break about five days earlier in spring. The ice cover in that inland sea has required more time to develop into a fully established ice cover (an increase of three to four days per decade). Ice break-up initiation has begun earlier in the Spring/Summer, i.e. that shift is estimated at about five days per decade. Wang says Hudson Bay is on track to be "essentially ice-free" by the end of the century. "As a country, as scientists, we want to get ahead of the potential issues," Wang said. "The observatory is really geared toward studying opportunities and challenges associated with socioeconomic development in a changing environment as the Bay becomes more open." The observatory became operational nearly 10 years after plans were announced and roughly six years after it was expected to be completed. Complications with ownership of the Port of Churchill, a major flood in 2017 that impacted the railway to Churchill, COVID-19 and the passing of David Barber, a key figure in the establishment of the facility, all led to delays in construction. The original location of the observatory changed after the Port of Churchill changed ownership. With help from the federal and provincial governments, the facility was built at a new location, which did garner some criticism from the community, because it was built on traditionally significant land. "We tried everything we could, including the input from the community, to try and minimize the disturbance to the landscape," Wang said. "So that is an ongoing dialogue, an ongoing collaboration that we'll be dealing with and working with the community to make sure that their concerns are addressed." Efforts are also being made to incorporate traditional Indigenous knowledge into the research being done at the marine observatory, Wang said. "They're an integral part of what we do," Wang said. "They know the lands, they know the ice, they know the marine ecosystem, and so we always work together." The GenIce II team also worked closely with the community in Chesterfield Inlet, Nunavut, to help monitor the environment, watch for oil spills and research the responsiveness of Arctic microbes to oil. "Inuit people in Chesterfield Inlet are particularly worried about oil spills coming from ships that are going there to the mines in Baker Lake, where they're extracting gold," Collins said. "There's a lot of ship traffic up there, and if there was an accident, then that could release a lot of oil, and they depend on the animals that live in the water for their subsistence." The GenIce II research team is planning to build on their oil spill research with their next research trip to the marine observatory for this coming winter.
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
FEMA's flood maps often miss dangerous flash flood risks, leaving homeowners unprepared
The deadly flash flooding in Texas on July 4, 2025, and destructive flash floods a week later in states including New Mexico, Vermont and Iowa are raising questions about the nation's flood maps and their ability to ensure that communities and homeowners can prepare for rising risks. The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency's flood maps are intended to be the nation's primary tool for identifying flood risks. Originally developed in the 1970s to support the National Flood Insurance Program, these maps, known as Flood Insurance Rate Maps, or FIRMs, are used to determine where flood insurance is required for federally backed mortgages, to inform local building codes and land-use decisions, and to guide flood plain management strategies. In theory, the maps enable homeowners, businesses and local officials to understand their flood risk and take appropriate steps to prepare and mitigate potential losses. But while FEMA has improved the accuracy and accessibility of the maps over time with better data, digital tools and community input, the maps still don't capture everything – including the changing climate. There are areas of the country that flood, some regularly, that don't show up on the maps as at risk. I study flood-risk mapping as a university-based researcher and at First Street, an organization created to quantify and communicate climate risk. In a 2023 assessment using newly modeled flood zones with climate-adjusted precipitation records, we found that more than twice as many properties across the country were at risk of a 100-year flood than the FEMA maps identified. Even in places where the FEMA maps identified a flood risk, we found that the federal mapping process, its overreliance on historical data, and political influence over the updating of maps can lead to maps that don't fully represent an area's risk. FEMA's maps are essential tools for identifying flood risks, but they have significant gaps that limit their effectiveness. One major limitation is that they don't consider flooding driven by intense bursts of rain. The maps primarily focus on river channels and coastal flooding, largely excluding the risk of flash flooding, particularly along smaller waterways such as streams, creeks and tributaries. This limitation has become more important in recent years due to climate change. Rising global temperatures can result in more frequent extreme downpours, leaving more areas vulnerable to flooding, yet unmapped by FEMA. For example, when flooding from Hurricane Helene hit unmapped areas around Asheville, North Carolina, in 2024, it caused a huge amount of uninsured damage to properties. Even in areas that are mapped, like the Camp Mystic site in Kerr County, Texas, that was hit by a deadly flash flood on July 4, 2025, the maps may underestimate their risk because of a reliance on historic data and outdated risk assessments. Additionally, FEMA's mapping process is often shaped by political pressures. Local governments and developers sometimes fight to avoid high-risk designations to avoid insurance mandates or restrictions on development, leading to maps that may understate actual risks and leave residents unaware of their true exposure. An example is New York City's appeal of a 2015 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps update. The delay in resolving the city's concerns has left it with maps that are roughly 20 years old, and the current mapping project is tied up in legal red tape. On average, it takes five to seven years to develop and implement a new FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. As a result, many maps across the U.S. are significantly out of date, often failing to reflect current land use, urban development or evolving flood risks from extreme weather. This delay directly affects building codes and infrastructure planning, as local governments rely on these maps to guide construction standards, development approvals and flood mitigation projects. Ultimately, outdated maps can lead to underestimating flood risks and allowing vulnerable structures to be built in areas that face growing flood threats. New advances in satellite imaging, rainfall modeling and high-resolution lidar, which is similar to radar but uses light, make it possible to create faster, more accurate flood maps that capture risks from extreme rainfall and flash flooding. However, fully integrating these tools requires significant federal investment. Congress controls FEMA's mapping budget and sets the legal framework for how maps are created. For years, updating the flood maps has been an unpopular topic among many publicly elected officials, because new flood designations can trigger stricter building codes, higher insurance costs and development restrictions. In recent years, the rise of climate risk analytics models and private flood risk data have allowed the real estate, finance and insurance industries to rely less on FEMA's maps. These new models incorporate forward-looking climate data, including projections of extreme rainfall, sea-level rise and changing storm patterns – factors FEMA's maps generally exclude. Real estate portals like Zillow, Redfin, and now provide property-level flood risk scores that consider both historical flooding and future climate projections. The models they use identify risks for many properties that FEMA maps don't, highlighting hidden vulnerabilities in communities across the United States. Research shows that the availability, and accessibility, of climate data on these sites has started driving property-buying decisions that increasingly take climate change into account. As homebuyers understand more about a property's flood risks, that may shift the desirability of some locations over time. Those shifts will have implications for property valuations, community tax-revenue assessments, population migration patterns and a slew of other considerations. However, while these may feel like changes being brought on by new data, the risk was already there. What is changing is people's awareness. The federal government has an important role to play in ensuring that accurate risk assessments are available to communities and Americans everywhere. As better tools and models evolve for assessing risk evolve, FEMA's risk maps need to evolve, too. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jeremy Porter, City University of New York Read more: Why Texas Hill Country, where a devastating flood killed more than 120 people, is one of the deadliest places in the US for flash flooding Why it can be hard to warn people about dangers like floods – communication researchers explain the role of human behavior The aftermath of floods, hurricanes and other disasters can be hardest on older rural Americans – here's how families and neighbors can help Jeremy Porter has nothing to disclose.
