Remains of ancient world found buried beneath Antarctica
10 Jul, 2025
Credit: AFP, Durham University
Scientists have discovered extensive flat landscapes buried beneath the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, formed by ancient rivers after East Antarctica and Australia separated around 80 million years ago and before ice covered the continent about 34 million years ago.
These flat surfaces, once connected, are now hidden beneath the ice and separated by deep troughs, which channel fast-flowing glaciers, while the ice above the flat surfaces moves much more slowly.
The preserved landscapes act as barriers to ice flow and may currently regulate the rate of ice loss from East Antarctica, which is crucial as ice loss from the continent is increasing.
If all of East Antarctica's ice melted, it could raise global sea levels by up to 52 meters, highlighting the significance of understanding how these buried landscapes influence ice sheet stability.
Including the effects of these newly discovered surfaces in ice-sheet models could refine predictions of future ice loss and sea level rise, especially under climate change scenarios.
The discovery reveals that parts of the East Antarctic landscape have remained largely unchanged for over 30 million years, indicating minimal erosion and exceptional preservation beneath the ice.
Researchers emphasise the need for further exploration, including drilling to sample rocks from these surfaces, to better understand when they were last ice-free and improve predictions of the ice sheet's response to future warming
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
41 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Uttarakhand floods: Satellite images show disappearance of buildings, roads
The National Remote Sensing Centre's post-flash flood satellite images of the upper reaches of Uttarakhand indicate the accumulation of debris in and around Dharali, the disappearance of buildings, roads, and plantations, and sediments and debris covering a stretch of Bhagirathi and Kheer Ganga rivers. A bridge and what appear to be orchards are also inundated. Rescuers at the scene of the mudslide and flash floods. (AFP) Experts from the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) have said they were examining the possibility that a glacier collapse upstream of the channel feeding the Kheer Ganga triggered the floods. Anil Kulkarni, a distinguished visiting scientist at the Indian Institute of Science's Divecha Center for Climate Change, said past satellite images have helped understand the glacier dynamics. 'Kheer Ganga river originates from glaciated terrain. Satellite imagery from September 2022 was analysed. It is useful imagery as during this time snow had mostly melted and glacier ice and landforms can be seen clearly.' He said the satellite imagery indicates that glacier ice is mostly melted. He added that glacier ice can be seen in a very small area. '... well-developed deglaciated valley can be seen,' Kulkarni said in a note on Thursday. He added that the outlet of the deglaciated valley is bounded by an end moraine, and a small river passes between the end moraine and the side wall. 'Upstream of the end moraine, a meandering stream pattern was observed. It indicates flat terrain and also the formation of a lake in the past.' Kulkarni said. 'The flash flood mud flow may have been caused by to outburst of the lake.' NDMA officials were awaiting cloud-free satellite imagery to get further details on the glacier feeding Kheer Ganga. 'There are indications that a glacial snout at 6700 m detached some days ago...,' said NDMA advisor (mitigation) Safi Ahsan Rizvi on Wednesday. '...large glacio-fluvial debris deposits collected. Incessant rain over the past few days is believed to have led to the loosening of the debris. Once critical mass was crossed, the massive collection of debris cascaded downstream with water in the Kheer Ganga, accelerating due to the steep gradient up to Dharali.' Rizvi said that it is clear that none of the 195 at-risk glacial lakes are in the Dharali catchment. 'As per the National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC) Atlas of 2023, there are 7500 glacial lakes greater than 0.25 ha in the Himalayas. Of these, NDMA categorised 195 as at-risk.'
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Major climate change-GDP study under review after facing challenge
A blockbuster study published in top science journal Nature last year warned that unchecked climate change could slash global GDP by a staggering 62 percent by century's end, setting off alarm bells among financial institutions worldwide. But a re-analysis by Stanford University researchers in California, released Wednesday (August 6, 2025), challenges that conclusion — finding the projected hit to be about three times smaller and broadly in line with earlier estimates, after excluding an anomalous result tied to Uzbekistan. The saga may culminate in a rare retraction, with Nature telling AFP it will have "further information to share soon" — a move that would almost certainly be seized upon by climate-change skeptics. Both the original authors — who have acknowledged errors — and the Stanford team hoped the transparency of the review process would bolster, rather than undermine public confidence in science. Climate scientist Maximilian Kotz and co-authors at the renowned Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), published the original research in April 2024, using datasets from 83 countries to assess how changes in temperature and precipitation affect economic growth. Influential paper It became the second most cited climate paper of the year, according to the UK-based Carbon Brief outlet, and informed policy at the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, U.S. federal government and others. AFP was among numerous media outlets to report on it. Yet the eye-popping claim that global GDP would be lowered by 62 percent by the year 2100 under a high emissions scenario soon drew scrutiny. "That's why our eyebrows went up because most people think that 20 percent is a very big number," scientist and economist Solomon Hsiang, one of the researchers behind the re-analysis, also published in Nature, told AFP. When they tried to replicate the results, Hsiang and his Stanford colleagues spotted serious anomalies in the data surrounding Uzbekistan. Specifically, there was a glaring mismatch in the provincial growth figures cited in the Potsdam paper and the national numbers reported for the same periods by the World Bank. "When we dropped Uzbekistan, suddenly everything changed. And we were like, 'whoa, that's not supposed to happen,'" Hsiang said. "We felt like we had to document it in this form because it's been used so widely in policy making." The authors of the 2024 paper acknowledged methodological flaws, including currency exchange issues, and on Wednesday uploaded a corrected version, which has not yet been peer-reviewed. "We're waiting for Nature to announce their further decision on what will happen next," Kotz told AFP. He stressed that while "there can be methodological issues and debate within the scientific community," the bigger picture was unchanged: climate change will have substantial economic impacts in the decades ahead. Undeniable climate impact Frances Moore, an associate professor in environmental economics at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in either the original paper or the re-analysis, agreed. She told AFP the correction did not alter overall policy implications. Projections of an economic slowdown by the year 2100 are "extremely bad" regardless of the Kotz-led study, she said, and "greatly exceed the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to stabilize the climate, many times over." "Future work to identify specific mechanisms by which variation in climate affects economic output over the medium and long-term is critical to both better understand these findings and prepare society to respond to coming climate disruption," she also noted. Asked whether Nature would be retracting the Potsdam paper, Karl Ziemelis, the journal's physical sciences editor, did not answer directly but said an editor's note was added to the paper in November 2024 "as soon as we became aware of an issue" with the data and methodology. "We are in the final stages of this process and will have further information to share soon," he told AFP. The episode comes at a delicate time for climate science, under heavy fire from the U.S. government under President Donald Trump's second term, as misinformation about the impacts of human-driven greenhouse gases abounds. Yet even in this environment, Hsiang argued, the episode showed the robust nature of the scientific method. "One team of scientists checking other scientists' work and finding mistakes, the other team acknowledging it, correcting the record, this is the best version of science."
India Today
a day ago
- India Today
80 years of Hiroshima: When Japan burned, but the Soviets got the message
Eighty years ago, on August 6, 1945, a city woke up to a regular morning -- and was turned into dust within seconds. Hiroshima, Japan, became the first place in the world to be attacked with an atomic what many still don't know is that behind this strike wasn't just revenge or war strategy. It was rumour that fuelled it -- a fearful political strike in a rapidly shifting world WORLD AT WAR, BUT JAPAN WAS ALREADY FALLINGBy mid-1945, the world was exhausted. World War II had been dragging on for six bloody years. Nazi Germany had already surrendered in May. Field Marshall Keitel signs German surrender terms in Berlin, May 8, 1945 (Photo: WIkimedia Commons) In the East, Japan was cornered, isolated, and nearly defeated. Most of its fleet had been destroyed, and American firebombing had reduced Tokyo and several other cities to surrender seemed like a matter of time. Yet, on that fateful August morning, the US chose to drop a new kind of weapon -- something the world had never seen before -- on a largely civilian Hiroshima in 1948 (Photo: AFP) THE SCIENTIST WHO UNLEASHED A MONSTERA few years earlier, a group of scientists -- many of them refugees who had fled from Hitler's Europe -- had begun secretly working in the US on something terrifying: a bomb that could unleash the destructive power of the atom. It was called the Manhattan of the key scientists was a brilliant physicist named J Robert Oppenheimer. He had studied ancient Indian texts, and after the first successful test of the bomb in July 1945, he quoted the Bhagavad Gita: 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'The line, uttered by Lord Krishna in the epic, captured exactly what he felt -- power, fear, and a sense that something irreversible had just bomb worked, only too well. THE GERMAN SHADOW THAT LOOMED LARGEBut here's the twist. The US didn't just race to make the bomb to defeat Japan. Japan was near surrender, fact, they feared Germany might be building one first. German scientists had discovered nuclear fission back in 1938. The fear was that if Hitler got to the bomb first, the consequences would be fear, which was never quite confirmed, pushed Americans to invest billions, round up the best scientists in the world, and rush the project to by the time the bomb was ready, Hitler was already dead. Germany had surrendered. Japan was still fighting, yes, but not strong enough to pose any real threat to the Allies. So why drop the bomb? Little Boy atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima () THE POWER GAME BEYOND THE WARThe answer lies not just in what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but in what came the time the mushroom clouds cleared, a new rivalry was quietly igniting. The United States and the Soviet Union, once uneasy allies against Hitler, were already sizing each other up for the next global showdown. The war had ended, but the game for dominance had only just what better way to tilt the board than by unveiling the deadliest weapon the world had ever seen?Historians have long debated whether Japan's surrender was the only reason the bomb was used. One of the most prominent voices, Gar Alperovitz, in his landmark book Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam, argued that the bomb served a second purpose: to show the Soviet Union exactly who was boss in the post-war to Alperovitz, 'gaining diplomatic leverage against the Soviet Union was a major consideration in the atomic bombing.' HL Stimson (l) and Eisenhower (r) (Photos: Wikimedia Commons) That line of thinking wasn't limited to historians. Inside the US government, similar views were brewing. Henry Stimson, then Secretary of War, described the bomb in his memoirs not just as a military tool, but as a 'psychological weapon,' designed to create a 'tremendous shock' that would shake Japan into surrender and show America's strength on the world Stimson worried that flaunting the bomb 'ostentatiously on our hip' would only fuel Soviet paranoia, and trigger an arms race. He was General Dwight D Eisenhower, who had commanded Allied forces in Europe, later admitted that he believed the bombings weren't necessary to end the war. Japan, he said, was already on the verge of unease grew stronger as he realised the real audience for the atomic spectacle might not have been Japan at all -- but Joseph Stalin, watching from yes, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings ended a war. But they may have also started something else: the Cold War. And in that light, the bombs were not just about victory. They were a signal. A threat. A warning shot fired into a new world order. Smoke cloud after nuclear attack on Hiroshima (Photo: AFP) THE CITY THAT NEVER SAW IT COMINGAt 8:15 am on August 6, 1945, a US bomber named Enola Gay dropped a single bomb over Hiroshima. It was called 'Little Boy'. In seconds, the city vanished in a blinding evaporated where they stood. Buildings were flattened. Rivers boiled. Around 80,000 people died instantly. Thousands more would die later from radiation and days later, the US dropped another bomb on Nagasaki. Combined deaths reached nearly 200,000. Japan surrendered soon even today, the question remains: was it even necessary? Japan's Mamoru Shigemitsu signs the Instrument of Surrender, officially ending the Second World War 1945 (Photo: Wikimedia Commons) THE REGRET THAT CAME LATERAlbert Einstein, the genius whose theories laid the groundwork for nuclear physics, had once written to US President Franklin D Roosevelt urging him to develop the atom bomb, fearing Nazi Germany would get there first. Written with Leo Szilrd and Eugene Wigner, it warned that Hitler might weaponise he never worked on the Manhattan Project, it was Einstein's 1939 letter to Roosevelt that helped set the whole project in the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Einstein deeply regretted his role. He famously said, 'Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing for the bomb.' Franklin D Roosevelt (l) and Oppenheimer (r) (Photos: Wikimedia Commons) He called signing the letter the 'one great mistake of my life.' He co-founded the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists and helped draft the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, warning the world: 'Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.'Even Oppenheimer, celebrated and feared as the 'father of the atomic bomb,' faced a storm of guilt. In a post-war meeting with the US President, he reportedly said, 'Mr. President, I feel I have blood on my hands.'REMEMBERING HIROSHIMA 80 YEARS LATERToday, Hiroshima stands as both a thriving city and a chilling reminder of what happens when science and power fall into the wrong hands. Peace memorials, survivor testimonies, and museums keep the memory alive -- not for revenge, but as a warning. devastated city of Hiroshima after the first atomic bomb was dropped by a US Air Force B-29 on August 6, 1945 (Photo: AFP) Eighty years on, the world is still struggling with the legacy of that day. Some 12,500 nuclear warheads still exist worldwide. Nations still test missiles. Tensions still rise and fall, much like they did in atom bomb on Hiroshima didn't win a war. Politics did, along with the fear of what Hitler might build, inspired by rumours, and paid for in remains a symbol: scientific ambition, political expedience, and moral reckoning interwoven into one lethal moment. The story still confronts us: will we keep chasing death, or learn to choose differently?- Ends
