Trove of ancient whale bones discovered under melting Arctic glacier, photos
The centuries-old skeletal remains were found during an expedition on Wilczek Island, part of a Russian archipelago known as the Franz Josef Land, located about 550 miles from the North Pole.
Using satellite imagery, researchers with the the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) determined the island's ice cap had split in half, revealing a large surface area measuring several square kilometers.
In this newly exposed area, whale bones were found strewn across the barren landscape.
In photos, researchers can be seen posing with the cetacean remains, some of which appear to measure several feet in length. It's not clear what species they belong to.
Some of the skeletons were well-preserved, particularly those nearest to the receding glacier, according to a news release July 21 from AARI, which describes itself as the world's foremost research center for the study of the Earth's poles.
The findings indicate a period of rapid sea level change that took place sometime in the last few thousand years.
Over the years, numerous biological remains and artifacts have been found as a result of melting glaciers and permafrosts, including Stone Age tools and well-preserved baby mammoth.
Google Translate was used to translate a news release from AARI.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
'It was so unexpected': 90 billion liters of meltwater punched its way through Greenland ice sheet in never-before-seen melting event
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Scientists have discovered a previously-undetected flood under the Greenland ice sheet that spilled out with such force that it burst through nearly 300 feet (91 meters) of solid ice. The phenomenon occurred in 2014 and caused 24 billion gallons (90 billion liters) of meltwater to punch out from a subglacial lake under the ice sheet. It is the first time such an event has ever been documented in the country. By studying the sudden cascade, scientists say they will gain vital information about how ice melts in the region and the destructive impacts of this process on the rest of the Greenland sheet. They published their findings Wednesday (July 30) in the journal Nature Geoscience. "When we first saw this, because it was so unexpected, we thought there was an issue with our data," study lead author Jade Bowling, a glaciologist at Lancaster University, said in a statement. "However, as we went deeper into our analysis, it became clear that what we were observing was the aftermath of a huge flood of water escaping from underneath the ice." "The existence of subglacial lakes beneath the Greenland Ice Sheet is still a relatively recent discovery, and — as our study shows — there is still much we don't know about how they evolve and how they can impact on the ice sheet system," Bowling added. Greenland's ice sheet is one of only two permanent ice sheets on Earth, the other being the Antarctic ice sheet. It is nearly three times the size of Texas, covering roughly 656,000 square miles (1.7 million square kilometers), according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Colorado, and loses an estimated 33 million tons (30 million metric tons) of ice every hour. Related: Scientists record never-before-seen 'ice quakes' deep inside Greenland's frozen rivers Less is known about the role of meltwater from the ice sheet. Scientists previously thought that it flows from the surface to the base then out into the ocean. The new study looked at subglacial lakes — bodies of liquid water trapped beneath the ice — that tend to be fed by meltwater. The researchers suggest that these lakes could contribute vast amounts of water to the ocean through drainage events but, as they were only recently discovered, they are still poorly understood. Using satellite data, the team identified a previously-unknown subglacial lake in the north of Greenland, uncovering a huge flood event that fractured the ice from below. After poring over data collected by a suite of satellites (NASA's ICEsat, ICEsat-2 and Landsat-8, along with the European Space Agency's Sentinel-1, Sentinel-2 and CryoSat-2), the scientists were able to create 3D models of the subglacial flood. RELATED STORIES —Greenland is losing so much ice it's getting taller —Giant viruses discovered living in Greenland's dark ice and red snow —Scientists discover hidden 'plumbing' that's driving Antarctic ice sheet into the ocean This revealed that, over 10 days between July and August 2014, a 0.77 square-mile (2 square-kilometer) wide, 279 foot (85 m) deep crater was blasted out from the ice sheet as 24 billion gallons of water rushed out to the surface from a meltwater lake uphill. The huge deluge is roughly equivalent to nine hours of Niagara Falls's peak flow. Further downstream, the scientists discovered that the surge had fractured a large area of ice, leaving uprooted ice blocks that stood at 82 feet (25 m) high and scouring an ice surface around twice the size of New York's Central Park. The findings not only confound past expectations about how meltwater typically flows through an ice sheet before seeping out into the ocean, but also contradicts models predicting that the sheet is frozen solid at its base. "What we have found in this study surprised us in many ways,' co-author Amber Leeson, a glaciologist at Lancaster University, said in the statement. 'It has taught us new and unexpected things about the way that ice sheets can respond to extreme inputs of surface meltwater, and emphasised the need to better understand the ice sheet's complex hydrological system, both now and in the future."
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
Huge hidden flood bursts through the Greenland ice sheet surface +EMBARGO 0900GMT 30 July 2025+
A sudden flood from a hidden lake beneath Greenland's ice sheet reveals a powerful meltwater process not currently accounted for in climate change models. As global warming intensifies, researchers say the discovery highlights the need to better understand how ice sheets respond to extreme melts.
Scientific American
17 hours ago
- Scientific American
Why the Russia Earthquake Didn't Cause a Huge Tsunami
The moment seismologists got word that a magnitude 8.8 earthquake had struck near Russia's Kamchatka peninsula, they felt an acute sense of anxiety. This location—where the Pacific tectonic plate is plunging below the Eurasian plate—can produce widespread, highly destructive tsunamis. It did just that in 1952, when a magnitude 9 quake effortlessly washed away a nearby Russian town while also causing extensive damage in far-off Hawaii. Today, when the seafloor next to Kamchatka violently buckled at 11:24 a.m. Wednesday local time (7:24 EDT), everything seemed primed for a dangerous tsunami. Early forecasts by scientists (correctly) predicted that several countries around the Pacific Ocean would be inundated to some degree. Millions of people were evacuated from coastal Japan, and many in Hawaii were ordered to seek higher ground. People across swaths of Central and South America were also advised to flee from the receding ocean. And as an initial smaller tsunami formed on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido, there was some preliminary concern that waves could reach a height of nearly 10 feet. But for the most part (at the time of writing) plenty of countries in the firing line didn't get hit by an extremely lethal wall of water. It appears that waves of just over four feet hit Japan and Hawaii—two locations that have now significantly downgraded their tsunami alerts and rescinded some evacuation notices. One tourist in Hawaii told BBC News that 'the disaster we were expecting did not come.' Parts of California have seen water up to 8 feet, but without considerable damage. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. This raises a key question: Considering that the Kamchatka oceanic megaquake had a magnitude of 8.8— one of the most powerful ever recorded —why wasn't the resulting tsunami more devastating? The answer, in short, is this: the specific fault that ruptured produced pretty much exactly the tsunami it was capable of making, even if it intuitively felt like it should have been worse. 'First, it's important to recognize that the issuance of any warning at all is a success story,' says Diego Melgar, an earthquake and tsunami scientist at the University of Oregon. A tsunami doesn't have to be 30 feet tall to cause intense destruction and death; even a relatively modest one can wash people and structures away with ease. So far, it looks like there won't be a high number of casualties—and that's in part because 'the warnings went out, and they were effective,' Melgar says: people got out of danger. It's also fair to say that for Kamchatka and its surroundings, there actually was some localized destruction. The earthquake itself severely shook the eastern Russian city of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and did scattered damage to buildings there, and tsunami waves reached heights of up to 16 feet in Severo-Kurilsk, a town in the northern Kuril Islands just south of Kamchatka. Houses and sections of a port have been wrecked or swept out to sea. The way each nation issues a tsunami warning differs slightly. But in general, if a tsunami is very likely incoming and is thought to be potentially dangerous, an evacuation order for those on the afflicted coastline is issued. When such alerts go out, some tsunami wave height estimates are often given, but these numbers are initially difficult to nail down. One reason is because, when a tsunami-making quake happens, 'the tsunami energy is not distributed symmetrically,' says Amilcar Carrera-Cevallos, an independent earthquake scientist. A tsunami does not move outward in all directions with the same momentum, because faults don't rupture in a neat linear break, nor does the seafloor movement happen smoothly and in one direction. 'Initial warnings are based only on the estimated size and location of the source, but this alone doesn't determine how much water is displaced or where waves will concentrate,' Melgar says. 'To forecast impacts accurately, scientists need to know how much the fault slipped, over what area, and how close to the trench the slip occurred.' And that information is usually gleaned one or two hours after the tsunami has appeared. A tsunami like today's is tracked by a network of deep-ocean pressure sensors, which helps scientists update their forecasts in real time. But 'the network is sparse. It doesn't always catch the full complexity of wave energy radiating across the basin,' Melgar notes. This means it gives scientists only a partial understanding of the ocean-wide tsunami. Another issue is that the tsunami's wave height when it reaches the shore is influenced by the shape and height (technically called the bathymetry) of the seafloor it's passing over. Tsunamis are also hindered, or helped, by the shape and nature of the coastline they slam into. 'Features like bays can amplify wave heights; tsunami waves can also be diffracted (bent) around islands,' says Stephen Hicks, an earthquake scientist at University College London. It may also be tempting to compare today's magnitude 8.8 quake with the 2011 magnitude 9.1 quake that struck off eastern Japan, triggering a tsunami with a maximum wave height of 130 feet—one that killed more than 18,000 people. The 2004 magnitude 9.2 earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean—one that claimed the lives of over 220,000 people across a vast area—may also come to mind. That's understandable, but today's magnitude 8.8 quake was not quite powerful as one might think. The magnitude scale for earthquakes is not linear; in other words, a small increase in magnitude equals a huge jump in energy unleashed. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, a magnitude 9.1 quake (like the 2011 Japanese example) is nearly three times stronger than today's. The 2004 and 2011 cataclysms 'were actually quite a lot larger than this event,' says Judith Hubbard, an earthquake scientist at Cornell University. They were simply more capable of pushing a giant volume of water across the ocean than today's temblor. Not knowing the exact height of an incoming tsunami at multiple locations all around the Pacific, though, is a secondary concern. What matters most is that the tsunami warnings went out to those in harm's way quickly, while giving accurate times as to when the tsunamis would arrive at each coastline. 'The current strategy of preventative evacuation does a good job of saving lives,' Hubbard says.
