On a balmy Sunday morning in early March, I'm on a beach in southern Australia looking for ice—or at least traces of it. It's summer in the Southern Hemisphere, and most of the beachgoers sloshing through the rising tide or walking their dogs are wearing T-shirts and shorts. Tom Rich, a paleontologist at Museum Victoria in Melbourne, leads the way along the low, tawny cliffs that crowd the shoreline. Rich is 66, with a stubbly silver beard, sparse gray hair and slanting eyebrows that give his face a sad, world-weary look. He was raised in Southern California and Texas but has spent his professional life in Australia. During more than three decades down under, he's picked up Aussie citizenship and plenty of the country's colorful lingo, but his accent remains stubbornly American. "I sound like I just got off the plane," he says.
This part of the coast, known as Flat Rocks, is near the resort town of Inverloch, about a two-hour drive southeast of Melbourne through farms and woodland parched by more than a decade of drought. Rich stops next to a pile of rubble at the base of a cliff. "That's it," he says. Partly buried by flakes of battleship-gray rock is a telling geological formation. Tongues of dark tan sediment droop into the lighter-colored layer below. The formation is called a "cryoturbation" and was caused when once-frozen clay sank into an underlying layer of sand during a thaw long ago.
Snow and ice are rare in this part of Australia today. But evidence from Flat Rocks and other nearby sites confirms that a little over 100 million years ago, "it was bloody cold around here," as Rich puts it. Though about a third of Australia now lies within the tropics, back then the continent sat about 2,000 miles south of its current position, snuggled against Antarctica. Southeastern Australia probably had a climate similar to that of Chicago, if not Fairbanks.
All the more surprising, then, that dinosaurs thrived here at that time. Think "dinosaurs" and you probably conjure up behemoths trudging through sweltering swamps or torrid tropical forests. But Rich and other scientists working in Australia, Alaska and even atop a mountain in Antarctica have unearthed remains of dinosaurs that prospered in environments that were cold for at least part of the year. Polar dinosaurs, as they are known, also had to endure prolonged darkness—up to six months each winter. "The moon would be out more than the sun, and it would be tough making a living," says paleontologist David Weishampel of Johns Hopkins University.
The evidence that dinosaurs braved the cold—and maybe scrunched through snow and slid on ice—challenges what scientists know about how the animals survived. Although Rich wasn't the first to unearth polar dinosaurs, he and a few other paleontologists are filling in the picture of how these animals lived and what their environments were like. Recent research might also shed light on two of the most disputed questions in paleontology: Were dinosaurs warmblooded? And what killed them off?
Every year from late January to early March, Dinosaur Dreaming—the polar dinosaur project led by Rich—descends on the shore near Inverloch. The sound you hear as you walk up the beach toward the dig is the clinking of hammers on chisels. Kneeling around flat-topped beach boulders that serve as improvised workbenches, a dozen or so volunteers pound on lumps of gray rock. Several wear this year's fashion statement, a T-shirt that reads "Mammalia: Popcorn of the Cretaceous" and shows a bipedal dinosaur clutching two ratlike mammals in one paw and tossing another toward its gaping, toothy mouth.
Down in the "hole," a knee-deep gash near the waterline marked off by a circle of fluorescent pink construction netting, another group is using a rock saw and chisels to dislodge blocks the size of loaves of bread. These chunks will also go under the hammer.
At a folding table in the lee of the cliffs, Lesley Kool is triaging the finds brought in by the rock-breakers. Kool started out as a volunteer on Rich's first dino excavation in 1984. She knew little about dinosaurs, but she trained herself to be an expert preparator—the person who winkles fossils out of the rock without smashing them to dust—and developed a knack for identifying fossils. Now she runs the dig. She can tell you that the brownish chunk you hoped was the dinosaur find of the century is really a commonplace bit of fossilized turtle shell.

how long have these beings exsited on this earth
Posted by mrs.fields best student shaq on November 26,2007 | 12:24PM
these beings are obiviously extinct the stupidity of some people
Posted by jewy mc jew jew on November 26,2007 | 03:39PM
Someone using AOL in this day and age doesn't deserve to talk about the stupidity of others.
Posted by Nick Gardner on November 27,2007 | 12:45PM
How can I get one of those T-shirts?
Posted by raptor on November 28,2007 | 11:02AM
The earliest known dinosaur fossils date to around 230 million years ago. Desite ugly rumours of complete extinction, a sub-group of theropods (the carnivorous dinosaurs) are still happily scratching around chicken coops and nesting in people eaves even today.
Posted by D.Pigdon on November 28,2007 | 05:59PM
cant we all just get along???:] -peace
Posted by rainbow on November 29,2007 | 02:20PM
birds & dinosaurs reptiles/amphibians are not related . their skeletal structures differ considerably.
Posted by john on December 1,2007 | 07:33PM
It is now gaining acceptance in the scientific community that the earth has expanded almost twice its size since the time of the dinosaurs and is still expanding today due to its internal heat and other processes I do not yet understand. This accounts for the drop in levels in the Great Lakes, the Black Sea and the Dead Sea. Paleontologists need to incorporate this into their views. The ancient earth would have had less gravity; a large dinosaur's bones today could not support its weight. An expanding earth accounts for warm polar regions at the time. The artist's conception is in error. Sea floor spreading happened in the Pacific as it did in the Atlantic and the sea floor of both oceans are exactly the same age. Aside from celestial extinction events, the earth's own tectonic forces account for most of the phenomena associated with geology, geography, and paleontology.
Posted by Doug Gibson on December 5,2007 | 09:32PM
It is now gaining acceptance in the scientific community that the earth has expanded almost twice its size since the time of the dinosaurs and is still expanding today due to its internal heat and other processes No it isn't. Virtually nobody in the scientific community accepts this. The ancient earth would have had less gravity No it wouldn't. It had the same mass as it does at present.
Posted by Ian B Gibson on December 9,2007 | 06:33AM
I believe paleogravity was less than it is today. One should not make the assumption that a change in the Earth's mass is the only cause for a change in the gravitational effect at the surface. One theory (www.dinoextinct.com) posits a shift in the Earth's core, thereby increasing the distance to the surface. We know that gravitational strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance and would therefore have a much more dramatic affect on gravitational pull than a change in mass.
Posted by Laze on December 13,2007 | 08:19PM
Ian B. Gibson: If ignorance a riddle you'd be a stumper Unless you are a scientist I highly disregard your information. I believe the earths expansion is possible, it would further explain the leveling of the ocean. Now I for one have done my share of homework on dinosaurs and I consider myself a open minded person, but i doubt you know the front end of a Triceratops from the back end. Now if you can restrain yourself Ian, would you please let the adults talk? Don't forget to be open minded people!
Posted by Almost 14! on December 14,2007 | 03:51PM
It is rather obvious that a collision with a Nars size rouge planet capable of forming the moon would indeed change the planetary mass and more importantly orbit. However this is believed to have occurred before life began. More to the point, the addition of extraterrestrial mass by means of impact has indeed slowly changed the earth and continues to do so. The solar system can be and has been observed since the advent of intelligence on this planet so we know that these things are an ancient and ongoing process. Currently, it is known that there are polar magnetic shifts (it is happening now) and the equator is swelling (albiet not much).
Posted by Quietman on December 16,2007 | 11:30AM
i laugh at you people who post and try to sound knowledgable on these subjects, yet you cant even spell. buy hooked on phonics, or something similar, all you are doing is making yourself appear foolish
Posted by erik mann on December 20,2007 | 07:20PM
This from a "mann" who can't manage capitalization or punctuation. But you have a point. Any argument these people might make is hard to take seriously when they're all so desperately language impaired.
Posted by Fool on December 21,2007 | 06:45AM
Arguing on the comment section of Smithsonian Magazine? Does couth and class no longer exist? I agree with D.Pigdon on the Theropods. A species of them probably evolved into the chicken, which came originally from a jungle enviroment. Talk about going from the top of the food chain to the bottom
Posted by Rich Joseph on January 4,2008 | 04:41PM
Um...OK, the earth swelling up makes no sense to me. But that aside - if the paleolithic earth was smaller than at present, with the same mass, gravity would have been _higher_ - as Laze said, gravitational strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. If the distance from the center of mass to the surface was smaller, the effect of gravity would have been stronger. I'm not going to debate the other theories - they strike me as pseudo-science and it's not worth my time. But I felt it necessary to point out the factual error.
Posted by jjmcgaffey on January 9,2008 | 11:06AM
why did the dinosaurs die out and how could they have lived in the artic?
Posted by curtis on February 4,2008 | 07:56AM
To Curtis: Many theories have been tried, but there are many reasons to why the dinosaurs could have died out. There is the meteor theory, the flood theory, the small mammals eating to many dinosaur eggs theory, the temperature changing theory,and the volcano theory. (I think I covered them all) But to as poler dinosaurs I have no idea. I should know more since I've read about dinosaurs for years, but I come up empty handed. -Sorry
Posted by Almost 14! (But now i am 14) on February 4,2008 | 12:42PM
To Curtis: The "experts" won't all agree on why the dinosaurs went extinct, but the meteor notion seems to have a lot going for it. That Iridium-rich layer, above which there are no more dino fossils is the most convincing evidence, to me, that this was *the* extinction-level event. How such critters could have made a living in a cold climate is part of what the article addresses. Earth probably had a higher level of oxygen in its atmosphere, then, and I'm not entirely convinced that the dinos were entirely poikilothermic, or cold-blooded (white sharks and tuna were assumed to be cold-blooded, and now we know it's not so). There is evidence that some dinos besides Archaeopteryx had feathers. One thing feathers do rather well is insulate warm-blooded birds. And one current view is that the dino line does survive through birds. Anyway, that's my two cents' worth. I'm going to stay tuned, as science grinds out more information on the subject.
Posted by Charles on March 19,2008 | 09:12AM
I have no solid proof, BUT. I think that at that time or soon after. Some species moved into the safety of the oceans and ARE the OTHER intelligent species that we are observing evidence of over the last few thousand years.All documented. IE: Flying saucers, (the best shape for underwater travel. Hydrogen/Oxygen propelled. Constructed from alloys only available from deep ocean vents.) Sightings relate thin bodies and very large eyes. ( how better to stand water pressure and see at extreme depths). I believe there is a cover up (as we all believe) and that some form of contact HAS been made. Outer space? NAHH! Underseaspace? Heck yes.
Posted by Keith Hanson on March 21,2008 | 03:43PM
Is there a position as an archaeological laborer as employment? Where and how does one become a volunteer on an archaeological dig?
Posted by z.guerrero on March 25,2008 | 11:32AM
If you google archeological digs on the web you will come up many sites- ranging from areas in the US to overseas. There are tours arranged around digs as well. You should be ale to find something local. Regional historical societies often have information too.
Posted by T Herald on March 29,2008 | 08:27AM
you should check with a local college or google archaeological digs to find out about how to volunteer. I would think you could at least get some information on it. Good luck! Post any info you get on it, k?
Posted by onyisgirl on March 29,2008 | 12:41PM
Everyone KNOWS the Earth is FLAT, and the purported moonlanding was just a visit to the other side of the world, only the camera lens was inverted so that it looked 'right' to us. -the Fuerst Family (Hugo and April)
Posted by Ben Dover on March 30,2008 | 05:19AM
Small mammals eating too many dinosaur eggs? Does anyone know the percentage of dinosaurs that reproducted by laying eggs? Thank you, Lucy
Posted by Lucy on April 5,2008 | 10:07AM
Incroyable! It would be far too much to expect all to have the qualification of 'scientist',and there are NO stupid questions. I was going to comment upon the ARTICLE and comments PERTINENT, but did not realize that some treat this website like a teenage chatroom, replete with snarky remarks and vitriol...never mind.
Posted by G. Arthur on April 9,2008 | 03:27PM
where were the plesiosaurs fossils found?
Posted by eric on April 15,2008 | 12:56PM
But now that we know the snark is warm-blooded, you shouldn't take such offense, G. It seems that a combination of rapid environmental change AND the rise of a furry competitor might have given the meek the advantage here. Hey, the harder they fall. But maybe those arctic dinos hung on longer than the rest. Now that would be the find: some arctic dino bones in the belly of a proto-polar bear, just above the iridium line. (Charles, iridium isn't a country, dear. Snark, snark. :)
Posted by Paul on May 27,2008 | 11:05PM
OR...the pachycephalosaurus WAS just the agent to unleash the THING from captivity in the ice WITH its ice-breaker helm and inquisitive nature the POOR beast was the first of the last as the THING ate of the dinosaur but could not stomach the fur of the TINY mammals of the time...WHO wants furry food when you can have slick and juicy?!?
Posted by Paul on May 27,2008 | 11:10PM
Sorry to be picky but stories about dinosaurs should be in a paleontology section...not Archaeology.
Posted by Liz on May 28,2008 | 08:18PM
you guys are all fools not every thing the scientists say is true
Posted by tim on June 19,2008 | 08:50AM
How long does it take for bone to turn to stone? And what if you find something that is not suppost to be in your area due to the geological age of the place it is found?
Posted by gardenfind on July 8,2008 | 04:27PM
I saw a similar discovery shown on a dvd seminar (Dinosaurs and the Bible: by, Kent Hovind). Some dead dinosaurs and other giant creatures were discovered in antartica buried under half a mile of ice. The exlpanation was that the Biblical flood buried all the dinosaurs all over the world 4,400 years ago. After doing my own amatuer research for the past 7 years studying evolution and creation, and the fallicies of radio metric dating, I don't believe that the world is more than 6,000 years anymore. Although it would be ok if it was.
Posted by James on July 24,2008 | 02:21PM
the moon can also be dated at around 6000 years by its dust production. 3 to 5 inches of moon dust.
Posted by Dr.Q on September 14,2008 | 06:57PM
Hello , Smithsonian I have a question for ya ?? . I have had this thought for many years and i hope you can answer it for me. Thinking Biblical times . When the earth was covered in water . During Noah`s time .I was thinking what happened to the fish in the sea and whales ect. they didn`t die dd they during the once covered by water . That wipped out all living things that are not of the sea. Except all those on the arch .Why couldn`t the bones found ?? now called Dinosaurs be bones of whales ect , serpents ect ??. What happens to a fish when the water drys up and the land becomes dry ??.that fish would die right ??. Well why couldn`t the Dinosaurs be fish bones ?? and not Dinosaurs ??.If the land was covered in water with no land in site for yrs as in Noahs day and the ark. When the water dried up and land was visable and the land became more and more as the water dried up. Whales and creatures of the sea was like fish outta water concept ? they died because the water dried up .((yes the bible talks about serpents )) of the sea !!!. ?? . the wanderer .
Posted by Fire Of God on September 23,2008 | 10:08AM
Hers my take on it. The earth was about 1/4 the size it is today in the beginning. It was all continent the whole thing the water covered about 1/2 the continent leaving room for dinosaurs. It was humid and warm the dinosaurs needed only skin, the gravity was alot less so they grew to be very large and were perfectly suited for their environment they could run and play as we do their bones are the same density as ours. As the earth grew and spread the one continent apart at the rifts in the oceans today the fresh water that was above the continent flowed into the oceans taking the minerals with it making salt water seas. As the earth gains mass from the bombardment of the atoms that come from the sun it grows as does every planet and even the universe grows. Continual Creation. The dinosaurs died out slowly as the earth grew and changed it got colder and gravity increased. They laid eggs which were easy pray for rodents.
Posted by Jim on November 22,2008 | 08:34AM
I love these comments. LOL, almost as funny as the article. The mesozoic period was hot. There were no icy polar caps. CO2 was the highest that it ever has been by the end of the Cretaceous and as a GHG helped to keep the planet warm with abundant foilage. Antarctica and Australia were not polar, did not have 6 months of night albeit the nights were longer than today and it was not very cold in winter. The same goes for the Arctic. I suggest a visit to Palaeos.com for a look at continental positions, climate and other pertinent information on what the world was like at that time.
Posted by Quietman on December 17,2008 | 11:03AM
The dinos where found on top of an Antarctica mountain? Hmmm... trying to escape what? Vegetation would be better found at ground level - right? Could it be that water levels were rising exponentially eventually drowning them? Dated 230 million years ago? Now how's that possible when dating methods are not accurate after about 50KY? I think some paleo- people need to "throw the baby out with the bath water"! LOL
Posted by SpookySr on December 22,2008 | 03:16PM