Fragments of Earth Lore: Sketches & Addresses Geological and Geographical

But the climatic changes to be accounted for were in all probability more numerous and complex than those just referred to. Competent observers have adduced unmistakable evidence of three epochs of glaciation in the Alpine Lands of Europe. And we are not without distinct hints that similar changes have taken place in northern and western Europe. Nor in this connection can we ignore the evidence of several interglacial episodes which Mr. Chamberlin and others have detected in the glaciated tracts of North America. Even this is not all, for the upholders of the “earth-movement hypothesis” have still further to account for the climatic oscillations of post-glacial times. If it be hard enough to allow the possibility of one great movement of elevation having affected so enormous an area of our hemisphere, if we find it extremely difficult to believe either that one such widespread movement, or that a multitude of local movements, each more or less independent of the other, could have lifted the glaciated regions successively within reach of the snow-line – we shall yet find it impossible to admit that such remarkable upheavals could be repeated again and again.

We seem driven to conclude, therefore, that the “earth-movement hypothesis” fails to explain the phenomena of Pleistocene times. One cannot deny, indeed, that glaciation might be induced locally by elevation of the land. It is quite conceivable that mountains now below the limits of perennial snow might come to be ridged up to such an extent as to be capable of sustaining snow-fields and glaciers. And such local movements may possibly have happened here and there during the long-continued Pleistocene period. But the glacial phenomena of that period are on much too grand a scale and far too widely distributed to be accounted for in that way. And if the occurrence of even one glacial epoch cannot be thus explained, we may leave the supporters of the “earth-movement hypothesis” to show us what light is thrown by their urim and thummim on the origin of succeeding interglacial and glacial climates.

There is yet another physical condition of the Pleistocene and post-glacial periods which any adequate explanation must embrace. I refer to the oscillation of sea-level, of which so many proofs are forthcoming. It is very remarkable that almost everywhere throughout the maritime regions of formerly glaciated areas we find evidence of submergence. So commonly is this the case, that geologists have long suspected that the connection between glaciation and submergence might be one of cause and effect. The possible influence of great ice-sheets in disturbing the relative level of land and sea is a question, therefore, of very great importance. It is one, however, which must be solved by physicists. Croll and others have advocated the view that the great accumulations of ice of the Glacial period may have displaced the earth’s centre of gravity, and thus caused the sea to rise upon the glaciated hemisphere. The various results arrived at by physicists are hardly comparable, because each has used different data, but it seems probable that we have in this view a vera causa of oscillations of the sea-level. Another hypothesis would explain the rise of the sea as due to the attractive influence of the great ice-masses, but Dr. Drygalski’s and Mr. Woodward’s elaborate investigations would seem to have demonstrated that this notion does not account for the facts. Yet another speculation has been advanced. Mr. Jamieson has suggested that the mere weight of the ice-sheets would suffice to press down the earth’s crust into a supposed liquid substratum, and this explanation has met with much acceptance. Unfortunately our knowledge of the condition of the earth’s interior is so very limited that we cannot be certain as to how the crust would be affected by the weight of an ice-sheet. No doubt Mr. Jamieson’s hypothesis gives a specious explanation of certain geological phenomena, but if there be no liquid substratum underlying a thin crust it cannot be true. At present the prevalent view of physicists appears to be that the earth is substantially solid. Professor George Darwin has shown that the prominent inequalities of the earth’s surface could not be sustained unless the crust be as rigid as granite for a depth of 1000 miles. “If the earth be solid throughout,” he remarks, “then at 1000 miles from the surface the material must be as strong as granite. If it be fluid or gaseous inside, and the crust 1000 miles thick, that crust must be stronger than granite, and if only 200 or 300 miles in thickness, much stronger than granite.” This conclusion is obviously strongly confirmatory of Sir William Thomson’s view, that the earth is solid throughout. But many geologists find it hard to account for the convolutions of strata and other structural phenomena on the supposition that the earth is entirely solid, and they are inclined, therefore, to adopt the hypothesis of a sub-crust layer of liquid matter. Whether this be actually the condition or not physicists must be left to determine. All that we need note is, that if there be any force in Professor Darwin’s argument, it is obvious that the crust is possessed of great rigidity, and could not be readily deformed by the mere weight of an ice-sheet. According to Dr. Drygalski, however, the presence of an ice-sheet, by reducing the temperature of the underlying crust, would bring about contraction, and in this way cause the surface to sink. When the ice-sheet had disappeared, then free radiation of earth-heat would be resumed, the depressed isogeotherms would rise, and a general warming of the upper portion of the lithosphere would take place. But the space occupied by the depressed section, owing to the spheroidal form of the earth, would be smaller than that which it occupied before sinking had commenced, and consequently when the ice vanished expansion of the crust would follow, and the land-surface would then rise again. The whole question is one for physicists to decide upon, but I may point out that if Drygalski’s explanation be well founded, then it is obvious that it throws no light upon the origin and subsequent disappearance of an ice-sheet. Somehow or other this ice-sheet comes into existence, and the cooling and contracting crust sinks below it; and that depressed condition of the glaciated area must continue so long as the ice-sheet remains unmelted. Re-elevation can only take place when, owing to some other cause or causes, the climate changes and the ice-sheet vanishes.

Those who advocate the “earth-movement hypothesis” as an explanation of the origin of extensive glaciation have welcomed Mr. Jamieson’s view as harmonising well with their conclusions. They contend, as we have seen, that glacial conditions were induced by an extensive upheaval of the crust in northern latitudes, accompanied by a depression of the Isthmus of Panama. They then proceed to point out that the ice-sheets brought about their own dissolution by pressing down the crust, and introducing with submergence a disappearance of glacial conditions. See now how much they take for granted. In the first place, they assume an amount of pre-glacial or early glacial elevation of northern regions for which not a scrap of evidence can be adduced, while they can give no proof of contemporaneous depression of the Isthmus of Panama. Next, relying on Mr. Jamieson’s hypothesis, they take for granted that the ice-sheets, called into existence by their postulated earth-movements, succeeded in depressing the earth’s surface even below its present level. That is to say, the land, which, according to them, was in glacial times some 3000 feet higher than now, sank down under the weight of its glacial covering for, say, 3600 feet in north-western Europe. In North America, in like manner, all the pre-glacial elevation was lost – the land sinking below its present level for some 200 feet in New England, for 520 feet at Montreal, for 1000 to 1500 feet in Labrador, and for 1000 to 2000 feet in the Arctic regions. Now, even if we concede the reasonableness of Mr. Jamieson’s hypothesis, and admit that a certain degree of deformation may take place under the mere weight of an ice-sheet, it is difficult to believe that the crust can be so readily deformed as the supporters of the “earth-movement hypothesis” seem to imply. If it could yield so readily to pressure, one is at a loss to understand how a great ice-sheet could accumulate – the ice would simply float off as the land subsided. Take the case of north-western Europe. The ice-sheet that covered Scotland did not attain, on the average, 3000 feet in thickness, and yet we are to suppose that it was able to depress the land for some 600 feet below its present level – that is to say, for 3600 feet below its assumed pre-glacial elevation. Either the ice depressed the crust to that remarkable extent, or the land upon which the ice accumulated was not nearly so high as the advocates of the “earth-movement hypothesis” have supposed. But the average I have taken for the thickness of the Scottish ice-sheet is excessive, for it was only in the low-grounds that the mer de glace attained such a depth. A large part of our country, however, is mountainous, and the mountain-tops were, of course, not nearly so thickly mantled with ice as the valleys. And the same to even a larger extent holds good for the Scandinavian peninsula. If we take the thickness of the Scandinavian ice-sheet that coalesced with that of Scotland as 4000 feet, we shall be over the mark. Now, I ask, is it possible to believe that a sheet of ice of that thickness actually pressed down the crust of the earth for not less than 3600 feet? But if we accept the “earth-movement hypothesis,” as it has been recently advocated, that is what we must believe. If we cannot do so, then we cannot accept the assumption of great elevation of the land in pre-glacial and glacial times. Let me put the case shortly: if the glacial marine beds and raised beaches of the Atlantic borders of Europe and North America owe their origin to depression induced by the weight of an ice-sheet, then it is quite certain that at the advent of glacial conditions the land could not have been so highly elevated as the advocates of the “earth-movement hypothesis” suppose. But if we are to accept the notion of great elevation of the land, then we must conclude that the submergence to which the raised beaches testify cannot have been caused by the pressure of ice-sheets.

It is hardly necessary to pursue this particular subject further, but before leaving it, attention may be drawn for a moment to the curious conclusion that the ice-sheets were self-destructive. One is left to guess at what particular stage the sinking process began, but if the earth’s crust were as readily deformed as the extreme views I have been examining would compel one to imply, then depression must have commenced almost immediately with the accumulation of snow and ice. The several ice-sheets must soon have attained their maximum thickness, and their disappearance must have been correspondingly rapid. And yet all the evidence goes to show that a glacial epoch endured for a comparatively long time – for a time sufficient to account for a prodigious amount of rock-erosion, and for the accumulation of vast sheets of glacial débris and fluvio-glacial detritus.77

If it be difficult to understand how the “earth-movement hypothesis” can account for the origin of one glacial epoch, the difficulty is not lessened when we remember that there are two or more such epochs to account for. And until the advocates of that hypothesis can furnish us with some reliable evidence, they can hardly expect us to believe in their mysterious upheavals and depressions of northern and temperate regions, and in the no less wonderfully rhythmic movements of the Isthmus of Panama. In fine, the views which I have been controverting seem to me to be untenable, inasmuch as they are founded on mere assumptions, and do not even give a reasonable and intelligible explanation of the phenomena of glaciated regions, while they practically ignore or leave unsolved the problem of interglacial conditions.

Some five-and-twenty years have now elapsed since my lamented friend and colleague, James Croll, published his well-known physical theory of the Glacial period. That theory, as you all know, has been frequently criticised by physicists and others, to whose objections Croll made a final reply in his Climate and Cosmology. In that work he has successfully defended his views, and even added considerably to the strength of his general argument. I am not aware that since then any serious objections to Croll’s theory have appeared. The only one indeed that seems to have attracted attention is that which has been urged especially by certain American geologists. Their belief is that the close of the Glacial period must have taken place at a much more recent date than Croll has inferred. And this belief of theirs is based upon various estimates which have been made as to the time required for the erosion of valleys and the accumulation of alluvial deposits since the Glacial period. Thus, according to Mr. Gilbert, the post-glacial gorge of Niagara, at the present rate of erosion, must have been excavated within 7000 years; while Mr. Winchell, from similar measurements of the post-glacial erosion of the Falls of St. Anthony, concludes that 8000 years have elapsed since the close of the Ice Age. I might cite a number of similar estimates that tend to show that since the close of the Glacial period only 7000 or 10,000 years have elapsed. What will archæologists say to this conclusion? We know that Egypt was already occupied by a civilised people nearly 6000 years ago, and their marvellously advanced civilisation at that time presupposes, according to Egyptologists, many thousands of years of development. Are we, then, prepared to admit that the close of the Ice Age coincided with the dawn of Egyptian civilisation? But all American observers are not so parsimonious with regard to post-glacial time. Thus Professor Spencer has given the age of the Falls of Niagara as 24,000 years, and he informed me recently that this does not represent half of the time since the formation of the third great series of glacial deposits of the Canadian uplands. In our own Continent similar estimates have been based on the rate of erosion of river-valleys, the rate of accumulation of alluvial deposits, of peat-bogs, of stalagmite in caves, and what not, with results that, to say the least, are rather discordant. The fact is that all such measurements and estimates, however carefully conducted and cautiously made, are in the nature of things unreliable. We are insufficiently acquainted with all the factors of the problem to be solved, and I cannot therefore agree with those who attribute much weight to conclusions based on such uncertain data. Dr. Croll’s theory may eventually be modified, but I feel sure that it will not be overturned by the inconclusive and unsatisfactory estimates to which I have referred. Moreover, opponents of that theory may be reminded that its truth does not rest on the accuracy of its author’s conclusion as to the date of the last Ice Age. That periods of high eccentricity of the earth’s orbit have occurred is beyond all doubt, but whether the formulæ employed by Croll in calculating the date of the last great cycle can be relied upon for that purpose is quite another question. At present, so far as I understand the facts, the glacial and the interglacial phenomena are explained by the astronomical theory, and by no other. It gives a simple, coherent, and consistent interpretation of the climatic vicissitudes of the Pleistocene and post-glacial periods, and in especial it is the only theory that throws any light on the very remarkable climates of interglacial times.