Climate and Time in Their Geological Relations / A Theory of Secular Changes of the Earth's Climate

by James Croll

The reason of all this is perfectly obvious. The things to be explained are effects; and the relationship between cause and effect affords the subjective connection between the principle and the explanation. The explanation follows from the principle simply as the effect results from the laws of the agent or cause.

Theories of Geological Climate.—We have already seen that the geological agents are chiefly the ordinary climatic agents. Consequently, the main principles of geology must be the laws of the climatic agents, or some logical deductions from them. It therefore follows that, in order to a purely scientific geology, the grand problem must be one of geological climate. It is through geological climate that we can hope to arrive ultimately at principles which will afford a rational explanation of the multifarious facts which have been accumulating during the past century. The facts of geology are as essential to the establishment of the principles, as the facts of heat, light, and electricity are essential to the establishment of the principles of these sciences. A theory of geological climate devised without reference to the facts would be about as worthless as a theory of heat or of electricity devised without reference to the facts of these sciences.

It has all along been an admitted opinion among geologists that the climatic condition of our globe has not, during past ages, been uniformly the same as at present. For a long time it was supposed that during the Cambrian, Silurian, and other early geological periods, the climate of our globe was much hotter than now, and that ever since it has been gradually becoming cooler. And this high temperature of Palæozoic ages was generally referred to the influence of the earth’s internal heat. It has, however, been proved by Sir William Thomson[2] that the general climate of our globe could not have been sensibly affected by internal heat at any time more than ten thousand years after the commencement of the solidification of the surface. This physicist has proved that the present influence of internal heat on the temperature amounts to about only 1/75th of a degree. Not only is the theory of internal heat now generally abandoned, but it is admitted that we have no good geological evidence that climate was much hotter during Palæozoic ages than now; and much less, that it has been becoming uniformly colder.

The great discovery of the glacial epoch, and more lately that of a mild and temperate condition of climate extending during the Miocene and other periods to North Greenland, have introduced a complete revolution of ideas in reference to geological climate. Those discoveries showed that our globe has not only undergone changes of climate, but changes of the most extraordinary character. They showed that at one time not only an arctic condition of climate prevailed in our island, but that the greater part of the temperate region down to comparatively low latitudes was buried under ice, while at other periods Greenland and the Arctic regions, probably up to the North Pole, were not only free from ice, but were covered with a rich and luxuriant vegetation.

To account for these extraordinary changes of climate has generally been regarded as the most difficult and perplexing problem which has fallen to the lot of the geologist. Some have attempted to explain them by assuming a displacement of the earth’s axis of rotation in consequence of the uprising of large mountain masses on some part of the earth’s surface. But it has been shown by Professor Airy,[3] Sir William Thomson,[4] and others, that the earth’s equatorial protuberance is such that no geological change on its surface could ever possibly alter the position of the axis of rotation to an extent which could at all sensibly affect climate. Others, again, have tried to explain the change of climate by supposing, with Poisson, that the earth during its past geological history may have passed through hotter and colder parts of space. This is not a very satisfactory hypothesis. There is no doubt a difference in the quantity of force in the form of heat passing through different parts of space; but space itself is not a substance which can possibly be either cold or hot. If, therefore, we were to adopt this hypothesis, we must assume that the earth during the hot periods must have been in the vicinity of some other great source of heat and light besides the sun. But the proximity of a mass of such magnitude as would be sufficient to affect to any great extent the earth’s climate would, by its gravity, seriously disarrange the mechanism of our solar system. Consequently, if our solar system had ever, during any former period of its history, really come into the vicinity of such a mass, the orbits of the planets ought at the present day to afford some evidence of it. But again, in order to account for a cold period, such as the glacial epoch, we have to assume that the earth must have come into the vicinity of a cold body.[5] But recent discoveries in regard to inter-glacial periods are wholly irreconcilable with this theory.

A change in the obliquity of the ecliptic has frequently been, and still is, appealed to as an explanation of geological climate. This theory appears, however, to be beset by a twofold objection: (1), it can be shown from celestial mechanics, that the variations in the obliquity of the ecliptic must always have been so small that they could not materially affect the climatic condition of the globe; and (2), even admitting that the obliquity could change to an indefinite extent, it can be shown[6] that no increase or decrease, however great, could possibly account for either the glacial epoch or a warm temperate condition of climate in polar regions.

The theory that the sun is a variable star, and that the glacial epochs of the geologists may correspond to periods of decrease in the sun’s heat, has lately been advanced. This theory is also open to two objections: (1), a general diminution of heat[7] never could produce a glacial epoch; and (2), even if it could, it would not explain inter-glacial periods.

The only other theory on the subject worthy of notice is that of Sir Charles Lyell. Those extraordinary changes of climate are, according to his theory, attributed to differences in the distribution of land and water. Sir Charles concludes that, were the land all collected round the poles, while the equatorial zones were occupied by the ocean, the general temperature would be lowered to an extent that would account for the glacial epoch. And, on the other hand, were the land all collected along the equator, while the polar regions were covered with sea, this would raise the temperature of the globe to an enormous extent. It will be shown in subsequent chapters that this theory does not duly take into account the prodigious influence exerted on climate by means of the heat conveyed from equatorial to temperate and polar regions by means of ocean-currents. In Chapters [II.] and [III.] I have endeavoured to prove (1), that were it not for the heat conveyed from equatorial to temperate and polar regions by this means, the thermal condition of the globe would be totally different from what it is at present; and (2), that the effect of placing all the land along the equator would be diametrically the opposite of that which Sir Charles supposes.

But supposing that difference in the distribution of land and water would produce the effects attributed to it, nevertheless it would not account for those extraordinary changes of climate which have occurred during geological epochs. Take, for example, the glacial epoch. Geologists almost all agree that little or no change has taken place in the relative distribution of sea and land since that epoch. All our main continents and islands not only existed then as they do now, but every year is adding to the amount of evidence which goes to show that so recent, geologically considered, is the glacial epoch that the very contour of the surface was pretty much the same then as it is at the present day. But this is not all; for even should we assume (1), that a difference in the distribution of sea and land would produce the effects referred to, and (2), that we had good geological evidence to show that at a very recent period a form of distribution existed which would produce the necessary glacial conditions, still the glacial epoch would not be explained, for the phenomena of warm inter-glacial periods would completely upset the theory.

Geological Climate depending on Astronomical Causes.—For a good many years past, an impression has been gradually gaining ground amongst geologists that the glacial epoch, as well as the extraordinary condition of climate which prevailed in arctic regions during the Miocene and other periods, must some way or other have resulted from a cosmical cause; but all seemed at a loss to conjecture what that cause could possibly be. It was apparent that the cosmical cause must be sought for in the relations of our earth to the sun; but a change in the obliquity of the ecliptic and the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit are the only changes from which any sensible effect on climate could possibly be expected to result. It was shown, however, by Laplace that the change of obliquity was confined within so narrow limits that it has scarcely ever been appealed to as a cause seriously affecting climate. The only remaining cause to which appeal could be made was the change in the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit—precession of the equinoxes without eccentricity producing, of course, no effect whatever on climate. Upwards of forty years ago Sir John Herschel and a few other astronomers directed their attention to the consideration of this cause, but the result arrived at was adverse to the supposition that change of eccentricity could greatly affect the climate of our globe.