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

by James Croll

Of course all erratics are not necessarily transported by masses of ice broken from the terminal front of glaciers. The “ice foot,” formed by the freezing of the sea along the coasts of the higher latitudes of Greenland, carries seawards immense quantities of blocks and débris. And again stones and boulders are frequently frozen into river-ice, and when the ice breaks up in spring are swept out to sea, and may be carried some little distance before they are dropped. But both these cases can occur only in regions where the winters are excessive; nor is it at all likely that such ice-rafts will succeed in making a long voyage. If, therefore, we could assure ourselves that the erratics occasionally met with in certain old geological formations in low latitudes were really transported from the land by an ice-foot or a raft of river-ice, we should be forced to conclude that very severe climatic conditions must have obtained in such latitudes at the time the erratics were dispersed.

The reason why we now have, comparatively speaking, so little direct evidence of the existence of former glacial periods will be more forcibly impressed upon the mind, if we reflect on how difficult it would be in a million or so of years hence to find any trace of what we now call the glacial epoch. The striated stones would by that time be all, or nearly all, disintegrated, and the till washed away and deposited in the bottom of the sea as stratified sands and clays. And when these became consolidated into rock and were raised into dry land, the only evidence that we should probably then have that there ever had been a glacial epoch would be the presence of large blocks of the older rocks, which would be found imbedded in the upraised formation. We could only infer that there had been ice at work from the fact that by no other known agency could we conceive such blocks to have been transported and dropped in a still sea.

Probably few geologists believe that during the Middle Eocene and the Upper Miocene periods our country passed through a condition of glaciation as severe as it has done during the Post-pliocene period; yet when we examine the subject carefully, we find that there is actually no just ground to conclude that it has not. For, in all probability, throughout the strata to be eventually formed out of the destruction of the now existing land-surfaces, evidence of ice-action will be as scarce as in Eocene or Miocene strata.

If the stratified rocks forming the earth’s crust consisted of a series of old land-surfaces instead (as they actually do) of a series of old sea-bottoms, then probably traces of many glacial periods might be detected.

Nearly all the evidence which we have regarding the glacial epoch has been derived from what we find on the now existing land-surfaces of the globe. But probably not a vestige of this will exist in the stratified beds of future ages, formed out of the destruction of the present land-surfaces. Even the very arctic shell-beds themselves, which have afforded to the geologist such clear proofs of a frozen sea during the glacial epoch, will not be found in those stratified rocks; for they must suffer destruction along with everything else which now exists above the sea-level. There is probably not a single relic of the glacial epoch which has ever been seen by the eye of man that will be treasured up in the stratified rocks of future ages. Nothing that does not lie buried in the deeper recesses of the ocean will escape complete disintegration and appear imbedded in those formations. It is only those objects which lie in our existing sea-bottoms that will remain as monuments of the glacial epoch of the Post-tertiary period. And, moreover, it will only be those portions of the sea-bottoms that may happen to be upraised into dry land that will be available to the geologist of future ages. The point to be determined now is this:—Is it probable that the geologist of the future will find in the rocks formed out of the now existing sea-bottoms more evidence of a glacial epoch during Post-tertiary times than we now do of one during, say, the Miocene, the Eocene, or the Permian period? Unless this can be proved to be the case, we have no ground whatever to conclude that the cold periods of the Miocene, Eocene, and Permian periods were not as severe as that of the glacial epoch. This is evident, for the only relics which now remain of the glacial epochs of those periods are simply what happened to be protected in the then existing sea-bottoms. Every vestige that lay on the land would in all probability be destroyed by subaërial agency and carried into the sea in a sedimentary form. But before we can determine whether or not there is more evidence of the glacial epoch in our now existing sea-bottoms than there is of former glacial epochs in the stratified rocks (which are in reality the sea-bottoms belonging to ancient epochs), we must first ascertain what is the nature of those marks of glaciation which are to be found in a sea-bottom.

Icebergs do not striate the Sea-bottom.—We know that the rocky face of the country was ground down and striated during the glacial epoch; and this is now generally believed to have been done by land-ice. But we have no direct evidence that the floor of the ocean, beyond where it may have been covered with land-ice, was striated. Beyond the limits of the land-ice it could be striated only by means of icebergs. But do icebergs striate the rocky bed of the ocean? Are they adapted for such work? It seems to be often assumed that they are. But I have been totally unable to find any rational grounds for such a belief. Clean ice can have but little or no erosive power, and never could scratch a rock. To do this it must have grinding materials in the form of sand, mud, or stones. But the bottoms of icebergs are devoid of all such materials. Icebergs carry the grinding materials on their backs, not on their bottoms. No doubt, when the iceberg is launched into the deep, great masses of sand, mud, and stones will be adhering to its bottom. But no sooner is the berg immersed, than a melting process commences at its sides and lower surface in contact with the water; and the consequence is, the materials adhering to the lower surface soon drop off and sink to the bottom of the sea. The iceberg, divested of these materials, can now do very little harm to the rocky sea-bottom over which it floats. It is true that an iceberg moving with a velocity of a few miles an hour, if it came in contact with the sea-bottom, would, by the mere force of concussion, tear up loose and disjointed rocks, and hurl some of the loose materials to a distance; but it would do but little in the way of grinding down the rock against which it struck. But even supposing the bottom of the iceberg were properly shod with the necessary grinding materials, still it would be but a very inefficient grinding agent; for a floating iceberg would not be in contact with the sea-bottom. And if it were in contact with the sea-bottom, it would soon become stranded and, of course, motionless, and under such conditions could produce no effect.

It is perfectly true that although the bottom of the berg may be devoid of grinding materials, yet these may be found lying on the surface of the submarine rock over which the ice moves. But it must be borne in mind that the same current which will move the icebergs over the surface of the rock will move the sand, mud, and other materials over it also; so that the markings effected by the ice would in all probability be erased by the current. In the deep recesses of the ocean the water has been found to have but little or no motion. But icebergs always follow the path of currents; and it is very evident that at the comparatively small depth of a thousand feet or so reached by icebergs the motion of the water will be considerable; and the continual shifting of the small particles of the mud and sand will in all probability efface the markings which may be made now and again by a passing berg.

Much has been said regarding the superiority of icebergs as grinding and striating agents in consequence of the great velocity of their motion in comparison with that of land-ice. But it must be remembered that it is while the iceberg is floating, and before it touches the rock, that it possesses high velocity. When the iceberg runs aground, its motion is suddenly arrested or greatly reduced. But if the iceberg advancing upon a sloping sea-bottom is raised up so as to exert great pressure, it will on this account be the more suddenly arrested, the motion will be slow, and the distance passed over short, before the berg becomes stranded. If it exerts but little pressure on the sea-bottom, it may retain a considerable amount of motion and advance to a considerable distance before it is brought to a stand; but, exerting little pressure, it can perform but little work. Land-ice moves slowly, but then it exerts enormous pressure. A glacier 1,000 feet in thickness has a pressure on its rocky bed equal to about 25 tons on the square foot; but an iceberg a mile in thickness, forced up on a sloping sea-bottom to an elevation of 20 feet (and this is perhaps more than any ocean-current could effect), would only exert a pressure of about half a ton on the square foot, or about 1/50th part of the pressure of the glacier 1,000 feet in thickness. A great deal has been said about the erosive and crushing power of icebergs of enormous thickness, as if their thickness gave them any additional pressure. An iceberg 100 feet in thickness will exert just as much pressure as one a mile in thickness. The pressure of an iceberg is not like that of a glacier, in proportion to its thickness, but to the height to which it is raised out of the water. An iceberg 100 feet in thickness raised 10 feet will exert exactly the same pressure as one a mile in thickness raised to an equal height.

To be an efficient grinding agent, steadiness of motion, as well as pressure, is essential. A rolling or rocking motion is ill-adapted for grinding down and striating a rock. A steady rubbing motion under pressure is the thing required. But an iceberg is not only deficient in pressure, but also deficient in steadiness of motion. When an iceberg moving with considerable velocity comes on an elevated portion of the sea-bottom, it does not move steadily onwards over the rock, unless the pressure of the berg on the rock be trifling. The resistance being entirely at the bottom of the iceberg, its momentum, combined with the pressure of the current, applied wholly above the point of resistance, tends to make the berg bend forward, and in some cases upset (when it is of a cubical form). The momentum of the moving berg, instead of being applied in forcing it over the rock against which it comes in contact, is probably all consumed in work against gravitation in raising the berg upon its front edge. After the momentum is consumed, unless the berg be completely upset, it will fall back under the force of gravitation to its original position. But the momentum which it acquires from gravitation in falling backwards carries it beyond its position of repose in an opposite direction. It will thus continue to rock backwards and forwards until the friction of the water brings it to rest. The momentum of the berg, instead of being applied to the work of grinding and striating the sea-bottom, will chiefly be consumed in heat in the agitation of the water. But if the berg does advance, it will do so with a rocking unsteady motion, which, as Mr. Couthouy[138] and Professor Dana[139] observe, will tend rather to obliterate striations than produce them.

A floating berg moves with great steadiness; but a berg that has run aground cannot advance with a steady motion. If the rock over which the berg moves offers little resistance, it may do so; but in such a case the berg could produce but little effect on the rock.