the Glacial epoch is probably comprehended within this table.
| I. | II. | III. | IV. | Winter occurring in aphelion. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of years before a.d. 1800. | Eccentricity of orbit. | Longitude of perihelion. | Number of degrees passed over by the perihelion. Motion retrograde at periods marked R. | V. Excess of winter over summer, in days. | VI. Midwinter intensity of the sun’s heat. Present intensity = 1000. | VII. Number of degrees by which the midwinter temperature is lowered. | VIII. Midwinter temperature of Great Britain. |
° ′ | F. | F. | |||||
250,000 | 0·0258 | 59 39 | ° ′ | ° | ° | ||
240,000 | 0·0374 | 74 58 | 15 19 | 17·4 | 898 | 28·3 | 10·7 |
S 230,000 | 0·0477 | 102 49 | 27 51 | 22·2 | 885 | 33·2 | 5·8 |
S 220,000 | 0·0497 | 124 33 | 21 44 | 23·2 | 877 | 34·1 | 4·9 |
S 210,000 | 0·0575 | 144 55 | 20 22 | 26·7 | 864 | 37·7 | 1·3 |
200,000 | 0·0569 | 168 18 | 23 23 | 26·5 | 865 | 37·4 | 1·6 |
S 190,000 | 0·0532 | 190 4 | 21 46 | 24·7 | 871 | 35·7 | 3·3 |
S 180,000 | 0·0476 | 209 22 | 19 18 | 22·1 | 881 | 33·1 | 5·9 |
S 170,000 | 0·0437 | 228 7 | 18 45 | 20·3 | 887 | 31·3 | 7·7 |
160,000 | 0·0364 | 236 38 | 8 31 | 16·9 | 900 | 27·8 | 11·2 |
150,000 | 0·0332 | 242 56 | 6 18 | 15·4 | 905 | 26·2 | 12·8 |
140,000 | 0·0346 | 246 29 | 3 33 | 16·1 | 903 | 26·9 | 12·1 |
130,000 | 0·0384 | 259 34 | 13 5 | 17·8 | 896 | 28·8 | 10·2 |
120,000 | 0·0431 | 274 47 | 15 13 | 20·1 | 888 | 31·0 | 8·0 |
110,000 | 0·0460 | 293 48 | 19 1 | 21·4 | 883 | 32·4 | 6·6 |
100,000 | 0·0473 | 316 18 | 22 30 | 22·0 | 881 | 33·0 | 6·0 |
L 90,000 | 0·0452 | 340 2 | 23 44 | 21·0 | 885 | 32·0 | 7·0 |
L 80,000 | 0·0398 | 4 13 | 24 11 | 18·5 | 894 | 29·4 | 9·6 |
L 70,000 | 0·0316 | 27 22 | 23 9 | 14·7 | 908 | 25·5 | 13·5 |
L 60,000 | 0·0218 | 46 8 | 18 46 | ||||
50,000 | 0·0131 | 50 14 | 4 6 | ||||
L 40,000 | 0·0109 | 28 36 | R 21 38 | ||||
L 30,000 | 0·0151 | 5 50 | R 22 46 | ||||
L 20,000 | 0·0188 | 44 0 | 38 10 | ||||
L 10,000 | 0·0187 | 78 28 | 34 28 | ||||
a.d. 1800 | 0·0168 | 99 30 | 21 2 | ||||
In Tables II., III., and IV., column I. represents the dates of the periods, column II. the eccentricity, column III. the longitude of the perihelion. In Table IV. the eccentricity and the longitude of the perihelion of the six periods marked with an S are copied from a letter of Mr. Stone to Sir Charles Lyell, published in the Supplement of the Phil. Mag. for June, 1865; the eight periods marked L are copied from M. Leverrier’s Table, to which reference has been made. For the correctness of everything else, both in this Table and in the other three, I alone am responsible.
Column IV. gives the number of degrees passed over by the perihelion during each 10,000 years. From this column it will be seen how irregular is the motion of the perihelion. At four different periods it had a retrograde motion for 20,000 years. Column V. shows the number of days by which the winter exceeds the summer when the winter occurs in aphelion. Column VI. shows the intensity of the sun’s heat during midwinter, when the winter occurs in aphelion, the present midwinter intensity being taken at 1,000. These six columns comprehend all the astronomical part of the Tables. Regarding the correctness of the principles upon which these columns are constructed, there is no diversity of opinion. But these columns afford no direct information as to the character of the climate, or how much the temperature is increased or diminished. To find this we pass on to columns VII. and VIII., calculated on physical principles. Now, unless the physical principles upon which these three columns are calculated be wholly erroneous, change of eccentricity must undoubtedly very seriously affect climate. Column VII. shows how many degrees Fahrenheit the temperature is lowered by a decrease in the intensity of the sun’s heat corresponding to column VI. For example, 850,000 years ago, if the winters occurred then in aphelion, the direct heat of the sun during midwinter would be only 837/1000 of what it is at present at the same season of the year, and column VII. shows that this decrease in the intensity of the sun’s heat would lower the temperature 45°·3 F.
The principle upon which this result is arrived at is this:—The temperature of space, as determined by Sir John Herschel, is −239° F. M. Pouillet, by a different method, arrived at almost the same result. If we take the midwinter temperature of Great Britain at 39°, then 239° + 39° = 278° will represent the number of degrees of rise due to the sun’s heat at midwinter; in other words, it takes a quantity of sun-heat which we have represented by 1000 to maintain the temperature of the earth’s surface in Great Britain 278° above the temperature of space. Were the sun extinguished, the temperature of our island would sink 278° below its present midwinter temperature, or to the temperature of space. But 850,000 years ago, as will be seen from [Table III.], if the winters occurred in aphelion, the heat of the sun at midwinter would only equal 837 instead of 1000 as at present. Consequently, if it takes 1,000 parts of heat to maintain the temperature 278° above the temperature of space, 837 parts of heat will only be able to maintain the temperature 232°·7 above the temperature of space; for 232°·7 is to 278 as 837 is to 1,000. Therefore, if the temperature was then only 232°·7 above that of space, it would be 45°·3 below what it is at present. This is what the temperature would be on the supposition, of course, that it depended wholly on the sun’s intensity and was not modified by other causes. This method has already been discussed at some length in [Chapter II.] But whether these values be too high or too low, one thing is certain, that a very slight increase or a very slight decrease in the quantity of heat received from the sun must affect temperature to a considerable extent. The direct heat of the moon, for example, cannot be detected by the finest instruments which we possess; yet from 238,000 observations made at Prague during 1840−66, it would seem that the temperature is sensibly affected by the mere change in the lunar perigee and inclination of the moon’s orbit.[195]
Column VIII. gives the midwinter temperature. It is found by subtracting the numbers in column VII. from 39°, the present midwinter temperature.
I have not given a Table showing the temperature of the summers at the corresponding periods. This could not well be done; for there is no relation at the periods in question between the intensity of the sun’s heat and the temperature of the summers. One is apt to suppose, without due consideration, that the summers ought to be then as much warmer than they are at present, as the winters were then colder than now. Sir Charles Lyell, in his “Principles,” has given a column of summer temperatures calculated from my table upon this principle. Astronomically the principle is correct, but physically, as was shown in [Chapter IV.], it is totally erroneous, and calculated to convey a wrong impression regarding the whole subject of geological climate. The summers at those periods, instead of being much warmer than they are at present, would in reality be much colder, notwithstanding the great increase in the intensity of the sun’s heat resulting from the diminished distance of the sun.
What, then, is the date of the glacial epoch? It is perfectly obvious that if the glacial epoch resulted from a high state of eccentricity, it must be referred either to the period included in [Table III.] or to the one in [Table IV.] In [Table III.] we have a period extending from about 980,000 to about 720,000 years ago, and in [Table IV.] we have a period beginning about 240,000 years ago, and extending down to about 80,000 years ago. As the former period was of greater duration than the latter, and the eccentricity also attained to a higher value, I at first felt disposed to refer the glacial epoch proper (the time of the till and boulder clay) to the former period; and the latter period, I was inclined to believe, must have corresponded to the time of local glaciers towards the close of the glacial epoch, the evidence for which (moraines) is to be found in almost every one of our Highland glens. On this point I consulted several eminent geologists, and they all agreed in referring the glacial epoch to the former period; the reason assigned being that they considered the latter period to be much too recent and of too short duration to represent that epoch.
Pondering over the subject during the early part of 1866, reasons soon suggested themselves which convinced me that the glacial epoch must be referred to the latter and not to the former period. Those reasons I shall now proceed to state at some length, since they have a direct bearing, as will be seen, on the whole question of geological time.
It is the modern and philosophic doctrine of uniformity that has chiefly led geologists to over-estimate the length of geological periods. This philosophic school teaches, and that truly, that the great changes undergone by the earth’s crust must have been produced, not by convulsions and cataclysms of nature, but by those ordinary agencies that we see at work every day around us, such as rain, snow, frost, ice, and chemical action, &c. It teaches that the valleys were not produced by violent dislocations, nor the hills by sudden upheavals, but that they were actually carved out of the solid rock by the silent and gentle agency of chemical action, frost, rain, ice, and running water. It teaches, in short, that the rocky face of our globe has been carved into hill and dale, and ultimately worn down to the sea-level, by means of these apparently trifling agents, not only once or twice, but probably dozens of times over during past ages. Now, when we reflect that with such extreme slowness do these agents perform their work, that we might watch their operations from year to year, and from century to century, if we could, without being able to perceive that they make any very sensible advance, we are necessitated to conclude that geological periods must be enormous. And the conclusion at which we thus arrive is undoubtedly correct. It is, in fact, impossible to form an adequate conception of the length of geological time. It is something too vast to be fully grasped by our minds. But here we come to the point where the fundamental mistake arises; Geologists do not err in forming too great a conception of the extent of geological periods, but in the mode in which they represent the length of these periods in numbers. When we speak of units, tens, hundreds, thousands, we can form some notion of what these quantities represent; but when we come to millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, thousands of millions, the mind is then totally unable to follow, and we can only use these numbers as representations of quantities that turn up in calculation. We know, from the way in which they do turn up in our process of calculation, whether they are correct representations of things in actual nature or not; but we could not, from a mere comparison of these quantities with the thing represented by them, say whether they were actually too small or too great.