This theory was first communicated to the Royal Society through the author's brother, Prof. William Thomson, and is printed in the 'Proceedings' of the Society for May, 1857. It was afterwards communicated to the British Association in Dublin, in whose 'Reports' it is further published; and again it was communicated to the Belfast Literary and Philosophical Society, in whose 'Proceedings' it also finds a place.
On the 24th of November, 1859, Mr. James Thomson communicated to the Royal Society, through his brother, a second paper, in which he again draws attention to his theory. He offers it in substitution for my views as the best argument that he can adduce against them; he also controverts the explanations of regelation propounded by Prof. James D. Forbes and Prof. Faraday, believing that his own theory explains all the facts so well as to leave room for no other.
DIFFICULTIES OF THEORY.
But the passage in this paper which demands my chief attention is the following:—"Prof. Tyndall (writes Mr. Thomson), in papers and lectures subsequent to the publication of this theory, appears to adopt it to some extent, and to endeavour to make its principles co-operate with the views he had previously founded on Mr. Faraday's fact of regelation." I may say that Mr. Thomson's main thought was familiar to me long before his first communication on the plasticity of ice appeared; but it had little influence upon my convictions. Were the above passage correct, I should deserve censure for neglecting to express my obligations far more explicitly than I have hitherto done; but I confess that even now I do not understand the essential point of Mr. Thomson's theory,—that is to say, its application to the phenomena of glacier motion. Indeed, it was the obscurity in my mind in connexion with this point, and the hope that time might enable me to seize more clearly upon his meaning, which prevented me from giving that prominence to the theory of Mr. Thomson which, for aught I know, it may well deserve. I will here briefly state one or two of my difficulties, and shall feel very grateful to have them removed.
IMPROBABLE DEDUCTION.
Let us fix our attention on a vertical slice of ice transverse to the glacier, and to which the pressure is applied perpendicular to its surfaces. The ice liquefies, and, supposing the means of escape offered to the compressed water to be equal all round, it is plain that there will be as great a tendency to squeeze the water upwards as downwards; for the mere tendency to flow down by its own gravity becomes, in comparison to the forces here acting on the water, a vanishing quantity. But the fact is, that the ice above the slice is more permeable than that below it; for, as we descend a glacier, the ice becomes more compact. Hence the greater part of the dispersed water will be refrozen on that side of the slice which is turned towards the origin of the glacier; and the consequence is, that, according to Mr. Thomson's principle, the glacier ought to move up hill instead of down.
I would invite Mr. Thomson to imagine himself and me together upon the ice, desirous of examining this question in a philosophic spirit; and that we have taken our places beside a stake driven into the ice, and descending with the glacier. We watch the ice surrounding the stake, and find that every speck of dirt upon it retains its position; there is no liquefaction of the ice that bears the dirt, and consequently it rests on the glacier undisturbed. After twelve hours we find the stake fifteen inches distant from its first position: I would ask Mr. Thomson how did it get there? Or let us fix our attention on those six stakes which M. Agassiz drove into the glacier of the Aar in 1841, and found erect in 1842 at some hundreds of feet from their first position:—how did they get there? How, in fine, does the end of a glacier become its end? Has it been liquefied and re-frozen? If not, it must have been pushed down by the very forces which Mr. Thomson invokes to produce his liquefaction. Both the liquefaction, as far as it exists, and the motion, are products of the same cause. In short, this theory, as it presents itself to my mind, is so powerless to account for the simplest fact of glacier-motion, that I feel disposed to continue to doubt my own competence to understand it rather than ascribe to Mr. Thomson an hypothesis apparently so irrelevant to the facts which it professes to explain.
Another difficulty is the following:—Mr. Thomson will have seen that I have recorded certain winter measurements made on the Mer de Glace, and that these measurements show not only that the ice moves at that period of the year, but that it exhibits those characteristics of motion from which its plasticity has been inferred; the velocity of the central portions of the glacier being in round numbers double the velocity of those near the sides. Had there been any necessity for it, this ratio might have been augmented by placing the side-stakes closer to the walls of the glacier. Considering the extreme coldness of the weather which preceded these measurements, it is a moderate estimate to set down the temperature of the ice in which my stakes were fixed at 5° Cent. below zero.
REQUISITE PRESSURE CALCULATED.