The British Association: Section C—Geology

Abstract

On Ice-Age Theories, by Rev. E. Hill, M.A., F.G.S., Tutor of St. John's College, Cambridge.—On the Montreal Mountain, in the neighbouring quarries, at the mouth of the Saguenay River, and more or less everywhere over all Canada and all the north and north-west of this continent, are seen phenomena which imply a former vastly extended action of ice. The like are found over Europe and Asia, thus completely encircling the Pole. Many theories have been propounded to account for these facts. It is proposed to pass these before you in review. Any explanation ought to account not only for cold greater than the present, but for accumulations of snow and ice. A kindred phenomenon is the greater size of the Antarctic ice-cap. The supposed interglacial warm periods, and the unquestioned luxuriance of Miocene vegetation in Greenland, ought also to find their causes in any thoroughly satisfactory theory. The theories which have been propounded fall into three groups, as Cosmical, Terrestrial, and Astronomical (or Periodical). The Cosmical theories arc Poisson's Cold-Space theory—incomprehensible; and the Cold-Sun theory of S. V. Wood and others—lacking any evidence. The Terrestrial theories are numerous. Lyell's suggestion of Polar-continent and Equatorial-ocean is opposed by evidence that continents and oceans lay on much the same areas as now. The contrary view, Polar-ocean and Equatorial-land, would deserve consideration but for the same opposing evidence. The elevation view (Dana, Wallace), which alleges greater altitude of mountain-chains, disagrees with the strong evidence for land-depression during the period. The submergence view of Dr. Dawson agrees with this evidence, but requires elucidation. Alteration of ocean-currents (Gunn, J. S. Gardiner) is a most powerful agency, but would act locally rather than universally round the Pole. Alteration of prevalent winds, hitherto worked out by no one, deserves attentive consideration. Conditions are conceivable which would produce over an area owinds from cold quarters almost permanently. However, this seems open to the same objection as the preceding theory. Last come the Astronomical or Periodical theories. A tilt of the earth's axis was suggested by Belt, but suggested as owing to causes which are wholly insufficient. Tilting from astronomical agencies is slight, though its action would be in the direction required. Herschel suggested the Eccentricity theory, but abandoned it. Adhémar's Precession theory, as explained by himself, involved an absolute fallacy. The celebrated view of Dr. Croll combines the Precession and Eccentricity theories into one. It exactly agrees with the Antarctic greater extension of ice, and provides an explanation of interglacial warm periods. The great difficulty in its way is to see how a mere difference in distribution through the year of an unchanged total heat-receipt can produce consequences so vast. The laws of radiation explain tut a very minute part, the laws of evaporation perhaps rather more; but, so far as can at present be seen, both together are inadequate. Another serious objection is that the theory seems to require the climate of the northern hemisphere to be now in a state of change for the better, of which at present there appears no evidence. Dr. Croll's elaborate explanations of the reaction of one effect upon another—fogs, deflection of currents, and the like—have no special connection with his own theory. They would act in all cases, and support all theories equally. The arguments, if admitted, would only prove that the earth's climates are in a state of highly unstable equilibrium, in which a slight cause may produce an enormous change. Nor are his arguments universally admitted. In conclusion, Dr. Croll's theory seems inadequate: alteration of currents and winds are the most powerful causes suggested hitherto: further investigations ought to be made as to the nature and extent of the last series of changes in the outlines of the continents of the globe.