Putnam and Beyond 1st by Razvan Gelca pdf

download

https://ebookgrade.com/product/putnam-and-beyond-1st-by-razvan-
gelca/

Get Instant Ebook Downloads – Browse at https://ebookgrade.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Putnam and beyond

https://ebookgrade.com/product/putnam-and-beyond/

ebookgrade.com

Pharmacology Case Study Workbook by Kathy Latch Putnam

https://ebookgrade.com/product/pharmacology-case-study-workbook-by-
kathy-latch-putnam/

ebookgrade.com

Beyond Critique Exploring Critical Social Theories and

Education 1st Edition

https://ebookgrade.com/product/beyond-critique-exploring-critical-
social-theories-and-education-1st-edition/

ebookgrade.com

Techniques for College Writing The Thesis Statement and

Beyond 1st Edition by Kathleen Muller Moore

https://ebookgrade.com/product/techniques-for-college-writing-the-
thesis-statement-and-beyond-1st-edition-by-kathleen-muller-moore/

ebookgrade.com
Non Governmental Organisations Performance &
Accountability Beyond the Magic Bullet by Edwards (1st
edition)
https://ebookgrade.com/product/non-governmental-organisations-
performance-accountability-beyond-the-magic-bullet-by-edwards-1st-
edition/
ebookgrade.com

Beyond Race 3rd By Joelle Presson and Jan Jenner

https://ebookgrade.com/product/beyond-race-3rd-by-joelle-presson-and-
jan-jenner/

ebookgrade.com

General Relativity Basics and Beyond

https://ebookgrade.com/product/general-relativity-basics-and-beyond/

ebookgrade.com

Intermediation and Beyond Louise Gullifer

https://ebookgrade.com/product/intermediation-and-beyond-louise-
gullifer/

ebookgrade.com
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
increase at the same rate that the southern will diminish, the
spherical form of the earth will always be maintained. By the time
that the northern cap has reached a maximum, the southern cap will
have completely disappeared. The circle W N′ E S′ will now
represent the earth with its cap on the northern hemisphere, and o′
will be its centre of gravity; for o′ is the centre of the circle W N′ E
S′. And as the distance between the centres o and o′ is equal to N
N′, the thickness of the cap at the pole N N′ will therefore represent
the extent to which the centre of gravity has been displaced. It will
also represent the extent to which the ocean has risen at the north
pole and sunk at the south. This is evident; for as the sphere W N′ E
S′ is the same in all respects as the sphere W N E S, with the
exception only that the cap is on the opposite side, the surface of
the ocean at the poles will now be at the same distance from the
centre o′ as it was from the centre o when the cap covered the
southern hemisphere. Hence the distance between o and o′ must be
equal to the extent of the submergence at the north pole and the
emergence at the south. Neglect the attraction of the altering water
on the water itself, which later on will come under our consideration.
Fig. 5.
 We shall now consider the result when the earth is taken at its
actual density, which is generally believed to be about 5·5. The
density of ice being ·92, the density of the cap to that of the earth
will therefore be as 1 to 6.
Fig. 6.

Let Fig. 6 represent the earth with an ice-cap on the northern

hemisphere, whose thickness is, say, 6,000 feet at the pole. The
centre of gravity of the earth without the cap is at c. When the cap
is on, the centre of gravity is shifted to o, a point a little more than
500 feet to the north of c. Had the cap and the earth been of equal
density, the centre of gravity would have been shifted to o′ the
centre of the figure, a point situated, of course, 3,000 feet to the
north of c. Now it is very approximately true that the ocean will tend
to adjust itself as a sphere around the centre of gravity, o. Thus it
would of course sink at the south pole and rise to the same extent at
the north, in any opening or channel in the ice allowing the water to
enter.
Let the ice-cap be now transferred over to the southern
hemisphere, and the condition of things on the two hemispheres will
in every particular be reversed. The centre of gravity will then lie to
the south of c, or about 1,000 feet from its former position.
Consequently the transference of the cap from the one hemisphere
to the other will produce a total submergence of about 1,000 feet.
It is, of course, absurd to suppose that an ice-cap could ever
actually reach down to the equator. It is probable that the great ice-
cap of the glacial epoch nowhere reached even halfway to the
equator. Our cap must therefore terminate at a moderately high
latitude. Let it terminate somewhere about the latitude of the north
of England, say at latitude 55°. All that we have to do now is simply
to imagine our cap, up to that latitude, becoming converted into the
fluid state. This would reduce the cap to less than one-half its
former mass. But it would not diminish the submergence to anything
like that extent. For although the cap would be reduced to less than
one-half its former mass, yet its influence in displacing the centre of
gravity would not be diminished to that extent. This is evident; for
the cap now extending down to only latitude 55°, has its centre of
gravity much farther removed from the earth’s centre of gravity than
it had when it extended down to the equator. Consequently it now
possesses, in proportion to its mass, a much greater power in
displacing the earth’s centre of gravity.
There is another fact which must be taken into account. The
common centre of gravity of the earth and cap is not exactly the
point around which the ocean tends to adjust itself. It adjusts itself
not in relation to the centre of gravity of the solid mass alone, but in
relation to the common centre of gravity of the entire mass, solid
and liquid. Now the water which is pulled over from the one
hemisphere to the other by the attraction of the cap will also aid in
displacing the centre of gravity. It will co-operate with the cap and
carry the true centre of gravity to a point beyond that of the centre
of gravity of the earth and cap, and thus increase the effect.
It is of course perfectly true that when the ice-cap does not
extend down to the equator, as in the latter supposition, and is of
less density than the globe, the ocean will not adjust itself uniformly
around the centre of gravity; but the deviation from perfect
uniformity is so trifling, as will be seen from the appended note of
Sir William Thomson, that for all practical purposes it may be entirely
left out of account.
In the Reader for January 13, 1866, I advanced an objection to
the submergence theory on the grounds that the lowering of the
ocean-level by the evaporation of the water to form the ice-cap,
would exceed the submergence resulting from the displacement of
the earth’s centre of gravity. But, after my letter had gone to press, I
found that I had overlooked some important considerations which
seem to prove that the objection had no real foundation. For during
a glacial period, say on the northern hemisphere, the entire mass of
ice which presently exists on the southern hemisphere would be
transferred to the northern, leaving the quantity of liquid water to a
great extent unchanged.
Note on the preceding by Sir William Thomson, F.R.S.
“Mr. Croll’s estimate of the influence of a cap of ice on the sea-
level is very remarkable in its relation to Laplace’s celebrated
analysis, as being founded on that law of thickness which leads to
expressions involving only the first term of the series of ‘Laplace’s
functions,’ or ‘spherical harmonics.’ The equation of the level surface,
as altered by any given transference of solid matter, is expressed by
equating the altered potential function to a constant. This function,
when expanded in the series of spherical harmonics, has for its first
term the potential due to the whole mass supposed collected at its
altered centre of gravity. Hence a spherical surface round the altered
centre of gravity is the first approximation in Laplace’s method of
solution for the altered level surface. Mr. Croll has with admirable
tact chosen, of all the arbitrary suppositions that may be made
foundations for rough estimates of the change of sea-level due to
variations in the polar ice-crusts, the one which reduces to zero all
terms after the first in the harmonic series, and renders that first
approximation (which always expresses the essence of the result)
the whole solution, undisturbed by terms irrelevant to the great
physical question.
“Mr. Croll, in the preceding paper, has alluded with remarkable
clearness to the effect of the change in the distribution of the water
in increasing, by its own attraction, the deviation of the level surface
above that which is due to the given change in the distribution of
solid matter. The remark he makes, that it is round the centre of
gravity of the altered solid and altered liquid that the altering liquid
surface adjusts itself, expresses the essence of Laplace’s celebrated
demonstration of the stability of the ocean, and suggests the proper
elementary solution of the problem to find the true alteration of sea-
level produced by a given alteration of the solid. As an assumption
leading to a simple calculation, let us suppose the solid earth to rise
out of the water in a vast number of small flat-topped islands, each
bounded by a perpendicular cliff, and let the proportion of water
area to the whole be equal in all quarters. Let all of these islands in
one hemisphere be covered with ice, of thickness according to the
law assumed by Mr. Croll—that is, varying in simple proportion of the
sine of the latitude. Let this ice be removed from the first
hemisphere and similarly distributed over the islands of the second.
By working out according to Mr. Croll’s directions, it is easily found
that the change of sea-level which this will produce will consist in a
sinking in the first hemisphere and rising in the second, through
heights varying according to the same law (that is, simple
proportionality to sines of latitudes), and amounting at each pole to
(1 - ω)it,
1 - ωw
where t denotes the thickness of the ice-crust at the pole; i the ratio
of the density of ice, and w that of sea-water to the earth’s mean
density; and ω the ratio of the area of ocean to the whole surface.
“Thus, for instance, if we suppose ω = ⅔, and t = 6,000 feet, and
take ⅙ and 1/(5½) as the densities of ice and water respectively,
we find for the rise of sea-level at one pole, and depression at the
other,
 ⅓ × ⅙ × 6000
,
1−2× 1
3 5½
or approximately 380 feet.
“I shall now proceed to consider roughly what is the probable
extent of submergence which, during the glacial epoch, may have
resulted from the displacement of the earth’s centre of gravity by
means of the transferrence of the polar ice from the one hemisphere
to the other.”
Difference between Continental-ice and a Glacier.—An ordinary
glacier descends in virtue of the slope of its bed, and, as a general
rule, it is on this account thin at its commencement, and thickens as
it descends into the lower valleys, where the slope is less and the
resistance to motion greater. But in the case of continental ice
matters are entirely different. The slope of the ground exercises little
or no influence on the motion of the ice. In a continent of one or
two thousand miles across, the general slope of the ground may be
left out of account; for any slight elevation which the centre of such
a continent may have will not compensate for the resistance offered
to the flow of the ice by mountain ridges, hills, and other
irregularities of its surface. The ice can move off such a surface only
in consequence of pressure acting from the interior. In order to
produce such a pressure, there must be a piling up of the ice in the
interior; or, in other words, the ice-sheet must thicken from the edge
inwards to the centre. We are necessarily led to the same
conclusion, though we should not admit that the ice moves in
consequence of pressure from behind, but should hold, on the
contrary, that each particle of ice moves by gravity in virtue of its
own weight; for in order to have such a motion there must be a
slope, and as the slope is not on the ground, it must be on the ice
itself: consequently we must conclude that the upper surface of the
ice slopes upwards from the edge to the interior. What, then, is the
least slope at which the ice will descend? Mr. Hopkins found that ice
barely moves on a slope of one degree. We have therefore some
data for arriving at least at a rough estimate of the probable
thickness of an ice-sheet covering a continent, such, for example, as
Greenland or the Antarctic Continent.
Probable Thickness of the Antarctic Ice-cap.—The antarctic
continent is generally believed to extend, on an average, from the
South Pole down to about, at least, lat. 70°. In round numbers, we
may take the diameter of this continent at 2,800 miles. The distance
from the edge of this ice-cap to its centre, the South Pole, will,
therefore, be 1,400 miles. The whole of this continent, like
Greenland, is undoubtedly covered with one continuous sheet of ice
gradually thickening inwards from its edge to its centre. A slope of
one degree continued for 1,400 miles will give twenty-four miles as
the thickness of the ice at the pole. But suppose the slope of the
upper surface of the cap to be only one-half this amount, viz., a half
degree,—and we have no evidence that a slope so small would be
sufficient to discharge the ice,—still we have twelve miles as the
thickness of the cap at the pole. To those who have not been
accustomed to reflect on the physical conditions of the problem, this
estimate may doubtless be regarded as somewhat extravagant; but
a slight consideration will show that it would be even more
extravagant to assume that a slope of less than half a degree would
be sufficient to produce the necessary outflow of the ice. In
estimating the thickness of a sheet of continental ice of one or two
thousand miles across, our imagination is apt to deceive us. We can
easily form a pretty accurate sensuous representation of the
thickness of the sheet; but we can form no adequate representation
of its superficial area. We can represent to the mind with tolerable
accuracy a thickness of a few miles, but we cannot do this in
reference to the area of a surface 2,800 miles across. Consequently,
in judging what proportion the thickness of the sheet should bear to
its superficial area, we are apt to fall into the error of under-
estimating the thickness. We have a striking example of this in
regard to the ocean. The thing which impresses us most forcibly in
regard to the ocean is its profound depth. A mean depth of, say,
three miles produces a striking impression; but if we could represent
to the mind the vast area of the ocean as correctly as we can do its
depth, shallowness rather than depth would be the impression
produced. A sheet of water 100 yards in diameter, and only one inch
deep, would not be called a deep but a very shallow pool or thin
layer of water. But such a layer would be a correct representation of
the ocean in miniature. Were we in like manner to represent to the
eye in miniature the antarctic ice-cap, we would call it a thin crust of
ice. Taking the mean thickness of the ice at four miles, the antarctic
ice-sheet would be represented by a carpet covering the floor of an
ordinary-sized dining-room. Were those who consider the above
estimate of the thickness of the antarctic ice-cap as extravagantly
great called upon to sketch on paper a section of what they should
deem a cap of moderate thickness, ninety-nine out of every hundred
would draw one of much greater thickness than twelve miles at the
centre.
The diagram on following page (Fig. 7) represents a section across
the cap drawn to a natural scale; the upper surface of the sheet
having a slope of half a degree. No one on looking at the section
would pronounce it to be too thick at the centre, unless he were
previously made aware that it represented a thickness of twelve
miles at that place. It may be here mentioned that had the section
been drawn upon a much larger scale—had it, for instance, been
made seven feet long, instead of seven inches—it would have shown
to the eye in a more striking manner the thinness of the cap.
But to avoid all objections on the score of over-estimating the
thickness of the cap, I shall assume the angle of the upper surface
to be only a quarter of a degree, and the thickness of the sheet one-
half what it is represented in the section. The thickness at the pole
will then be only six miles instead of twelve, and the mean thickness
of the cap two instead of four miles.
 Fig. 7.
S. Pole.

Section across Antarctic Ice-cap, drawn to a natural scale.

Length represented by section = 2,800 miles. Thickness at centre (South
Pole) = 12 miles.
Slope of upper surface = half-degree.

Is there any well-grounded reason for concluding the above to be

an over-estimate of the actual thickness of the antarctic ice? It is not
so much in consequence of any à priori reason that can be urged
against the probability of such a thickness of ice, but rather because
it so far transcends our previous experience that we are reluctant to
admit such an estimate. If we never had any experience of ice
thicker than what is found in England, we should feel startled on
learning for the first time that in the valleys of Switzerland the ice lay
from 200 to 300 feet in depth. Again, if we had never heard of
glaciers thicker than those of Switzerland, we could hardly credit the
statement that in Greenland they are actually from 2,000 to 3,000
feet thick. We, in this country, have long been familiar with
Greenland; but till very lately no one ever entertained the idea that
that continent was buried under one continuous mass of ice, with
scarcely a mountain top rising above the icy mantle. And had it not
been that the geological phenomena of the glacial epoch have for so
many years accustomed our minds to such an extraordinary
condition of things, Dr. Rink’s description of the Greenland ice would
probably have been regarded as the extravagant picture of a wild
imagination.
Let us now consider whether or not the facts of observation and
experience, so far as they go, bear out the conclusions to which
physical considerations lead us in reference to the magnitude of
continental ice; and more especially as regards the ice of the
antarctic regions.
First. In so far as the antarctic ice-sheet is concerned, observation
and experience to a great extent may be said to be a perfect blank.
One or two voyagers have seen the outer edge of the sheet at a few
places, and this is all. In fact, we judge of the present condition of
the interior of the antarctic continent in a great measure from what
we know of Greenland. But again, our experience of Greenland ice is
almost wholly confined to the outskirts.
Few have penetrated into the interior, and, with the exception of
Dr. Hayes and Professor Nordenskjöld, none, as far as I know, have
passed to any considerable distance over the inland ice. Dr. Robert
Brown in his interesting memoir on “Das Innere von Grönland,”[207]
gives an account of an excursion made in 1747 by a Danish officer of
the name of Dalager, from Fredrikshaab, near the southern extremity
of the continent, into the interior. After a journey of a day or two, he
reached an eminence from which he saw the inland ice stretching in
an unbroken mass as far as the eye could reach, but was unable to
proceed further. Dr. Brown gives an account also of an excursion
made in the beginning of March, 1830, by O. B. Kielsen, a Danish
whale-fisher, from Holsteinborg (lat. 67° N.). After a most fatiguing
journey of several days, he reached a high point from which he
could see the ice of the interior. Next morning he got up early, and
towards midday reached an extensive plain. From this the land sank
inwards, and Kielsen now saw fully in view before him the enormous
ice-sheet of the interior. He drove rapidly over all the little hills,
lakes, and streams, till he reached a pretty large lake at the edge of
the ice-sheet. This was the end of his journey, for after vainly
attempting to climb up on the ice-sheet, he was compelled to retrace
his steps, and had a somewhat difficult return. When he arrived at
the fiord, he found the ice broken up, so that he had to go round by
the land way, by which he reached the depôt on the 9th of March.
The distance which he traversed in a straight line from Holsteinborg
into the interior measured eighty English miles.
Dr. Hayes’s excursion was made, however, not upon the real inland
ice, but upon a smaller ice-field connected with it; while Professor
Nordenskjöld’s excursion was made at a place too far south to afford
an accurate idea of the actual condition of the interior of North
Greenland, even though he had penetrated much farther than he
actually did. However, the state of things as recorded by Hayes and
by Nordenskjöld affords us a glimpse into the condition of things in
the interior of the continent. They both found by observation, what
follows as a necessary result from physical considerations, that the
upper surface of the ice plain, under which hills and valleys are
buried, gradually slopes upwards towards the interior of the
continent. Professor Nordenskjöld states that when at the extreme
point at which he reached, thirty geographical miles from the coast,
he had attained an elevation of 2,200 feet, and that the inland ice
continued constantly to rise towards the interior, so that the horizon
towards the east, north, and south, was terminated by an ice-border
almost as smooth as that of the ocean.”[208]
Dr. Hayes and his party penetrated inwards to the distance of
about seventy miles. On the first day they reached the foot of the
great Mer de Glace; the second day’s journey carried them to the
upper surface of the ice-sheet. On the third day they travelled 30
miles, and the ascent, which had been about 6°, diminished
gradually to about 2°. They advanced on the fourth day about 25
miles; the temperature being 30° below zero (Fah.). “Our station at
the camp,” he says, “was sublime as it was dangerous. We had
attained an altitude of 5,000 feet above the sea-level, and were 70
miles from the coast, in the midst of a vast frozen Sahara
immeasurable to the human eye. There was neither hill, mountain,
nor gorge, anywhere in view. We had completely sunk the strip of
land between the Mer de Glace and the sea, and no object met the
eye but our feeble tent, which bent to the storm. Fitful clouds swept
over the face of the full-orbed moon, which, descending towards the
horizon, glimmered through the drifting snow that scudded over the
icy plain—to the eye in undulating lines of downy softness, to the
flesh in showers of piercing darts.”[209]
Dr. Rink, referring to the inland ice, says that the elevation or
height above the sea of this icy plain at its junction with the outskirts
of the country, and where it begins to lower itself through the valleys
to the firths, is, in the ramifications of the Bay of Omenak, found to
be 2,000 feet, from which level it gradually rises towards the
interior.[210]
Dr. Robert Brown, who, along with Mr. Whymper in 1867,
attempted a journey to some distance over the inland ice, is of
opinion that Greenland is not traversed by any ranges of mountains
or high land, but that the entire continent, 1,200 miles in length and
400 miles in breadth, is covered with one continuous unbroken field
of ice, the upper surface of which, he says, rises by a gentle slope
towards the interior.[211]
Suppose now the point reached by Hayes to be within 200 miles
of the centre of dispersion of the ice, and the mean slope from that
point to the centre, as in the case of the antarctic cap, to be only
half a degree; this would give 10,000 feet as the elevation of the
centre above the point reached. But the point reached was 5,000
feet above sea-level, consequently the surface of the ice at the
centre of dispersion would be 15,000 feet above sea-level, which is
about one-fourth what I have concluded to be the elevation of the
surface of the antarctic ice-cap at its centre. And supposing we
assume the general surface of the ground to have in the central
region an elevation as great as 5,000 feet, which is not at all
probable, still this would give 10,000 feet for the thickness of the ice
at the centre of the Greenland continent. But if we admit this
conclusion in reference to the thickness of the Greenland ice, we
must admit that the antarctic ice is far thicker, because the
thickness, other things being equal, will depend upon the size, or,
more properly, upon the diameter of the continent; for the larger the
surface the greater is the thickness of ice required to produce the
pressure requisite to make the rate of discharge of the ice equal to
the rate of increase. Now the area of the antarctic continent must be
at least a dozen of times greater than that of Greenland.
Second. That the antarctic ice must be far thicker than the arctic is
further evident from the dimensions of the icebergs which have been
met with in the Southern Ocean. No icebergs over three hundred
feet in height have been found in the arctic regions, whereas in the
antarctic regions, as we shall see, icebergs of twice and even thrice
that height have been reported.
Third. We have no reason to believe that the thickness of the ice
at present covering the antarctic continent is less than that which
covered a continent of a similar area in temperate regions during the
glacial epoch. Take, for example, the North American continent, or,
more properly, that portion of it covered by ice during the glacial
epoch. Professor Dana has proved that during that period the
thickness of the ice on the American continent must in many places
have been considerably over a mile. He has shown that over the
northern border of New England the ice had a mean thickness of
6,500 feet, while its mean thickness over the Canada watershed,
between St. Lawrence and Hudson’s Bay, was not less than 12,000
feet, or upwards of two miles and a quarter (see American Journal of
Science and Art for March, 1873).
Fourth. Some may object to the foregoing estimate of the amount
of ice on the antarctic continent, on the grounds that the quantity of
snowfall in that region cannot be much. But it must be borne in mind
that, no matter however small the annual amount of snowfall may
be, if more falls than is melted, the ice must continue to accumulate
year by year till its thickness in the centre of the continent be
sufficiently great to produce motion. The opinion that the snowfall of
the antarctic regions is not great does not, however, appear to be
borne out by the observation and experience of those who have
visited those regions. Captain Wilkes, of the American Exploring
Expedition, estimated it at 30 feet per annum; and Sir James Ross
says, that during a whole month they had only three days free from
snow. The fact that perpetual snow is found at the sea-level at lat.
64° S. proves that the snowfall must be great. But there is another
circumstance which must be taken into account, viz., that the
currents carrying moisture move in from all directions towards the
pole, consequently the area on which they deposit their snow
becomes less and less as the pole is reached, and this must, to a
corresponding extent, increase the quantity of snow falling on a
given area. Let us assume, for example, that the clouds in passing
from lat. 60° to lat. 80° deposit moisture sufficient to produce, say,
30 feet of snow per annum, and that by the time they reach lat. 80°
they are in possession of only one-tenth part of their original store of
moisture. As the area between lat. 80° and the pole is but one-
eighth of that between lat. 60° and 80°, this would,
notwithstanding, give 24 feet as the annual amount of snowfall
between lat. 80° and the pole.[212]
Fifth. The enormous size and thickness of the icebergs which have
been met with in the Southern Ocean testify to the thickness of the
antarctic ice-cap.
We know from the size of some of the icebergs which have been
met with in the southern hemisphere that the ice at the edge of the
cap where the bergs break off must in some cases be considerably
over a mile in thickness, for icebergs of more than a mile in
thickness have been found in the southern hemisphere. The
following are the dimensions of a few of these enormous bergs
taken from the Twelfth Number of the Meteorological Papers
published by the Board of Trade, and from the excellent paper of Mr.
Towson on the Icebergs of the Southern Ocean, published also by
the Board of Trade.[213] With one or two exceptions, the heights of
the bergs were accurately determined by angular measurement:—
Sept. 10th, 1856.—The Lightning, when in lat. 55° 33′ S., long. 140°
W., met with an iceberg 420 feet high.
Nov., 1839.—In lat. 41° S., long. 87° 30′ E., numerous icebergs 400
feet high were met with.
Sept., 1840.—In lat. 37° S., long. 15° E., an iceberg 1,000 feet long
and 400 feet high was met with.
Feb., 1860.—Captain Clark, of the Lightning, when in lat. 55° 20′ S.,
long. 122° 45′ W., found an iceberg 500 feet high and 3 miles
long.
Dec. 1st, 1859.—An iceberg, 580 feet high, and from two and a half
to three miles long, was seen by Captain Smithers, of the
 Edmond, in lat. 50° 52′ S., long. 43° 58′ W. So strongly did this
iceberg resemble land, that Captain Smithers believed it to be an
island, and reported it as such, but there is little or no doubt that
it was in reality an iceberg. There were pieces of drift-ice under
its lee.
Nov., 1856.—Three large icebergs, 500 feet high, were found in lat.
41° 0′ S., long. 42° 0′ E.
Jan., 1861.—Five icebergs, one 500 feet high, were met with in lat.
55° 46′ S., long. 155° 56′ W.
Jan., 1861.—In lat. 56° 10′ S., long. 160° 0′ W., an iceberg 500 feet
high and half a mile long was found.
Jan., 1867.—The barque Scout, from the West Coast of America, on
her way to Liverpool, passed some icebergs 600 feet in height,
and of great length.
April, 1864.—The Royal Standard came in collision with an iceberg
600 feet in height.
Dec., 1856.—Four large icebergs, one of them 700 feet high, and
another 500 feet, were met with in lat. 50° 14′ S., long. 42° 54′
E.
Dec. 25th, 1861.—The Queen of Nations fell in with an iceberg in lat.
53° 45′ S., long. 170° 0′ W., 720 feet high.
Dec., 1856.—Captain P. Wakem, ship Ellen Radford, found, in lat. 52°
31′ S., long. 43° 43′ W., two large icebergs, one at least 800 feet
high.
Mr. Towson states that one of our most celebrated and
talented naval surveyors informed him that he had seen icebergs
in the southern regions 800 feet high.
March 23rd, 1855.—The Agneta passed an iceberg in lat. 53° 14′ S.,
long. 14° 41′ E., 960 feet in height.
Aug. 16th, 1840.—The Dutch ship, General Baron von Geen, passed
an iceberg 1,000 feet high in lat. 37° 32′ S., long. 14° 10′ E.
May 15th, 1859.—The Roseworth found in lat. 53° 40′ S., long. 123°
17′ W., an iceberg as large as “Tristan d’Acunha.”
In the regions where most of these icebergs were met with, the
mean density of the sea is about 1·0256. The density of ice is ·92.
The density of icebergs to that of the sea is therefore as 1 to 1·115;
consequently every foot of ice above water indicates 8·7 feet below
water. It therefore follows that those icebergs 400 feet high had
3,480 feet under water,—3,880 feet would consequently be the total
thickness of the ice. The icebergs which were 500 feet high would
be 4,850 feet thick, those 600 feet high would have a total thickness
of 5,820 feet, and those 700 feet high would be no less than 6,790
feet thick, which is more than a mile and a quarter. The iceberg 960
feet high, sighted by the Agneta, would be actually 9,312 feet thick,
which is upwards of a mile and three-quarters.
Although the mass of an iceberg below water compared to that
above may be taken to be about 8·7 to 1, yet it would not be always
safe to conclude that the thickness of the ice below water bears the
same proportion to its height above. If the berg, for example, be
much broader at its base than at its top, the thickness of the ice
below water would bear a less proportion to the height above water
than as 8·7 to 1. But a berg such as that recorded by Captain Clark,
500 feet high and three miles long, must have had only 1/8·7 of its
total thickness above water. The same remark applies also to the
one seen by Captain Smithers, which was 580 feet high, and so
large that it was taken for an island. This berg must have been
5,628 feet in thickness. The enormous berg which came in collision
with the Royal Standard must have been 5,820 feet thick. It is not
stated what length the icebergs 730, 960, and 1,000 feet high
respectively were; but supposing that we make considerable
allowance for the possibility that the proportionate thickness of ice
below water to that above may have been less than as 8·7 to 1, still
we can hardly avoid the conclusion that the icebergs were
considerably above a mile in thickness. But if there are icebergs
above a mile in thickness, then there must be land-ice somewhere
on the southern hemisphere of that thickness. In short, the great
antarctic ice-cap must in some places be over a mile in thickness at
its edge.
Inadequate Conceptions regarding the Magnitude of Continental
Ice.—Few things have tended more to mislead geologists in the
interpretation of glacial phenomena than inadequate conceptions
regarding the magnitude of continental ice. Without the conception
of continental ice the known facts connected with glaciation would
be perfectly inexplicable. It was only when it was found that the
accumulated facts refused to be explained by any other conception,
that belief in the very existence of such a thing as continental ice
became common. But although most geologists now admit the
existence of continental ice, yet, nevertheless, adequate conceptions
of its real magnitude are by no means so common. Year by year, as
the outstanding facts connected with glaciation accumulate, we are
compelled to extend our conceptions of the magnitude of land-ice.
Take the following as an example. It was found that the transport of
the Wastdale Crag blocks, the direction of the striæ on the islands of
the Baltic, on Caithness and on the Orkney, Shetland, and Faroe,
islands, the boulder clay with broken shells in Caithness, Holderness,
and other places, were inexplicable on the theory of land-ice. But it
was so only in consequence of the inadequacy of our conceptions of
the magnitude of the ice; for a slight extension of our ideas of its
thickness has explained not only these phenomena,[214] but others
of an equally remarkable character, such as the striation of the Long
Island and the submerged rock-basins around our coasts described
by Mr. James Geikie. In like manner, if we admit the theory of the
glacial epoch propounded in former chapters, all that is really
necessary to account for the submergence of the land is a slight
extension of our hitherto preconceived estimate of the thickness of
the ice on the antarctic continent. If we simply admit a conclusion to
which all physical considerations, as we have seen, necessarily lead
us, viz., that the antarctic continent is covered with a mantle of ice
at least two miles in thickness, we have then a complete explanation
of the cause of the submergence of the land during the glacial
epoch.
 Although of no great importance to the question under
consideration, it may be remarked that, except during the severest
part of the glacial epoch, we have no reason to believe that the total
quantity of ice on the globe was much greater than at present, only
it would then be all on one hemisphere. Remove two miles of ice
from the antarctic continent, and place it on the northern
hemisphere, and this, along with the ice that now exists on this
hemisphere, would equal, in all probability, the quantity existing on
our hemisphere during the glacial epoch; at least, before it reached
its maximum severity.
 CHAPTER XXIV.

THE PHYSICAL CAUSE OF THE SUBMERGENCE AND EMERGENCE OF THE

LAND DURING THE GLACIAL EPOCH.—Continued.
Extent of Submergence from Displacement of Earth’s Centre of Gravity.—
Circumstances which show that the Glacial Submergence resulted from
Displacement of the Earth’s Centre of Gravity.—Agreement between Theory
and observed Facts.—Sir Charles Lyell on submerged Areas during Tertiary
Period.—Oscillations of Sea-level in Relation to Distribution.—Extent of
Submergence on the Hypothesis that the Earth is fluid in the Interior.

Extent of Submergence from Displacement of Earth’s Centre of

Gravity.—How much, then, would the transference of the two miles
of ice from the southern to the northern hemisphere raise the level
of the ocean on the latter hemisphere? This mass, be it observed, is
equal to only one-half that represented in our section. A
considerable amount of discussion has arisen in regard to the
method of determining this point. According to the method already
detailed, which supposes the rise at the pole to be equal to the
extent of the displacement of the earth’s centre of gravity, the rise at
the North Pole would be about 380 feet, taking into account the
effect produced by the displaced water; and the rise in the latitude
of Edinburgh would be 312 feet. The fall of level on the southern
hemisphere would, of course, be equal to the rise of level on the
northern. According to the method advanced by Mr. D. D. Heath,
[215] the rise of level at the North Pole would be about 650 feet.

Archdeacon Pratt’s method[216] makes the rise still greater; while

according to Rev. O. Fisher’s method[217] the rise would be no less
than 2,000 feet. There is, however, another circumstance which
must be taken into account, which will give an additional rise of
upwards of one hundred feet.
 The greatest extent of the displacement of the earth’s centre of
gravity, and consequently the greatest rise of the ocean resulting
from that displacement, would of course occur at the time of
maximum glaciation, when the ice was all on one hemisphere. But
owing to the following circumstance, a still greater rise than that
resulting from the displacement of the earth’s centre of gravity alone
might take place at some considerable time, either before or after
the period of maximum glaciation.
It is not at all probable that the ice would melt on the warm
hemisphere at exactly the same rate as it would form on the cold
hemisphere. It is probable that the ice would melt more rapidly on
the warm hemisphere than it would form on the cold. Suppose that
during the glacial epoch, at a time when the cold was gradually
increasing on the northern and the warmth on the southern
hemisphere, the ice should melt more rapidly off the antarctic
continent than it was being formed on the arctic and subarctic
regions; suppose also that, by the time a quantity of ice, equal to
one-half what exists at present on the antarctic continent, had
accumulated on the northern hemisphere, the whole of the antarctic
ice had been melted away, the sea would then be fuller than at
present by the amount of water resulting from the one mile of
melted ice. The height to which this would raise the general level of
the sea would be as follows:—
The antarctic ice-cap is equal in area to 1/23·46 of that covered
by the ocean. The density of ice to that of water being taken at ·92
to 1, it follows that 25 feet 6 inches of ice melted off the cap would
raise the general level of the ocean one foot, and the one mile of ice
melted off would raise the level 200 feet. This 200 feet of rise
resulting from the melted ice we must add to the rise resulting from
the displacement of the earth’s centre of gravity. The removal of the
two miles of ice from the antarctic continent would displace the
centre of gravity 190 feet, and the formation of a mass of ice equal
to the one-half of this on the arctic regions would carry the centre of
gravity 95 feet farther; giving in all a total displacement of 285 feet,
thus producing a rise of sea-level at the North Pole of 285 feet, and
in the latitude of Edinburgh of 234 feet. Add to this the rise of 200
feet resulting from the melted ice, and we have then 485 feet of
submergence at the pole, and 434 feet in the latitude of Edinburgh.
A rise to a similar extent might probably take place after the period
of maximum glaciation, when the ice would be melting on the
northern hemisphere more rapidly than it would be forming on the
southern.
If we assume the antarctic ice-cap to be as thick as is represented
in the diagram, the extent of the submergence would of course be
double the above, and we might have in this case a rise of sea-level
in the latitude of Edinburgh to the extent of from 800 to 1,000 feet.
But be this as it may, it is evident that the quantity of ice on the
antarctic continent is perfectly sufficient to account for the
submergence of the glacial epoch, for we have little evidence to
conclude that the general submergence much exceeded 400 or 500
feet.[218] We have evidence in England and other places of
submergence to the extent of from 1,000 to 2,000 feet, but these
may be quite local, resulting from subsidence of the land in those
particular areas. Elevations and depressions of the land have taken
place in all ages, and no doubt during the glacial epoch also.
Circumstances which show that the Glacial Submergence resulted
from Displacement of the Earth’s Centre of Gravity.—In favour of this
view of the cause of the submergence of the glacial epoch, it is a
circumstance of some significance, that in every part of the globe
where glaciation has been found evidence of the submergence of
the land has also been found along with it. The invariable occurrence
of submergence along with glaciation points to some physical
connection between the two. It would seem to imply, either that the
two were the direct effects of a common cause, or that the one was
the cause of the other; that is, the submergence the cause of the
glaciation, or the glaciation the cause of the submergence. There is,
I presume, no known cause to which the two can be directly related
as effects. Nor do I think that there is any one who would suppose
that the submergence of the land could have been the cause of its
glaciation, even although he attributed all glacial effects to floating
ice. The submergence of our country would, of course, have allowed
floating ice to pass over it had there been any to pass over; but
submergence would not have produced the ice, neither would it
have brought the ice from the arctic regions where it already
existed. But although submergence could not have been the cause
of the glacial epoch, yet we can, as we have just seen, easily
understand how the ice of the glacial epoch could have been the
cause of the submergence. If the glacial epoch was brought about
by an increase in the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, then a
submergence of the land as the ice accumulated was a physical
necessity.
There is another circumstance connected with glacial
submergence which it is difficult to reconcile with the idea that it
resulted from a subsidence of the land. It is well known that during
the glacial epoch the land was not once under water only, but
several times; and, besides, there were not merely several periods
when the land stood at a lower level in relation to the sea than at
present, but there were also several periods when it stood at a much
higher level than now. And this holds true, not merely of our own
country, but of every country on the northern hemisphere where
glaciation has yet been found. All this follows as a necessary
consequence from the theory that the oscillations of sea-level
resulted from the transference of the ice from the one hemisphere to
the other; but it is wholly inconsistent with the idea that they
resulted from upheavals and subsidence of the land during a very
recent period.
But this is not all, there is more still to be accounted for. It has
been the prevailing opinion that at the time when the land was
covered with ice, it stood at a much greater elevation than at
present. It is, however, not maintained that the facts of geology
establish such a conclusion. The greater elevation of the land is
simply assumed as an hypothesis to account for the cold.[219] The
facts of geology, however, are fast establishing the opposite
conclusion, viz., that when the country was covered with ice, the
land stood in relation to the sea at a lower level than at present, and
that the continental periods or times when the land stood in relation
to the sea at a higher level than now were the warm inter-glacial
periods, when the country was free of snow and ice, and a mild and
equable condition of climate prevailed. This is the conclusion
towards which we are being led by the more recent revelations of
surface geology, and also by certain facts connected with the
geographical distribution of plants and animals during the glacial
epoch.
The simple occurrence of a rise and fall of the land in relation to
the sea-level in one or in two countries during the glacial epoch,
would not necessarily imply any physical connection. The
coincidence of these movements with the glaciation of the land
might have been purely accidental; but when we find that a
succession of such movements occurred, not merely in one or in two
countries, but in every glaciated country where proper observations
have been made, we are forced to the conclusion that the
connection between the two is not accidental, but the result of some
fixed cause.
If we admit that an increase in the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit
was the cause of the glacial epoch, then we must admit that all
those results followed as necessary consequences. For if the glacial
epoch lasted for upwards of one hundred thousand years or so,
there would be a succession of cold and warm periods, and
consequently a succession of elevations and depressions of sea-
level. And the elevations of the sea-level would take place during the
cold periods, and the depressions during the warm periods.
But the agreement between theory and observed facts does not
terminate here. It follows from theory that the greatest oscillations
of sea-level would take place during the severest part of the glacial
epoch, when the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit would be at its
highest value, and that the oscillations would gradually diminish in
extent as the eccentricity diminished and the climate gradually
became less severe. Now it is well known that this is actually what
took place; the great submergence, as well as the great elevation or
continental period, occurred during the earlier or more severe part of
the glacial epoch, and as the climate grew less severe these changes
became of less extent, till we find them terminating in our
submerged forests and 25-foot raised beach.
It follows, therefore, according to the theory advanced, that the
mere fact of an area having been under sea does not imply that
there has been any subsidence or elevation of the land, and that
consequently the inference which has been drawn from these
submerged areas as to changes in physical geography may be in
many cases not well founded.
Sir Charles Lyell, in his “Principles,” publishes a map showing the
extent of surface in Europe which has been covered by the sea since
the earlier part of the Tertiary period. This map is intended to show
the extraordinary amount of subsidence and elevation of the land
which has taken place during that period. It is necessary for Sir
Charles’s theory of the cause of the glacial epoch that changes in the
physical geography of the globe to an enormous extent should have
taken place during a very recent period, in order to account for the
great change of climate which occurred at that epoch. But if the
foregoing results be anything like correct, it does not necessarily
follow that there must have been great changes in the physical
geography of Europe, simply because the sea covered those areas
marked in the map, for this may have been produced by oscillations
of sea-level, and not by changes in the land. In fact, the areas
marked in Sir Charles’s map as having been covered by the sea, are
just those which would be covered were the sea-level raised a few
hundred feet. No doubt there were elevations and subsidences in
many of the areas marked in the map during the Tertiary period, and
to this cause a considerable amount of the submergence might be
due; but I have little doubt that by far the greater part must be
attributed to oscillations of sea-level. It is no objection that the
greater part of the shells and other organic remains found in the
marine deposits of those areas are not indicative of a cold or glacial
condition of climate, for, as we have seen, the greatest submergence
would probably have taken place either before the more severe cold
had set in or after it had to a great extent passed away. That the
submergence of those areas probably resulted from elevations of
sea-level rather than depressions of the land, is further evident from
the following considerations. If we suppose that the climate of the
glacial epoch was brought about mainly by changes in the physical
geography of the globe, we must assume that these great changes
took place, geologically speaking, at a very recent date. Then when
we ask what ground is there for assuming that any such change in
the relations of sea and land as is required actually took place, the
submergence of those areas is adduced as the proof. Did it follow as
a physical necessity that all submergence must be the result of
subsidence of the land, and not of elevations of the sea, there would
be some force in the reasons adduced. But such a conclusion by no
means follows, and, à priori, it is just as likely that the appearance of
the ice was the cause of the submergence as that the submergence
was the cause of the appearance of the ice. Again, a subsidence of
the land to the extent required would to a great extent have altered
the configuration of the country, and the main river systems of
Europe; but there is no evidence that any such change has taken
place. All the main valleys are well known to have existed prior to
the glacial epoch, and our rivers to have occupied the same channels
then as they do now. In the case of some of the smaller streams, it
is true, a slight deviation has resulted at some points from the filling
up of their channels with drift during the glacial epoch; but as a
general rule all the principal valleys and river systems are older than
the glacial epoch. This, of course, could not be the case if a
subsidence of the land sufficiently great to account for the
submergence of the areas in question, or changes in the physical
geography of Europe necessary to produce a glacial epoch, had
actually taken place. The total absence of any geological evidence
for the existence of any change which could explain either the
submergence of the areas in question or the climate of the glacial
epoch, is strong evidence that the submergence of the glacial epoch,
as well as of the areas in question, was the result of a simple
oscillation of sea-level resulting from the displacement of the earth’s
centre of gravity by the transferrence of the ice-cap from the
southern to the northern hemisphere.
Oscillations of Sea-level in relation to Distribution.—The
oscillations of sea-level resulting from the displacement of the
earth’s centre of gravity help to throw new light on some obscure
points connected with the subject of the geographical distribution of
plants and animals. At the time when the ice was on the southern
hemisphere during the glacial epoch, and the northern hemisphere
was enjoying a warm and equable climate, the sea-level would be
several hundred feet lower than at present, the North Sea would
probably be dry land, and Great Britain and Ireland joined to the
continent, thus opening up a pathway from the continent to our
island. As has been shown in former chapters, during the inter-
glacial periods the climate would be much warmer and more equable
than now, so that animals from the south, such as the
hippopotamus, hyæna, lion, Elephas antiquus and Rhinoceros
megarhinus, would migrate into this country, where at present they
could not live in consequence of the cold. We have therefore an
explanation, as was suggested on a former occasion,[220] of the fact
that the bones of these animals are found mingled in the same grave
with those of the musk-ox, mammoth, reindeer, and other animals
which lived in this country during the cold periods of the glacial
epoch; the animals from the north would cross over into this country
upon the frozen sea during the cold periods, while those from the
south would find the English Channel dry land during the warm
periods.
The same reasoning will hold equally true in reference to the old
and new world. The depth of Behring Straits is under 30 fathoms;
consequently a lowering of the sea-level of less than 200 feet would
connect Asia with America, and thus allow plants and animals, as Mr.
Darwin believes, to pass from the one continent to the other.[221]
During this period, when Behring Straits would be dry land,
Greenland would be comparatively free from ice, and the arctic
regions enjoying a comparatively mild climate. In this case plants
and animals belonging to temperate regions could avail themselves
of this passage, and thus we can explain how plants belonging to
temperate regions may have, during the Miocene period, passed
from the old to the new continent, and vice versâ.
As has already been noticed, during the time of the greatest
extension of the ice, the quantity of ice on the southern hemisphere
might be considerably greater than what exists on the entire globe
at present. In that case there might, in addition to the lowering of
the sea-level resulting from the displacement of the earth’s centre of
gravity, be a considerable lowering resulting from the draining of the
ocean to form the additional ice. This decrease and increase in the
total quantity of ice which we have considered would affect the level
of the ocean as much at the equator as at the poles; consequently
during the glacial epoch there might have been at the equator
elevations and depressions of sea-level to the extent of a few
hundred feet.
Extent of Submergence on the Hypothesis that the Earth is fluid in
the Interior.—But we have been proceeding upon the supposition
that the earth is solid to its centre. If we assume, however, what is
the general opinion among geologists, that it consists of a fluid
interior surrounded by a thick and rigid crust or shell, then the
extent of the submergence resulting from the displacement of the
centre of gravity for a given thickness of ice must be much greater
than I have estimated it to be. This is evident, because, if the
interior of the globe be in a fluid state, it, in all probability, consists
of materials differing in density. The densest materials will be at the
centre, and the least dense at the outside or surface. Now the
transferrence of an ice-cap from the one pole to the other will not
merely displace the ocean—the fluid mass on the outside of the shell
—but it will also displace the heavier fluid materials in the interior of
the shell. In other words, the heavier materials will be attracted by
the ice-cap more forcibly than the lighter, consequently they will
approach towards the cap to a certain extent, sinking, as it were,
into the lighter materials, and displacing them towards the opposite
pole. This displacement will of course tend to shift the earth’s centre
of gravity in the direction of the ice-cap, because the heavier
materials are shifted in this direction, and the lighter materials in the
opposite direction. This process will perhaps be better understood
from the following figures.
Fig. 8. Fig. 9.

O. The Ocean. S. Solid Crust or Shell.

F, F1, F2, F3. The various concentric layers of the fluid interior. The
layers increase in density towards the centre.
I. The Ice-cap. C. Centre of gravity.
1
C . The displaced centre of gravity.

In Fig. 8, where there is no ice-cap, the centre of gravity of the

earth coincides with the centre of the concentric layers of the fluid
interior. In Fig. 9, where there is an ice-cap placed on one pole, the
concentric layer F1 being denser than layer F, is attracted towards
the cap more forcibly than F, and consequently sinks to a certain
depth in F. Again, F2 being denser than F1, it also sinks to a certain
extent in F1. And again F3, the mass at the centre, being denser
than F2, it also sinks in F2. All this being combined with the effects of
the ice-cap, and the displaced ocean outside the shell, the centre of
gravity of the entire globe will no longer be at C, but at C1, a
considerable distance nearer to the side of the shell on which the
cap rests than C, and also a considerable distance nearer than it
would have been had the interior of the globe been solid. There are
here three causes tending to shift the centre of gravity, (1) the ice-
cap, (2) the displaced ocean, and (3) the displaced materials in the
interior. Two of the three causes mutually react on each other in
such a way as to increase each other’s effect. Thus the more the
ocean is drawn in the direction of the ice-cap, the more effect it has
in drawing the heavier materials in the interior in the same direction;
and in turn the more the heavier materials in the interior are drawn
towards the cap, the greater is the displacement of the earth’s
centre of gravity, and of course, as a consequence, the greater is the
displacement of the ocean. It may be observed also that, other
things being equal, the thinner the solid crust or shell is, and the
greater the difference in the density of the fluid materials in the
interior, the greater will be the extent of the displacement of the
ocean, because the greater will be the displacement of the centre of
gravity.
It follows that if we knew (1) the extent of the general
submergence of the glacial epoch, and (2) the present amount of ice
on the southern hemisphere, we could determine whether or not the
earth is fluid in the interior.
 CHAPTER XXV.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE OBLIQUITY OF THE ECLIPTIC ON CLIMATE AND

ON THE LEVEL OF THE SEA.
The direct Effect of Change of Obliquity on Climate.—Mr. Stockwell on the
maximum Change of Obliquity.—How Obliquity affects the Distribution of Heat
over the Globe.—Increase of Obliquity diminishes the Heat at the Equator and
increases that at the Poles.—Influence of Change of Obliquity on the Level of
the Sea.—When the Obliquity was last at its superior Limit.—Probable Date of
the 25-foot raised Beach.—Probable Extent of Rise of Sea-level resulting from
Increase of Obliquity.—Lieutenant-Colonel Drayson’s and Mr. Belt’s Theories.—
Sir Charles Lyell on Influence of Obliquity.

The direct Effect of Change in the Obliquity of the Ecliptic on

Climate.—There is still another cause which, I feel convinced, must
to a very considerable extent have affected climate during past
geological ages. I refer to the change in the obliquity of the ecliptic.
This cause has long engaged the attention of geologists and
physicists, and the conclusion generally come to is that no great
effect can be attributed to it. After giving special attention to the
matter, I have been led to the very opposite conclusion. It is quite
true, as has been urged, that the changes in the obliquity of the
ecliptic cannot sensibly affect the climate of temperate regions; but
it will produce a slight change on the climate of tropical latitudes,
and a very considerable effect on that of the polar regions, especially
at the poles themselves. We shall now consider the matter briefly.
It was found by Laplace that the obliquity of the ecliptic will
oscillate to the extent of 1° 22′ 34″ on each side of 23° 28′, the
obliquity in the year 1801.[222] This point has lately been examined
by Mr. Stockwell, and the results at which he has arrived are almost
identical with those of Laplace. “The mean value of the obliquity,” he
says, “of both the apparent and fixed ecliptics to the equator is 23°
17′ 17″. The limits of the obliquity of the apparent ecliptic to the
equator are 24° 35′ 58″ and 21° 58′ 36″; whence it follows that the
greatest and least declinations of the sun at the solstices can never
differ from each other to any greater extent than 2° 37′ 22″.”[223]
This change will but slightly affect the climate of the temperate
regions, but it will exercise a very considerable influence on the
climate of the polar regions. According to Mr. Meech,[224] if 365·24
thermal days represent the present total annual quantity of heat
received at the equator from the sun, 151·59 thermal days will
represent the quantity received at the poles. Adopting his method of
calculation, it turns out that when the obliquity of the ecliptic is at
the maximum assigned by Laplace the quantity received at the
equator would be 363·51 thermal days, and at the poles 160·04
thermal days. The equator would therefore receive 1·73 thermal
days less heat, and the poles 8·45 thermal days more heat than at
present.
ANNUAL AMOUNT OF SUN’S HEAT.

Amount at
Amount in 1801.
maximum, Difference.
Obliquity 23° 28′.
24° 50′ 34″.
Latitude. Thermal days. Thermal days. Thermal days.
0 365·24 363·51 −1·73
40 288·55 288·32 −0·23
70 173·04 179·14 +6·10
80 156·63 164·63 +8·00
90 151·59 160·04 +8·45
When the obliquity was at a maximum, the poles would therefore
be receiving 19 rays for every 18 they are receiving at present. The
poles would then be receiving nearly as much heat as latitude 76° is
receiving at present.
The increase of obliquity would not sensibly affect the polar
winter. It is true that it would slightly increase the breadth of the
frigid zone, but the length of the winter at the poles would remain
unaffected. After the sun disappears below the horizon his rays are