CLIMATE AND TIME

FRONTISPIECE

W. & A. K. Johnston, Edinb^r. and London.

CLIMATE AND TIME
IN THEIR GEOLOGICAL RELATIONS

A THEORY OF
SECULAR CHANGES OF THE EARTH’S CLIMATE

By JAMES CROLL
OF H.M. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF SCOTLAND

LONDON
DALDY, ISBISTER, & CO.
56, LUDGATE HILL
1875

LONDON:
PRINTED BY VIRTUE AND CO.,
CITY ROAD.

PREFACE

In the following pages I have endeavoured to give a full and concise statement of the facts and arguments adduced in support of the theory of Secular Changes of the Earth’s Climate. Considerable portions of the volume have already appeared in substance as separate papers in the Philosophical Magazine and other journals during the past ten or twelve years. The theory, especially in as far as it relates to the cause of the glacial epoch, appears to be gradually gaining acceptance with geologists. This, doubtless, is owing to the greatly increased and constantly increasing knowledge of the drift-phenomena, which has induced the almost general conviction that a climate such as that of the glacial epoch could only have resulted from cosmical causes.

Considerable attention has been devoted to objections, and to the removal of slight misapprehensions, which have naturally arisen in regard to a subject comparatively new and, in many respects, complex, and beset with formidable difficulties.

I have studiously avoided introducing anything of a hypothetical character. All the conclusions are based either on known facts or admitted physical principles. In short, the aim of the work, as will be shown in the introductory chapter, is to prove that secular changes of climate follow, as a necessary effect, from admitted physical agencies, and that these changes, in as far as the past climatic condition of the globe is concerned, fully meet the demand of the geologist.

The volume, though not intended as a popular treatise, will be found, I trust, to be perfectly plain and intelligible even to readers not familiar with physical science.

I avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my obligations to my colleagues, Mr. James Geikie, Mr. Robert L. Jack, Mr. Robert Etheridge, jun., and also to Mr. James Paton, of the Edinburgh Museum of Science and Art, for their valuable assistance rendered while these pages were passing through the press. To the kindness of Mr. James Bennie I am indebted for the copious index at the end of the volume, as well as for many of the facts relating to the glacial deposits of the West of Scotland.

JAMES CROLL.

Edinburgh, March, 1875.

CONTENTS

LIST OF PLATES.

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION.

The Fundamental Problem of Geology.—Geology a Dynamical Science.—The Nature of a Geological Principle.—Theories of Geological Climate.—Geological Climate dependent on Astronomical Causes.—An Important Consideration overlooked.—Abstract of the Line of Argument pursued in the Volume.

The Fundamental Problem of Geology.—The investigation of the successive changes and modifications which the earth’s crust has undergone during past ages is the province of geology. It will be at once admitted that an acquaintance with the agencies by means of which those successive changes and modifications were effected, is of paramount importance to the geologist. What, then, are those agencies? Although volcanic and other subterranean eruptions, earthquakes, upheavals, and subsidences of the land have taken place in all ages, yet no truth is now better established than that it is not by these convulsions and cataclysms of nature that those great changes were effected. It was rather by the ordinary agencies that we see every day at work around us, such as rain, rivers, heat and cold, frost and snow. The valleys were not produced by violent dislocations, nor the hills by sudden upheavals, but were actually carved out of the solid rock, silently and gently, by the agencies to which we have referred. “The tools,” to quote the words of Professor Geikie, “by which this great work has been done are of the simplest and most every-day order—the air, rain, frosts, springs, brooks, rivers, glaciers, icebergs, and the sea. These tools have been at work from the earliest times of which any geological record has been preserved. Indeed, it is out of the accumulated chips and dust which they have made, afterwards hardened into solid rock and upheaved, that the very framework of our continents has been formed.”[1]

It will be observed—and this is the point requiring particular attention—that the agencies referred to are the ordinary meteorological or climatic agencies. In fact, it is these agencies which constitute climate. The various peculiarities or modifications of climate result from a preponderance of one or more of these agencies over the rest. When heat, for example, predominates, we have a hot or tropical climate. When cold and frost predominate, we have a rigorous or arctic climate. With moisture in excess, we have a damp and rainy climate; and so on. But this is not all. These climatic agencies are not only the factors which carved out the rocky face of the globe into hill and dale, and spread over the whole a mantle of soil; but by them are determined the character of the flora and fauna which exist on that soil. The flora and fauna of a district are determined mainly by the character of the climate, and not by the nature of the soil, or the conformation of the ground. It is from difference of climate that tropical life differs so much from arctic, and both these from the life of temperate regions. It is climate, and climate alone, that causes the orange and the vine to blossom, and the olive to flourish, in the south, but denies them to the north, of Europe. It is climate, and climate alone, that enables the forest tree to grow on the plain, but not on the mountain top; that causes wheat and barley to flourish on the mainland of Scotland, but not on the steppes of Siberia.

Again, if we compare flat countries with mountainous, highlands with lowlands, or islands with continents, we shall find that difference of climatic conditions is the chief reason why life in the one differs so much from life in the other. And if we turn to the sea we find that organic life is there as much under the domain of climate as on the land, only the conditions are much less complex. For in the case of the sea, difference in the temperature of the water may be said to constitute almost the only difference of climatic conditions. If there is one fact more clearly brought out than another by the recent deep-sea explorations, it is this, that nothing exercises so much influence on organic life in the ocean as the temperature of the water. In fact, so much is this the case, that warm zones were found to be almost equivalent to zones of life. It was found that even the enormous pressure at the bottom of the ocean does not exercise so much influence on life as the temperature of the water. There are few, I presume, who reflect on the subject that will not readily admit that, whether as regards the great physical changes which are taking place on the surface of our globe, or as regards the growth and distribution of plant and animal life, the ordinary climatic agents are the real agents at work, and that, compared with them, all other agencies sink into insignificance.

It will also be admitted that what holds true of the present holds equally true of the past. Climatic agents are not only now the most important and influential; they have been so during all past geological ages. They were so during the Cainozoic as much as during the present; and there is no reason for supposing they were otherwise during the remoter Mesozoic and Palæozoic epochs. They have been the principal factors concerned in that long succession of events and changes which have taken place since the time of the solidification of the earth’s crust. The stratified rocks of the globe contain all the records which now remain of their action, and it is the special duty of the geologist to investigate and read those records. It will be at once admitted that in order to a proper understanding of the events embodied in these records, an acquaintance with the agencies by which they were produced is of the utmost importance. In fact, it is only by this means that we can hope to arrive at their rational explanation. A knowledge of the agents, and of the laws of their operations, is, in all the physical sciences, the means by which we arrive at a rational comprehension of the effects produced. If we have before us some complex and intricate effects which have been produced by heat, or by light, or by electricity, &c., in order to understand them we must make ourselves acquainted with the agents by which they were produced and the laws of their action. If the effects to be considered be, for example, those of heat, then we must make ourselves acquainted with this agent and its laws. If they be of electricity, then a knowledge of electricity and its laws becomes requisite.

This is no mere arbitrary mode of procedure which may be adopted in one science and rejected in another. It is in reality a necessity of thought arising out of the very constitution of our intellect; for the objective law of the agent is the conception by means of which the effects are subjectively united in a rational unity. We may describe, arrange, and classify the effects as we may, but without a knowledge of the laws of the agent we can have no rational unity. We have not got the higher conception by which they can be comprehended. It is this relationship between the effects and the laws of the agent, a knowledge of which really constitutes a science. We might examine, arrange, and describe for a thousand years the effects produced by heat, and still we should have no science of heat unless we had a knowledge of the laws of that agent. The effects would never be seen to be necessarily connected with anything known to us; we could not connect them with any rational principle from which they could be deduced à priori. The same remarks hold, of course, equally true of all sciences, in which the things to be considered stand in the relationship of cause and effect. Geology is no exception. It is not like systematic botany, a mere science of classification. It has to explain and account for effects produced; and these effects can no more be explained without a knowledge of the laws of the agents which produced them, than can the effects of heat without a knowledge of the laws of heat. The only distinction between geology and heat, light, electricity, &c., is, that in geology the effects to be explained have almost all occurred already, whereas in these other sciences effects actually taking place have to be explained. But this distinction is of no importance to our present purpose, for effects which have already occurred can no more be explained without a knowledge of the laws of the agent which produced them than can effects which are in the act of occurring. It is, moreover, not strictly true that all the effects to be explained by the geologist are already past. It falls within the scope of his science to account for the changes which are at present taking place on the earth’s crust.

No amount of description, arrangement, and classification, however perfect or accurate, of the facts which come under the eye of the geologist can ever constitute a science of geology any more than a description and classification of the effects of heat could constitute a science of heat. This will, no doubt, be admitted by every one who reflects upon the subject, and it will be maintained that geology, like every other science, must possess principles applicable to the facts. But here confusion and misconception will arise unless there be distinct and definite ideas as to what ought to constitute a geological principle. It is not every statement or rule that may apply to a great many facts, which will constitute a geological principle. A geological principle must bear the same characteristics as the principles of those sciences to which we have referred. What, then, is the nature of the principles of light, heat, electricity, &c.? The principles of heat are the laws of heat. The principles of electricity are the laws of electricity. And these laws are nothing more nor less than the ways according to which these agents produce their effects. The principles of geology are therefore the laws of geology. But the laws of geology must be simply the laws of the geological agents, or, in other words, the methods by which they produce their effects. Any other so-called principle can be nothing more than an empirical rule, adopted for convenience. Possessing no rationality in itself, it cannot be justly regarded as a principle. In order to rationality the principle must be either resolvable into, or logically deducible from, the laws of the agents. Unless it possess this quality we cannot give the explanation à priori.

The reason of all this is perfectly obvious. The things to be explained are effects; and the relationship between cause and effect affords the subjective connection between the principle and the explanation. The explanation follows from the principle simply as the effect results from the laws of the agent or cause.

Theories of Geological Climate.—We have already seen that the geological agents are chiefly the ordinary climatic agents. Consequently, the main principles of geology must be the laws of the climatic agents, or some logical deductions from them. It therefore follows that, in order to a purely scientific geology, the grand problem must be one of geological climate. It is through geological climate that we can hope to arrive ultimately at principles which will afford a rational explanation of the multifarious facts which have been accumulating during the past century. The facts of geology are as essential to the establishment of the principles, as the facts of heat, light, and electricity are essential to the establishment of the principles of these sciences. A theory of geological climate devised without reference to the facts would be about as worthless as a theory of heat or of electricity devised without reference to the facts of these sciences.

It has all along been an admitted opinion among geologists that the climatic condition of our globe has not, during past ages, been uniformly the same as at present. For a long time it was supposed that during the Cambrian, Silurian, and other early geological periods, the climate of our globe was much hotter than now, and that ever since it has been gradually becoming cooler. And this high temperature of Palæozoic ages was generally referred to the influence of the earth’s internal heat. It has, however, been proved by Sir William Thomson[2] that the general climate of our globe could not have been sensibly affected by internal heat at any time more than ten thousand years after the commencement of the solidification of the surface. This physicist has proved that the present influence of internal heat on the temperature amounts to about only 1/75th of a degree. Not only is the theory of internal heat now generally abandoned, but it is admitted that we have no good geological evidence that climate was much hotter during Palæozoic ages than now; and much less, that it has been becoming uniformly colder.

The great discovery of the glacial epoch, and more lately that of a mild and temperate condition of climate extending during the Miocene and other periods to North Greenland, have introduced a complete revolution of ideas in reference to geological climate. Those discoveries showed that our globe has not only undergone changes of climate, but changes of the most extraordinary character. They showed that at one time not only an arctic condition of climate prevailed in our island, but that the greater part of the temperate region down to comparatively low latitudes was buried under ice, while at other periods Greenland and the Arctic regions, probably up to the North Pole, were not only free from ice, but were covered with a rich and luxuriant vegetation.

To account for these extraordinary changes of climate has generally been regarded as the most difficult and perplexing problem which has fallen to the lot of the geologist. Some have attempted to explain them by assuming a displacement of the earth’s axis of rotation in consequence of the uprising of large mountain masses on some part of the earth’s surface. But it has been shown by Professor Airy,[3] Sir William Thomson,[4] and others, that the earth’s equatorial protuberance is such that no geological change on its surface could ever possibly alter the position of the axis of rotation to an extent which could at all sensibly affect climate. Others, again, have tried to explain the change of climate by supposing, with Poisson, that the earth during its past geological history may have passed through hotter and colder parts of space. This is not a very satisfactory hypothesis. There is no doubt a difference in the quantity of force in the form of heat passing through different parts of space; but space itself is not a substance which can possibly be either cold or hot. If, therefore, we were to adopt this hypothesis, we must assume that the earth during the hot periods must have been in the vicinity of some other great source of heat and light besides the sun. But the proximity of a mass of such magnitude as would be sufficient to affect to any great extent the earth’s climate would, by its gravity, seriously disarrange the mechanism of our solar system. Consequently, if our solar system had ever, during any former period of its history, really come into the vicinity of such a mass, the orbits of the planets ought at the present day to afford some evidence of it. But again, in order to account for a cold period, such as the glacial epoch, we have to assume that the earth must have come into the vicinity of a cold body.[5] But recent discoveries in regard to inter-glacial periods are wholly irreconcilable with this theory.

A change in the obliquity of the ecliptic has frequently been, and still is, appealed to as an explanation of geological climate. This theory appears, however, to be beset by a twofold objection: (1), it can be shown from celestial mechanics, that the variations in the obliquity of the ecliptic must always have been so small that they could not materially affect the climatic condition of the globe; and (2), even admitting that the obliquity could change to an indefinite extent, it can be shown[6] that no increase or decrease, however great, could possibly account for either the glacial epoch or a warm temperate condition of climate in polar regions.

The theory that the sun is a variable star, and that the glacial epochs of the geologists may correspond to periods of decrease in the sun’s heat, has lately been advanced. This theory is also open to two objections: (1), a general diminution of heat[7] never could produce a glacial epoch; and (2), even if it could, it would not explain inter-glacial periods.

The only other theory on the subject worthy of notice is that of Sir Charles Lyell. Those extraordinary changes of climate are, according to his theory, attributed to differences in the distribution of land and water. Sir Charles concludes that, were the land all collected round the poles, while the equatorial zones were occupied by the ocean, the general temperature would be lowered to an extent that would account for the glacial epoch. And, on the other hand, were the land all collected along the equator, while the polar regions were covered with sea, this would raise the temperature of the globe to an enormous extent. It will be shown in subsequent chapters that this theory does not duly take into account the prodigious influence exerted on climate by means of the heat conveyed from equatorial to temperate and polar regions by means of ocean-currents. In Chapters [II.] and [III.] I have endeavoured to prove (1), that were it not for the heat conveyed from equatorial to temperate and polar regions by this means, the thermal condition of the globe would be totally different from what it is at present; and (2), that the effect of placing all the land along the equator would be diametrically the opposite of that which Sir Charles supposes.

But supposing that difference in the distribution of land and water would produce the effects attributed to it, nevertheless it would not account for those extraordinary changes of climate which have occurred during geological epochs. Take, for example, the glacial epoch. Geologists almost all agree that little or no change has taken place in the relative distribution of sea and land since that epoch. All our main continents and islands not only existed then as they do now, but every year is adding to the amount of evidence which goes to show that so recent, geologically considered, is the glacial epoch that the very contour of the surface was pretty much the same then as it is at the present day. But this is not all; for even should we assume (1), that a difference in the distribution of sea and land would produce the effects referred to, and (2), that we had good geological evidence to show that at a very recent period a form of distribution existed which would produce the necessary glacial conditions, still the glacial epoch would not be explained, for the phenomena of warm inter-glacial periods would completely upset the theory.

Geological Climate depending on Astronomical Causes.—For a good many years past, an impression has been gradually gaining ground amongst geologists that the glacial epoch, as well as the extraordinary condition of climate which prevailed in arctic regions during the Miocene and other periods, must some way or other have resulted from a cosmical cause; but all seemed at a loss to conjecture what that cause could possibly be. It was apparent that the cosmical cause must be sought for in the relations of our earth to the sun; but a change in the obliquity of the ecliptic and the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit are the only changes from which any sensible effect on climate could possibly be expected to result. It was shown, however, by Laplace that the change of obliquity was confined within so narrow limits that it has scarcely ever been appealed to as a cause seriously affecting climate. The only remaining cause to which appeal could be made was the change in the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit—precession of the equinoxes without eccentricity producing, of course, no effect whatever on climate. Upwards of forty years ago Sir John Herschel and a few other astronomers directed their attention to the consideration of this cause, but the result arrived at was adverse to the supposition that change of eccentricity could greatly affect the climate of our globe.

As some misapprehension seems to prevail with reference to this, I would take the liberty of briefly adverting to the history of the matter,—referring the reader to the Appendix for fuller details.

About the beginning of the century some writers attributed the lower temperature of the southern hemisphere to the fact that the sun remains about seven days less on that hemisphere than on the northern; their view being that the southern hemisphere on this account receives seven days less heat than the northern. Sir Charles Lyell, in the first edition of his “Principles,” published in 1830, refers to this as a cause which might produce some slight effect on climate. Sir Charles’s remarks seem to have directed Sir John Herschel’s attention to the subject, for in the latter part of the same year he read a paper before the Geological Society on the astronomical causes which may influence geological phenomena, in which, after pointing out the mistake into which Sir Charles had been led in concluding that the southern hemisphere receives less heat than the northern, he considers the question as to whether geological climate could be influenced by changes in the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit. He did not appear at the time to have been aware of the conclusions arrived at by Lagrange regarding the superior limit of the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit; but he came to the conclusion that possibly the climate of our globe may have been affected by variations in the eccentricity of its orbit. “An amount of variation,” he says, “which we need not hesitate to admit (at least provisionally) as a possible one, may be productive of considerable diversity of climate, and may operate during great periods of time either to mitigate or to exaggerate the difference of winter and summer temperatures, so as to produce alternately in the same latitude of either hemisphere a perpetual spring, or the extreme vicissitudes of a burning summer and a rigorous winter.”

This opinion, however, was unfortunately to a great extent nullified by the statement which shortly afterwards appeared in his “Treatise on Astronomy,” and also in the “Outlines of Astronomy,” to the effect that the elliptic form of the earth’s orbit has but a very trifling influence in producing variation of temperature corresponding to the sun’s distance; the reason being that whatever may be the ellipticity of the orbit, it follows that equal amounts of heat are received from the sun in passing over equal angles round it, in whatever part of the ellipse those angles may be situated. Those angles will of course be described in unequal times, but the greater proximity of the sun exactly compensates for the more rapid description, and thus an equilibrium of heat is maintained. The sun, for example, is much nearer the earth when he is over the southern hemisphere than he is when over the northern; but the southern hemisphere does not on this account receive more heat than the northern; for, owing to the greater velocity of the earth when nearest the sun, the sun does not remain so long on the southern hemisphere as he does on the northern. These two effects so exactly counterbalance each other that, whatever be the extent of the eccentricity, the total amount of heat reaching both hemispheres is the same. And he considered that this beautiful compensating principle would protect the climate of our globe from being seriously affected by an increase in the eccentricity of its orbit, unless the extent of that increase was very great.

“Were it not,” he says, “for this, the eccentricity of the orbit would materially influence the transition of seasons. The fluctuation of distance amounts to nearly 1/30th of its mean quantity, and consequently the fluctuation in the sun’s direct heating power to double this, or 1/15th of the whole. Now the perihelion of the orbit is situated nearly at the place of the northern winter solstice; so that, were it not for the compensation we have just described, the effect would be to exaggerate the difference of summer and winter in the southern hemisphere, and to moderate it in the northern; thus producing a more violent alternation of climate in the one hemisphere, and an approach to perpetual spring in the other. As it is, however, no such inequality subsists, but an equal and impartial distribution of heat and light is accorded to both.”[8]

Herschel’s opinion was shortly afterwards adopted and advocated by Arago[9] and by Humboldt.[10]

Arago, for example, states that so little is the climate of our globe affected by the eccentricity of its orbit, that even were the orbit to become as eccentric as that of the planet Pallas (that is, as great as 0·24), “still this would not alter in any appreciable manner the mean thermometrical state of the globe.”

This idea, supported by these great authorities, got possession of the public mind; and ever since it has been almost universally regarded as settled that the great changes of climate indicated by geological phenomena could not have resulted from any change in the relation of the earth to the sun.

There is, however, one effect that was not regarded as compensated. The total amount of heat received by the earth is inversely proportional to the minor axis of its orbit; and it follows, therefore, that the greater the eccentricity, the greater is the total amount of heat received by the earth. On this account it was concluded that an increase of eccentricity would tend to a certain extent to produce a warmer climate.

All those conclusions to which I refer, arrived at by astronomers, are perfectly legitimate so far as the direct effects of eccentricity are concerned; and it was quite natural, and, in fact, proper to conclude that there was nothing in the mere increase of eccentricity that could produce a glacial epoch. How unnatural would it have been to have concluded that an increase in the quantity of heat received from the sun should lower the temperature, and cover the country with snow and ice! Neither would excessively cold winters, followed by excessively hot summers, produce a glacial epoch. To assert, therefore, that the purely astronomical causes could produce such an effect would be simply absurd.

Important Consideration overlooked.—The important fact, however, was overlooked that, although the glacial epoch could not result directly from an increase of eccentricity, it might nevertheless do so indirectly. Although an increase of eccentricity could have no direct tendency to lower the temperature and cover our country with ice, yet it might bring into operation physical agents which would produce this effect.

If, instead of endeavouring to trace a direct connection between a high condition of eccentricity and a glacial condition of climate, we turn our attention to the consideration of what are the physical effects which result from an increase of eccentricity, we shall find that a host of physical agencies are brought into operation, the combined effect of which is to lower to a very great extent the temperature of the hemisphere whose winters occur in aphelion, and to raise to nearly as great an extent the temperature of the opposite hemisphere, whose winters of course occur in perihelion. Until attention was directed to those physical circumstances to which I refer, it was impossible that the true cause of the glacial epoch could have been discovered; and, moreover, many of the indirect and physical effects, which in reality were those that brought about the glacial epoch, could not, in the nature of things, have been known previously to recent discoveries in the science of heat.

The consideration and discussion of those various physical agencies are the chief aim of the following pages.

Abstract of the Line of Argument pursued in this Volume.—I shall now proceed to give a brief abstract of the line of argument pursued in this volume. But as a considerable portion of it is devoted to the consideration of objections and difficulties bearing either directly or indirectly on the theory, it will be necessary to point out what those difficulties are, how they arose, and the methods which have been adopted to overcome them.

[Chapter IV.] contains an outline of the physical agencies affecting climate which are brought into operation by an increase of eccentricity. By far the most important of all those agencies, and the one which mainly brought about the glacial epoch, is the Deflection of Ocean-Currents. The consideration of the indirect physical connection between a high state of eccentricity and the deflection of ocean-currents, and also the enormous influence on climate which results from this deflection constitute not only the most important part of the subject, but the one beset with the greatest amount of difficulties.

The difficulties besetting this part of the theory arise mainly from the imperfect state of our knowledge, (1st) with reference to the absolute amount of heat transferred from equatorial to temperate and polar regions by means of ocean-currents and the influence which the heat thus transferred has on the distribution of temperature on the earth’s surface; and (2nd) in connection with the physical cause of ocean circulation.

In Chapters [II.] and [III.] I have entered at considerable length into the consideration of the effects of ocean currents on the distribution of heat over the globe. The only current of which anything like an accurate estimate of volume and temperature has been made is the Gulf-stream. In reference to this stream we have a means of determining in absolute measure the quantity of heat conveyed by it. On the necessary computation being made, it is found that the amount transferred by the Gulf-stream from equatorial regions into the North Atlantic is enormously greater than was ever anticipated, amounting to no less than one-fifth part of the entire heat possessed by the North Atlantic. This striking fact casts a new light on the question of the distribution of heat over the globe. It will be seen that to such an extent is the temperature of the equatorial regions lowered, and that of high temperate, and polar regions raised, by means of ocean currents, that were they to cease, and each latitude to depend solely on the heat received directly from the sun, only a very small portion of the globe would be habitable by the present order of beings. This being the case, it becomes obvious to what an extent the deflection of ocean currents must affect temperature. For example, were the Gulf-stream stopped, and the heat conveyed by it deflected into the Southern Ocean, how enormously would this tend to lower the temperature of the northern hemisphere, and raise the temperature south of the equator.

Chapters [VI.], [VII.], [VIII.], [IX.], [X.], and [XIII.], are devoted to the consideration of the physical cause of oceanic circulation. This has been found to be the most difficult and perplexing part of the whole inquiry. The difficulties mainly arise from the great diversity of opinion and confusion of ideas prevailing in regard to the mechanics of the subject. There are two theories propounded to account for oceanic circulation; the one which may be called the Wind theory, and the other the Gravitation theory; and this diversity of opinion and confusion of ideas prevail in connection with both theories. As the question of the cause of oceanic circulation has not only a direct and important bearing on the subject of the present volume, but is further one of much general interest, I have entered somewhat fully into the matter.

The Gravitation theories may be divided into two classes. The first of these attributes the Gulf-stream and other sensible currents of the ocean to difference of specific gravity, resulting from difference of temperature between the sea in equatorial and polar regions. The leading advocate of this theory was the late Lieutenant Maury, who brought it so much into prominence in his interesting book on the “Physical Geography of the Sea.” The other class does not admit that the sensible currents of the ocean can be produced by difference of specific gravity; but they maintain that difference of temperature between the sea in equatorial and polar regions produces a general movement of the upper portion of the sea from the equator to the poles, and a counter-movement of the under portion from the poles to the equator. This form of the gravitation theory has been ably and zealously advocated by Dr. Carpenter, who may be regarded as its representative. The Wind theories also divide into two classes. According to the one ocean currents are caused and maintained by the impulse of the trade-winds, while according to the other they are due not to the impulse of the trade-winds alone, but to that of the prevailing winds of the globe, regarded as a general system. The former of these is the one generally accepted; the latter is that advocated in the present volume.

The relations which these theories bear to the question of secular change of climate, will be found stated at length in [Chapter VI.] It will, however, be better to state here in a few words what those relations are. When the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit attains a high value, the hemisphere, whose winter solstice occurs in aphelion, has, for reasons which are explained in [Chapter IV.], its temperature lowered, while that of the opposite hemisphere is raised. Let us suppose the northern hemisphere to be the cold one, and the southern the warm one. The difference of temperature between the equator and the North Pole will then be greater than between the equator and the South Pole; according, therefore, to theory, the trades of the northern hemisphere will be stronger than those of the southern, and will consequently blow across the equator to some distance on the southern hemisphere. This state of things will tend to deflect equatorial currents southwards, impelling the warm water of the equatorial regions more into the southern or warm hemisphere than into the northern or cold hemisphere. The tendency of all this will be to exaggerate the difference of temperature already existing between the two hemispheres. If, on the other hand, the great ocean currents which convey the warm equatorial waters to temperate and polar regions be not produced by the impulse of the winds, but by difference of temperature, as Maury maintains, then in the case above supposed the equatorial waters would be deflected more into the northern or cold hemisphere than into the southern or warm hemisphere, because the difference of temperature between the equator and the poles would be greater on the cold than on the warm hemisphere. This, of course, would tend to neutralize or counteract that difference of temperature between the two hemispheres which had been previously produced by eccentricity. In short, this theory of circulation would effectually prevent eccentricity from seriously affecting climate.

Chapters [VI.] and [VII.] have been devoted to an examination of this form of the gravitation theory.

The above remarks apply equally to Dr. Carpenter’s form of the theory; for according to a doctrine of General Oceanic Circulation resulting from difference of specific gravity between the water at the equator and at the poles, the equatorial water will be carried more to the cold than to the warm hemisphere. It is perfectly true that a belief in a general oceanic circulation may be held quite consistently with the theory of secular changes of climate, provided it be admitted that not this general circulation but ocean currents are the great agency employed in distributing heat over the globe. The advocates of the theory, however, admit no such thing, but regard ocean currents as of secondary importance. It may be stated that the existence of this general ocean circulation has never been detected by actual observation. It is simply assumed in order to account for certain facts, and it is asserted that such a circulation must take place as a physical necessity. I freely admit that were it not that the warm water of equatorial regions is being constantly carried off by means of ocean currents such as the Gulf-stream, it would accumulate till, in order to restoration of equilibrium, such a general movement as is supposed would be generated. But it will be shown that the warm water in equatorial regions is being drained off so rapidly by ocean currents that the actual density of an equatorial column differs so little from that of a polar column that the force of gravity resulting from that difference is so infinitesimal that it is doubtful whether it is sufficient to produce sensible motion. I have also shown in [Chapter VIII.] that all the facts which this theory is designed to explain are not only explained by the wind theory, but are deducible from it as necessary consequences. In [Chapter XI.] it is proved, by contrasting the quantity of heat conveyed by ocean currents from inter-tropical to temperate and polar regions with such an amount as could possibly be conveyed by means of a general oceanic circulation, that the latter sinks into insignificance before the former. In Chapters [X.] and [XII.] the various objections which have been advanced by Dr. Carpenter and Mr. Findlay are discussed at considerable length, and in [Chapter IX.] I have entered somewhat minutely into an examination of the mechanics of the gravitation theory. A statement of the wind theory is given in [Chapter XIII.]; and in [Chapter XIV.] is shown the relation of this theory to the theory of Secular changes of climate. This terminates the part of the inquiry relating to oceanic circulation.

We now come to the crucial test of the theories respecting the cause of the glacial epoch, viz., Warm Inter-glacial Periods. In Chapters [XV.] and [XVI.] I have given a statement of the geological facts which go to prove that that long epoch known as the Glacial was not one of continuous cold, but consisted of a succession of cold and warm periods. This condition of things is utterly inexplicable on every theory of the cause of the glacial epoch which has hitherto been advanced; but, according to the physical theory of secular changes of climate under consideration, it follows as a necessary consequence. In fact, the amount of geological evidence which has already been accumulated in reference to inter-glacial periods may now be regarded as perfectly sufficient to establish the truth of that theory.

If the glacial epoch resulted from some accidental distribution of sea and land, then there may or may not have been more than one glacial epoch, but if it resulted from the cause which we have assigned, then there must have been during the geological history of the globe a succession of glacial epochs corresponding to the secular variations in the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit. A belief in the existence of recurring glacial epochs has been steadily gaining ground for many years past. I have, in [Chapter XVIII.], given at some length the facts on which this belief rests. It is true that the geological evidence of glacial epochs in prior ages is meagre in comparison with that of the glacial epoch of Post-tertiary times; but there is a reason for this in the nature of geological evidence itself. [Chapter XVII.] deals with the geological records of former glacial epochs, showing that they are not only imperfect, but that there is good reason why they should be so, and that the imperfection of the records in reference to them cannot be advanced as an argument against their existence.

If the glacial epoch resulted from a high condition of eccentricity, we have not only a means of determining the positive date of that epoch, but we have also a means of determining geological time in absolute measure. For if the glacial epochs of prior ages correspond to periods of high eccentricity, then the intervals between those periods of high eccentricity become the measure of the intervals between the glacial epochs. The researches of Lagrange and Leverrier into the secular variations of the elements of the orbits of the planets enable us to determine with tolerable accuracy the values of the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit for, at least, four millions of years past and future. With the view of determining those values, I several years ago computed from Leverrier’s formula the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit and longitude of the perihelion, at intervals of ten thousand and fifty thousand years during a period of three millions of years in the past, and one million of years in the future. The tables containing these values will be found in [Chapter XIX.] These tables not only give us the date of the glacial epoch, but they afford, as will be seen from [Chapter XXI.], evidence as to the probable date of the Eocene and Miocene periods.

Ten years ago, when the theory was first advanced, it was beset by a very formidable difficulty, arising from the opinions which then prevailed in reference to geological time. One or two glacial epochs in the course of a million of years was a conclusion which at that time scarcely any geologist would admit, and most would have felt inclined to have placed the last glacial epoch at least one million of years back. But then if we assume that the glacial epoch was due to a high state of eccentricity, we should be compelled to admit of at least two glacial epochs during that lapse of time. It was the modern doctrine that the great changes undergone by the earth’s crust were produced, not by convulsions of nature, but by the slow and almost imperceptible action, of rain, rivers, snow, frost, ice, &c., which impressed so strongly on the mind of the geologist the vast duration of geological periods. When it was considered that the rocky face of our globe had been carved into hills and dales, and ultimately worn down to the sea-level by means of those apparently trifling agents, not only once or twice, but many times, during past ages, it was not surprising that the views entertained by geologists regarding the immense antiquity of our globe should not have harmonised with the deductions of physical science on the subject. It had been shown by Sir William Thomson and others, from physical considerations relating to the age of the sun’s heat and the secular cooling of our globe, that the geological history of our earth’s crust must be limited to a period of something like one hundred millions of years. But these speculations had but little weight when pitted against the stern and undeniable facts of subaërial denudation. How, then, were the two to be reconciled? Was it the physicist who had under-estimated geological time, or the geologist who had over-estimated it? Few familiar with modern physics, and who have given special attention to the subject, would admit that the sun could have been dissipating his heat at the present enormous rate for a period much beyond one hundred millions of years. The probability was that the amount of work performed on the earth’s crust by the denuding agents in a period so immense as a million of years was, for reasons stated in [Chapter XX.], very much under-estimated. But the difficulty was how to prove this. How was it possible to measure the rate of operation of agents so numerous and diversified acting with such extreme slowness and irregularity over so immense areas? In other words, how was it possible to measure the rate of subaërial denudation? Pondering over this problem about ten years ago, an extremely simple and obvious method of solving it suggested itself to my mind. This method—the details of which will be found in [Chapter XX.]—showed that the rate of subaërial denudation is enormously greater than had been supposed. The method is now pretty generally accepted, and the result has already been to bring about a complete reconciliation between physics and geology in reference to time.

[Chapter XXI.] contains an account of the gravitation theories of the origin of the sun’s heat. The energy possessed by the sun is generally supposed to have been derived from gravitation, combustion being totally inadequate as a source. But something more than gravitation is required before we can account for even one hundred millions of years’ heat. Gravitation could not supply even one-half that amount. There must be some other and greater source than that of gravitation. There is, however, as is indicated, an obvious source from which far more energy may have been derived than could have been obtained from gravitation.

The method of determining the rate of subaërial denudation enables us also to arrive at a rough estimate of the actual mean thickness of the stratified rocks of the globe. It will be seen from [Chapter XXII.] that the mean thickness is far less than is generally supposed.

The physical cause of the submergence of the land during the glacial epoch, and the influence of change in the obliquity of the ecliptic on climate, are next considered. In [Chapter XXVI.] I have given the reasons which induce me to believe that coal is an inter-glacial formation.

The next two chapters—the one on the path of the ice in north-western Europe, the other on the north of England ice-sheet—are reprints of papers which appeared a few years ago in the Geological Magazine. Recent observations have confirmed the truth of the views advanced in these two chapters, and they are rapidly gaining acceptance among geologists.

I have given, at the conclusion, a statement of the molecular theory of glacier motion—a theory which I have been led to modify considerably on one particular point.

There is one point to which I wish particularly to direct attention—viz., that I have studiously avoided introducing into the theories propounded anything of a hypothetical nature. There is not, so far as I am aware, from beginning to end of this volume, a single hypothetical element: nowhere have I attempted to give a hypothetical explanation. The conclusions are in every case derived either from facts or from what I believe to be admitted principles. In short, I have aimed to prove that the theory of secular changes of climate follows, as a necessary consequence, from the admitted principles of physical science.

CHAPTER II.
OCEANS-CURRENTS IN RELATION TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF HEAT OVER THE GLOBE.

The absolute Heating-power of Ocean-currents.—Volume of the Gulf-stream.—Absolute Amount of Heat conveyed by it.—Greater Portion of Moisture in inter-tropical Regions falls as Rain in those Regions.—Land along the Equator tends to lower the Temperature of the Globe.—Influence of Gulf-stream on Climate of Europe.—Temperature of Space.—Radiation of a Particle.—Professor Dove on Normal Temperature.—Temperature of Equator and Poles in the Absence of Ocean-currents.—Temperature of London, how much due to Ocean-currents.

The absolute Heating-power of Ocean-currents.—There is perhaps no physical agent concerned in the distribution of heat over the surface of the globe the influence of which has been so much underrated as that of ocean-currents. This is, no doubt, owing to the fact that although their surface-temperature, direction, and general influence have obtained considerable attention, yet little or nothing has been done towards determining the absolute amount of heat or of cold conveyed by them or the resulting absolute increase or decrease of temperature.

The modern method of determining the amount of heat-effects in absolute measure is, doubtless, destined to cast new light on all questions connected with climate, as it has done, and is still doing, in every department of physics where energy, under the form of heat, is being studied. But this method has hardly as yet been attempted in questions of meteorology; and owing to the complicated nature of the phenomena with which the meteorologist has generally to deal, its application will very often prove practically impossible. Nevertheless, it is particularly suitable to all questions relating to the direct thermal effects of currents, whatever the nature of these currents may happen to be.

In the application of the method to an ocean-current, the two most important elements required as data are the volume of the stream and its mean temperature. But although we know something of the temperature of most of the great ocean-currents, yet, with the exception of the Gulf-stream, little has been ascertained regarding their volume.

The breadth, depth, and temperature of the Gulf-stream have formed the subject of extensive and accurate observations by the United States Coast Survey. In the memoirs and charts of that survey cross-sections of the stream at various places are given, showing its breadth and depth, and also the temperature of the water from the surface to the bottom. We are thus enabled to determine with some precision the mean temperature of the stream. And knowing its mean velocity at any given section, we have likewise a means of determining the number of cubic feet of water passing through that section in a given time. But although we can obtain with tolerable accuracy the mean temperature, yet observations regarding the velocity of the water at all depths have unfortunately not been made at any particular section. Consequently we have no means of estimating as accurately as we could wish the volume of the current. Nevertheless, since we know the surface-velocity of the water at places where some of the sections were taken, we are enabled to make at least a rough estimate of the volume.

From an examination of the published sections, I came to the conclusion some years ago[11] that the total quantity of water conveyed by the stream is probably equal to that of a stream fifty miles broad and 1,000 feet deep,[12] flowing at the rate of four miles an hour, and that the mean temperature of the entire mass of moving water is not under 65° at the moment of leaving the Gulf. But to prevent the possibility of any objections being raised on the grounds that I may have over-estimated the volume of the stream, I shall take the velocity to be two miles instead of four miles an hour. We are warranted, I think, in concluding that the stream before it returns from its northern journey is on an average cooled down to at least 40°,[13] consequently it loses 25° of heat. Each cubic foot of water, therefore, in this case carries from the tropics for distribution upwards of 1,158,000 foot-pounds of heat. According to the above estimate of the size and velocity of the stream, which in [Chapter XI.] will be shown to be an under-estimate, 2,787,840,000,000 cubic feet of water are conveyed from the Gulf per hour, or 66,908,160,000,000 cubic feet daily. Consequently the total quantity of heat thus transferred per day amounts to 77,479,650,000,000,000,000 foot-pounds.

This estimate of the volume of the stream is considerably less by one-half than that given both by Captain Maury and by Sir John Herschel. Captain Maury considers the Gulf-stream equal to a stream thirty-two miles broad and 1,200 feet deep, flowing at the rate of five knots an hour.[14] This gives 6,165,700,000,000 cubic feet per hour as the quantity of water conveyed by this stream. Sir John Herschel’s estimate is still greater. He considers it equal to a stream thirty miles broad and 2,200 feet deep, flowing at the rate of four miles an hour.[15] This makes the quantity 7,359,900,000,000 cubic feet per hour. Dr. Colding, in his elaborate memoir on the Gulf-stream, estimates the volume at 5,760,000,000,000 cubic feet per hour, while Mr. Laughton’s estimate is nearly double that of mine.

From observations made by Sir John Herschel and by M. Pouillet on the direct heat of the sun, it is found that, were no heat absorbed by the atmosphere, about eighty-three foot-pounds per second would fall upon a square foot of surface placed at right angles to the sun’s rays.[16] Mr. Meech estimates that the quantity of heat cut off by the atmosphere is equal to about twenty-two per cent. of the total amount received from the sun. M. Pouillet estimates the loss at twenty-four per cent. Taking the former estimate, 64·74 foot-pounds per second will therefore be the quantity of heat falling on a square foot of the earth’s surface when the sun is in the zenith. And were the sun to remain stationary in the zenith for twelve hours, 2,796,768 foot-pounds would fall upon the surface.

It can be shown that the total amount of heat received upon a unit surface on the equator, during the twelve hours from sunrise till sunset at the time of the equinoxes, is to the total amount which would be received upon that surface, were the sun to remain in the zenith during those twelve hours, as the diameter of a circle to half its circumference, or as 1 to 1·5708. It follows, therefore, that a square foot of surface on the equator receives from the sun at the time of the equinoxes 1,780,474 foot-pounds daily, and a square mile 49,636,750,000,000 foot-pounds daily. But this amounts to only 1/1560935th part of the quantity of heat daily conveyed from the tropics by the Gulf-stream. In other words, the Gulf-stream conveys as much heat as is received from the sun by 1,560,935 square miles at the equator. The amount thus conveyed is equal to all the heat which falls upon the globe within thirty-two miles on each side of the equator. According to calculations made by Mr. Meech,[17] the annual quantity of heat received by a unit surface on the frigid zone, taking the mean of the whole zone, is 5·45/12th of that received at the equator; consequently the quantity of heat conveyed by the Gulf-stream in one year is equal to the heat which falls on an average on 3,436,900 square miles of the arctic regions. The frigid zone or arctic regions contain 8,130,000 square miles. There is actually, therefore, nearly one-half as much heat transferred from tropical regions by the Gulf-stream as is received from the sun by the entire arctic regions, the quantity conveyed from the tropics by the stream to that received from the sun by the arctic regions being nearly as two to five.

But we have been assuming in our calculations that the percentage of heat absorbed by the atmosphere is no greater in polar regions than it is at the equator, which is not the case. If we make due allowance for the extra amount absorbed in polar regions in consequence of the obliqueness of the sun’s rays, the total quantity of heat conveyed by the Gulf-stream will probably be nearly equal to one-half the amount received from the sun by the entire arctic regions.

If we compare the quantity of heat conveyed by the Gulf-stream with that conveyed by means of aërial currents, the result is equally startling. The density of air to that of water is as 1 to 770, and its specific heat to that of water is as 1 to 4·2; consequently the same amount of heat that would raise 1 cubic foot of water 1° would raise 770 cubic feet of air 4°·2, or 3,234 cubic feet 1°. The quantity of heat conveyed by the Gulf-stream is therefore equal to that which would be conveyed by a current of air 3,234 times the volume of the Gulf-stream, at the same temperature and moving with the same velocity. Taking, as before, the width of the stream at fifty miles, and its depth at 1,000 feet, and its velocity at two miles an hour, it follows that, in order to convey an equal amount of heat from the tropics by means of an aërial current, it would be necessary to have a current about 1¼ mile deep, and at the temperature of 65°, blowing at the rate of two miles an hour from every part of the equator over the northern hemisphere towards the pole. If its velocity were equal to that of a good sailing-breeze, which Sir John Herschel states to be about twenty-one miles an hour, the current would require to be above 600 feet deep. A greater quantity of heat is probably conveyed by the Gulf-stream alone from the tropical to the temperate and arctic regions than by all the aërial currents which flow from the equator.

We are apt, on the other hand, to over-estimate the amount of the heat conveyed from tropical regions to us by means of aërial currents. The only currents which flow from the equatorial regions are the upper currents, or anti-trades as they are called. But it is not possible that much heat can be conveyed directly by them. The upper currents of the trade-winds, even at the equator, are nowhere below the snow-line; they must therefore lie in a region of which the temperature is actually below the freezing-point. In fact, if those currents were warm, they would elevate the snow-line above themselves. The heated air rising off the hot burning ground at the equator, after ascending a few miles, becomes exposed to the intense cold of the upper regions of the atmosphere; it then very soon loses all its heat, and returns from the equator much colder than it went thither. It is impossible that we can receive any heat directly from the equatorial regions by means of aërial currents. It is perfectly true that the south-west wind, to which we owe so much of our warmth in this country, is a continuation of the anti-trade; but the heat which this wind brings to us is not derived from the equatorial regions. This will appear evident, if we but reflect that, before the upper current descends to the snow-line after leaving the equator, it must traverse a space of at least 2,000 miles; and to perform this long journey several days will be required. During all this time the air is in a region below the freezing-point; and it is perfectly obvious that by the time it begins to descend it must have acquired the temperature of the region in which it has been travelling.

If such be the case, it is evident that a wind whose temperature is below 32° could never warm a country such as ours, where the temperature does not fall below 38° or 39°. The heat of our south-west winds is derived, not directly from the equator, but from the warm water of the Atlantic—in fact, from the Gulf-stream. The upper current acquires its heat after it descends to the earth. There is one way, however, whereby heat is indirectly conveyed from the equator by the anti-trades; that is, in the form of aqueous vapour. In the formation of one pound of water from aqueous vapour, as Professor Tyndall strikingly remarks, a quantity of heat is given out sufficient to melt five pounds of cast iron.[18] It must, however, be borne in mind that the greater part of the moisture of the south-west and west winds is derived from the ocean in temperate regions. The upper current receives the greater part of its moisture after it descends to the earth, whilst the moisture received at the equator is in great part condensed, and falls as rain in those regions.

This latter assertion has been so frequently called in question that I shall give my reasons for making it. According to Dr. Keith Johnston (“Physical Atlas”) the mean rainfall of the torrid regions is ninety-six inches per annum, while that of the temperate regions amounts to only thirty-seven inches. If the greater part of the moisture of the torrid regions does not fall as rain in those regions, it must fall as such beyond them. Now the area of the torrid to that of the two temperate regions is about as 39·3 to 51. Consequently ninety-six inches of rain spread over the temperate regions would give seventy-four inches; but this is double the actual rainfall of the temperate regions. If, again, it were spread over both temperate and polar regions this would yield sixty-four inches, which, however, is nearly double the mean rainfall of the temperate and polar regions. If we add to this the amount of moisture derived from the ocean within temperate and polar regions, we should have a far greater rainfall for these latitudes than for the torrid region, and we know, of course, that it is actually far less. This proves the truth of the assertion that by far the greater part of the moisture of the torrid regions falls in those regions as rain. It will hardly do to object that the above may probably be an over-estimate of the amount of rainfall in the torrid zone, for it is not at all likely that any error will ever be found which will affect the general conclusion at which we have arrived.

Dr. Carpenter, in proof of the small rainfall of the torrid zone, adduces the case of the Red Sea, where, although evaporation is excessive, almost no rain falls. But the reason why the vapour raised from the Red Sea does not fall in that region as rain, is no doubt owing to the fact that this sea is only a narrow strip of water in a dry and parched land, the air above which is too greedy of moisture to admit of the vapour being deposited as rain. Over a wide expanse of ocean, however, where the air above is kept to a great extent in a constant state of saturation, the case is totally different.

Land at the Equator tends to Lower the Temperature of the Globe.—The foregoing considerations, as well as many others which might be stated, lead to the conclusion that, in order to raise the mean temperature of the whole earth, water should be placed along the equator, and not land, as is supposed by Sir Charles Lyell and others. For if land is placed at the equator, the possibility of conveying the sun’s heat from the equatorial regions by means of ocean-currents is prevented. The transference of heat could then be effected only by means of the upper currents of the trades; for the heat conveyed by conduction along the solid crust, if any, can have no sensible effect on climate. But these currents, as we have just seen, are ill-adapted for conveying heat.

The surface of the ground at the equator becomes intensely heated by the sun’s rays. This causes it to radiate its heat more rapidly into space than a surface of water heated under the same conditions. Again, the air in contact with the hot ground becomes also more rapidly heated than in contact with water, and consequently the ascending current of air carries off a greater amount of heat. But were the heat thus carried away transferred by means of the upper currents to high latitudes and there employed to warm the earth, then it might to a considerable extent compensate for the absence of ocean-currents, and in this case land at the equator might be nearly as well adapted as water for raising the temperature of the whole earth. But such is not the case; for the heat carried up by the ascending current at the equator is not employed in warming the earth, but is thrown off into the cold stellar space above. This ascending current, instead of being employed in warming the globe, is in reality one of the most effectual means that the earth has of getting quit of the heat received from the sun, and of thus maintaining a much lower temperature than it would otherwise possess. It is in the equatorial regions that the earth loses as well as gains the greater part of its heat; so that, of all places, here ought to be placed the substance best adapted for preventing the dissipation of the earth’s heat into space, in order to raise the general temperature of the earth. Water, of all substances in nature, seems to possess this quality to the greatest extent; and, besides, it is a fluid, and therefore adapted by means of currents to carry the heat which it receives from the sun to every region of the globe.

These results show (although they have reference to only one stream) that the general influence of ocean-currents on the distribution of heat over the surface of the globe must be very great. If the quantity of heat transferred from equatorial regions by the Gulf-stream alone is nearly equal to all the heat received from the sun by the arctic regions, then how enormous must be the quantity conveyed from equatorial regions by all the ocean-currents together!

Influence of the Gulf-stream on the Climate of Europe.—In a paper read before the British Association at Exeter, Mr. A. G. Findlay objects to the conclusions at which I have arrived in former papers on the subject, that I have not taken into account the great length of time that the water requires in order to circulate, and the interference it has to encounter in its passage.

The objection is, that a stream so comparatively small as the Gulf-stream, after spreading out over such a large area of the Atlantic, and moving so slowly across to the shores of Europe, losing heat all the way, would not be able to produce any very sensible influence on the climate of Europe.

I am unable to perceive the force of this objection. Why, the very efficiency of the stream as a heating agent necessarily depends upon the slowness of its motion. Did the Gulf-stream move as rapidly along its whole course as it does in the Straits of Florida, it could produce no sensible effect on the climate of Europe. It does not require much consideration to perceive this. (1) If the stream during its course continued narrow, deep, and rapid, it would have little opportunity of losing its heat, and the water would carry back to the tropics the heat which it ought to have given off in the temperate and polar regions. (2) The Gulf-stream does not heat the shores of Europe by direct radiation. Our island, for example, is not heated by radiation from a stream of warm water flowing along its shores. The Gulf-stream heats our island indirectly by heating the winds which blow over it to our shores.

The anti-trades, or upper return-currents, as we have seen, bring no heat from the tropical regions. After traversing some 2,000 miles in a region of extreme cold they descend on the Atlantic as a cold current, and there absorb the heat and moisture which they carry to north-eastern Europe. Those aërial currents derive their heat from the Gulf-stream, or if it is preferred, from the warm water poured into the Atlantic by the Gulf-stream.

How, then, are these winds heated by the warm water? The air is heated in two ways, viz., by direct radiation from the water, and by contact with the water. Now, if the Gulf-stream continued a narrow and deep current during its entire course similar to what it is at the Straits of Florida, it could have little or no opportunity of communicating its heat to the air either by radiation or by contact. If the stream were only about forty or fifty miles in breadth, the aërial particles in their passage across it would not be in contact with the warm water more than an hour or two. Moreover, the number of particles in contact with the water, owing to the narrowness of the stream, would be small, and there would therefore be little opportunity for the air becoming heated by contact. The same also holds true in regard to radiation. The more we widen the stream and increase its area, the more we increase its radiating surface; and the greater the radiating surface, the greater is the quantity of heat thrown off. But this is not all; the number of aërial particles heated by radiation increases in proportion to the area of the radiating surface; consequently, the wider the area over which the waters of the Gulf-stream are spread, the more effectual will the stream be as a heating agent. And, again, in order that a very wide area of the Atlantic may be covered with the warm waters of the stream, slowness of motion is essential.

Mr. Findlay supposes that fully one-half of the Gulf-stream passes into the south-eastern branch, and that it is only the north-eastern branch of the current that can be effectual in raising the temperature of Europe. But it appears to me that it is to this south-eastern portion of the current, and not to the north-eastern, that we, in this country, are chiefly indebted for our heat. The south-west winds, to which we owe our heat, derive their temperature from this south-eastern portion which flows away in the direction of the Azores. The south-west winds which blow over the northern portion of the current which flows past our island up into the arctic seas cannot possibly cross this country, but will go to heat Norway and northern Europe. The north-eastern portion of the stream, no doubt, protects us from the ice of Greenland by warming the north-west winds which come to us from that cold region.

Mr. Buchan, Secretary of the Scottish Meteorological Society, has shown[19] that in a large tract of the Atlantic between latitudes 20° and 40° N., the mean pressure of the atmosphere is greater than in any other place on the globe. To the west of Madeira, between longitude 10° and 40° W., the mean annual pressure amounts to 30·2 inches, while between Iceland and Spitzbergen it is only 29·6, a lower mean pressure than is found in any other place on the northern hemisphere. There must consequently, he concludes, be a general tendency in the air to flow from the former to the latter place along the earth’s surface. Now, the air in moving from the lower to the higher latitudes tends to take a north-easterly direction, and in this case will pass over our island in its course. This region of high pressure, however, is situated in the very path of the south-eastern branch of the Gulf-stream, and consequently the winds blowing therefrom will carry directly to Britain the heat of the Gulf-stream.

As we shall presently see, it is as essential to the heating of our island as to that of the southern portion of Europe, that a very large proportion of the waters of the Gulf-stream should spread over the surface of the Atlantic and never pass up into the arctic regions.

Even according to Mr. Findlay’s own theory, it is to the south-west wind, heated by the warm waters of the Atlantic, that we are indebted for the high temperature of our climate. But he seems to be under the impression that the Atlantic would be able to supply the necessary heat independently of the Gulf-stream. This, it seems to me, is the fundamental error of all those who doubt the efficiency of the stream. It is a mistake, however, into which one is very apt to fall who does not adopt the more rigid method of determining heat-results in absolute measure. When we apply this method, we find that the Atlantic, without the aid of such a current as the Gulf-stream, would be wholly unable to supply the necessary amount of heat to the south-west winds.

The quantity of heat conveyed by the Gulf-stream, as we have seen, is equal to all the heat received from the sun by 1,560,935 square miles at the equator. The mean annual quantity of heat received from the sun by the temperate regions per unit surface is to that received by the equator as 9·08 to 12.[20] Consequently, the quantity of heat conveyed by the stream is equal to all the heat received from the sun by 2,062,960 square miles of the temperate regions. The total area of the Atlantic from the latitude of the Straits of Florida, 200 miles north of the tropic of Cancer, up to the Arctic Circle, including also the German Ocean, is about 8,500,000 square miles. In this case the quantity of heat carried by the Gulf-stream into the Atlantic through the Straits of Florida, is to that received by this entire area from the sun as 1 to 4·12, or in round numbers as 1 to 4. It therefore follows that one-fifth of all the heat possessed by the waters of the Atlantic over that area, even supposing that they absorb every ray that falls upon them, is derived from the Gulf-stream. Would those who call in question the efficiency of the Gulf-stream be willing to admit that a decrease of one-fourth in the total amount of heat received from the sun, over the entire area of the Atlantic from within 200 miles of the tropical zone up to the arctic regions, would not sensibly affect the climate of northern Europe? If they would not willingly admit this, why, then, contend that the Gulf-stream does not affect climate? for the stoppage of the Gulf-stream would deprive the Atlantic of 77,479,650,000,000,000,000 foot-pounds of energy in the form of heat per day, a quantity equal to one-fourth of all the heat received from the sun by that area.

How much, then, of the temperature of the south-west winds derived from the water of the Atlantic is due to the Gulf-stream?

Were the sun extinguished, the temperature over the whole earth would sink to nearly that of stellar space, which, according to the investigations of Sir John Herschel[21] and of M. Pouillet,[22] is not above −239° F. Were the earth possessed of no atmosphere, the temperature of its surface would sink to exactly that of space, or to that indicated by a thermometer exposed to no other heat-influence than that of radiation from the stars. But the presence of the atmospheric envelope would slightly modify the conditions of things; for the heat from the stars (which of course constitutes what is called the temperature of space) would, like the sun’s heat, pass more freely through the atmosphere than the heat radiated back from the earth, and there would in consequence of this be an accumulation of heat on the earth’s surface. The temperature would therefore stand a little higher than that of space; or, in other words, it would stand a little higher than it would otherwise do were the earth exposed in space to the direct radiation of the stars without the atmospheric envelope. But, for reasons which will presently be stated, we may in the meantime, till further light is cast upon this matter, take −239° F. as probably not far from what would be the temperature of the earth’s surface were the sun extinguished.

Suppose now that we take the mean annual temperature of the Atlantic at, say, 56°.[23] Then 239° + 56° = 295° represents the number of degrees of rise due to the heat which it receives. In other words, it takes all the heat that the Atlantic receives to maintain its temperature 295° above the temperature of space. Stop the Gulf-stream, and the Atlantic would be deprived of one-fifth of the heat which it possesses. Then, if it takes five parts of heat to maintain a temperature of 295° above that of space, the four parts which would remain after the stream was stopped would only be able to maintain a temperature of four-fifths of 295°, or 236° above that of space: the stoppage of the Gulf-stream would therefore deprive the Atlantic of an amount of heat which would be sufficient to maintain its temperature 59° above what it would otherwise be, did it depend alone upon the heat received directly from the sun. It does not, of course, follow that the Gulf-stream actually maintains the temperature 59° above what it would otherwise be were there no ocean-currents, because the actual heating-effect of the stream is neutralized to a very considerable extent by cold currents from the arctic regions. But 59° of rise represents its actual power; consequently 59°, minus the lowering effect of the cold currents, represents the actual rise. What the rise may amount to at any particular place must be determined by other means.

This method of calculating how much the temperature of the earth’s surface would rise or fall from an increase or a decrease in the absolute amount of heat received is that adopted by Sir John Herschel in his “Outlines of Astronomy,” § 369^a.

About three years ago, in an article in the Reader, I endeavoured to show that this method is not rigidly correct. It has been shown from the experiments of Dulong and Petit, Dr. Balfour Stewart, Professor Draper, and others, that the rate at which a body radiates its heat off into space is not directly proportionate to its absolute temperature. The rate at which a body loses its heat as its temperature rises increases more rapidly than the temperature. As a body rises in temperature the rate at which it radiates off its heat increases; the rate of this increase, however, is not uniform, but increases with the temperature. Consequently the temperature is not lowered in proportion to the decrease of the sun’s heat. But at the comparatively low temperature with which we have at present to deal, the error resulting from assuming the decrease of temperature to be proportionate to the decrease of heat would not be great.

It may be remarked, however, that the experiments referred to were made on solids; but, from certain results arrived at by Dr. Balfour Stewart, it would seem that the radiation of a material particle may be proportionate to its absolute temperature.[24] This physicist found that the radiation of a thick plate of glass increases more rapidly than that of a thin plate as the temperature rises, and that, if we go on continually diminishing the thickness of the plate whose radiation at different temperatures we are ascertaining, we find that as it grows thinner and thinner the rate at which it radiates off its heat as its temperature rises becomes less and less. In other words, as the plate grows thinner and thinner its rate of radiation becomes more and more proportionate to its absolute temperature. And we can hardly resist the conviction that if we could possibly go on diminishing the thickness of the plate till we reached a film so thin as to embrace but only one particle in its thickness, its rate of radiation would be proportionate to its temperature. Dr. Balfour Stewart has very ingeniously suggested the probable reason why the rate of radiation of thick plates increases with rise of temperature more rapidly than that of thin. It is this: all substances are more diathermanous for heat of high temperatures than for heat of low temperatures. When a body is at a low temperature, we may suppose that only the exterior rows of particles supply the radiation, the heat from the interior particles being all stopped by the exterior ones, the substance being very opaque for heat of low temperature; while at a high temperature we may imagine that part of the heat from the interior particles is allowed to pass, thereby swelling the total radiation. But as the plate becomes thinner and thinner, the obstructions to interior radiation become less and less, and as these obstructions are greater for radiation at low temperatures than for radiation at high temperatures, it necessarily follows that, by reducing the thickness of the plate, we assist radiation at low temperatures more than we do at high.

In a gas, where each particle may be assumed to radiate by itself, and where the particles stand at a considerable distance from one another, the obstruction to interior radiation must be far less than in a solid. In this case the rate at which a gas radiates off its heat as its temperature rises must increase more slowly than that of a solid substance. In other words, its rate of radiation must correspond more nearly to its absolute temperature than that of a solid. If this be the case, a reduction in the amount of heat received from the sun, owing to an increase of his distance, should tend to produce a greater lowering effect on the temperature of the air than it does on the temperature of the solid ground. But as the temperature of our climate is determined by the temperature of the air, it must follow that the error of assuming that the decrease of temperature would be proportionate to the decrease in the intensity of the sun’s heat may not be great.

It may be observed here, although it does not bear directly on this point, that although the air in a room, for example, or at the earth’s surface is principally cooled by convection rather than by radiation, yet it is by radiation alone that the earth’s atmosphere parts with its heat to stellar space; and this is the chief matter with which we are at present concerned. Air, like all other gases, is a bad radiator; and this tends to protect it from being cooled to such an extent as it would otherwise be, were it a good radiator like solids. True, it is also a bad absorber; but as it is cooled by radiation into space, and heated, not altogether by absorption, but to a very large extent by convection, it on the whole gains its heat more easily than it loses it, and consequently must stand at a higher temperature than it would do were it heated by absorption alone.

But, to return; the error of regarding the decrease of temperature as proportionate to the decrease in the amount of heat received, is probably neutralized by one of an opposite nature, viz., that of taking space at too high a temperature; for by so doing we make the result too small.

We know that absolute zero is at least 493° below the melting-point of ice. This is 222° below that of space. Consequently, if the heat derived from the stars is able to maintain a temperature of −239°, or 222° of absolute temperature, then nearly as much heat is derived from the stars as from the sun. But if so, why do the stars give so much heat and so very little light? If the radiation from the stars could maintain a thermometer 222° above absolute zero, then space must be far more transparent to heat-rays than to light-rays, or else the stars give out a great amount of heat, but very little light, neither of which suppositions is probably true. The probability is, I venture to presume, that the temperature of space is not very much above absolute zero. At the time when these investigations into the probable temperature of space were made, at least as regards the labours of Pouillet, the modern science of heat had no existence, and little or nothing was then known with certainty regarding absolute zero. In this case the whole matter would require to be reconsidered. The result of such an investigation in all probability would be to assign a lower temperature to stellar space than −239°.

Taking all these various considerations into account, it is probable that if we adopt −239° as the temperature of space, we shall not be far from the truth in assuming that the absolute temperature of a place above that of space is proportionate to the amount of heat received from the sun.

We may, therefore, in this case conclude that 59° of rise is probably not very far from the truth, as representing the influence of the Gulf-stream. The Gulf-stream, instead of producing little or no effect, produces an effect far greater than is generally supposed.

Our island has a mean annual temperature of about 12° above the normal due to its latitude. This excess of temperature has been justly attributed to the influence of the Gulf-stream. But it is singular how this excess should have been taken as the measure of the rise resulting from the influence of the stream. These figures only represent the number of degrees that the mean normal temperature of our island stands above what is called the normal temperature of the latitude.

The mode in which Professor Dove constructed his Tables of normal temperature was as follows:—He took the temperature of thirty-six equidistant points on every ten degrees of latitude. The mean temperature of these thirty-six points he calls in each case the normal temperature of the parallel. The excess above the normal merely represents how much the stream raises our temperature above the mean of all places on the same latitude, but it affords us no information regarding the absolute rise produced. In the Pacific, as well as in the Atlantic, there are immense masses of water flowing from the tropical to the temperate regions. Now, unless we know how much of the normal temperature of a latitude is due to ocean-currents, and how much to the direct heat of the sun, we could not possibly, from Professor Dove’s Tables, form the most distant conjecture as to how much of our temperature is derived from the Gulf-stream. The overlooking of this fact has led to a general misconception regarding the positive influence of the Gulf-stream on temperature. The 12° marked in Tables of normal temperature do not represent the absolute effect of the stream, but merely show how much the stream raises the temperature of our country above the mean of all places on the same latitude. Other places have their temperature raised by ocean-currents as well as this country; only the Gulf-stream produces a rise of several degrees over and above that produced by other streams in the same latitude.

At present there is a difference merely of 80° between the mean temperature of the equator and the poles;[25] but were each part of the globe’s surface to depend only upon the direct heat which it receives from the sun, there ought, according to theory, to be a difference of more than 200°. The annual quantity of heat received at the equator is to that received at the poles (supposing the proportionate quantity absorbed by the atmosphere to be the same in both cases) as 12 to 4·98, or, say, as 12 to 5. Consequently, if the temperatures of the equator and the poles be taken as proportionate to the absolute amount of heat received from the sun, then the temperature of the equator above that of space must be to that of the poles above that of space as 12 to 5. What ought, therefore, to be the temperatures of the equator and the poles, did each place depend solely upon the heat which it receives directly from the sun? Were all ocean and aërial currents stopped, so that there could be no transference of heat from one part of the earth’s surface to another, what ought to be the temperatures of the equator and the poles? We can at least arrive at a rough estimate on this point. If we diminish the quantity of warm water conveyed from the equatorial regions to the temperate and arctic regions, the temperature of the equator will begin to rise, and that of the poles to sink. It is probable, however, that this process would affect the temperature of the poles more than it would that of the equator; for as the warm water flows from the equator to the poles, the area over which it is spread becomes less and less. But as the water from the tropics has to raise the temperature of the temperate regions as well as the polar, the difference of effect at the equator and poles might not, on that account, be so very great. Let us take a rough estimate. Say that, as the temperature of the equator rises one degree, the temperature of the poles sinks one degree and a half. The mean annual temperature of the globe is about 58°. The mean temperature of the equator is 80°, and that of the poles 0°. Let ocean and aërial currents now begin to cease, the temperature of the equator commences to rise and the temperature of the poles to sink. For every degree that the temperature of the equator rises, that of the poles sinks 1½°; and when the currents are all stopped and each place becomes dependent solely upon the direct rays of the sun, the mean annual temperature of the equator above that of space will be to that of the poles, above that of space, as 12 to 5. When this proportion is reached, the equator will be 374° above that of space, and the poles 156°; for 374 is to 156 as 12 is to 5. The temperature of space we have seen to be −239°, consequently the temperature of the equator will in this case be 135°, reckoned from the zero of the Fahrenheit thermometer, and the poles 83° below zero. The equator would therefore be 55° warmer than at present, and the poles 83° colder. The difference between the temperature of the equator and the poles will in this case amount to 218°.

Now, if we take into account the quantity of positive energy in the form of heat carried by warm currents from the equator to the temperate and polar regions, and also the quantity of negative energy (cold) carried by cold currents from the polar regions to the equator, we shall find that they are sufficient to reduce the difference of temperature between the poles and the equator from 218° to 80°.

The quantity of heat received in the latitude of London, for example, is to that received at the equator nearly as 12 to 8. This, according to theory, should produce a difference of about 125°. The temperature of the equator above that of space, as we have seen, would be 374°. Therefore 249° above that of space would represent the temperature of the latitude of London. This would give 10° as its temperature. The stoppage of all ocean and aërial currents would thus increase the difference between the equator and the latitude of London by about 85°. The stoppage of ocean-currents would not be nearly so much felt, of course, in the latitude of London as at the equator and the poles, because, as has been already noticed, in all latitudes midway between the equator and the poles the two sets of currents to a considerable extent compensate each other—the warm currents from the equator raise the temperature, while the cold ones from the poles lower it; but as the warm currents chiefly keep on the surface and the cold return-currents are principally under-currents, the heating effect very greatly exceeds the cooling effect. Now, as we have seen, the stoppage of all currents would raise the temperature of the equator 55°; that is to say, the rise at the equator alone would increase the difference of temperature between the equator and that of London by 55°. But the actual difference, as we have seen, ought to be 85°; consequently the temperature of London would be lowered 30° by the stoppage of the currents. For if we raise the temperature of the equator 55° and lower the temperature of London 30°, we then increase the difference by 85°. The normal temperature of the latitude of London being 40°, the stoppage of all ocean and aërial currents would thus reduce it to 10°. But the Gulf-stream raises the actual mean temperature of London 10° above the normal. Consequently 30° + 10° = 40° represents the actual rise at London due to the influence of the Gulf-stream over and above all the lowering effects resulting from arctic currents. On some parts of the American shores on the latitude of London, the temperature is 10° below the normal. The stoppage of all ocean and aërial currents would therefore lower the temperature there only 20°.

It is at the equator and the poles that the great system of ocean and aërial currents produces its maximum effects. The influence becomes less and less as we recede from those places, and between them there is a point where the influence of warm currents from the equator and of cold currents from the poles exactly neutralize each other. At this point the stoppage of ocean-currents would not sensibly affect temperature. This point, of course, is not situated on the same latitude in all meridians, but varies according to the position of the meridian in relation to land, and ocean-currents, whether cold or hot, and other circumstances. A line drawn round the globe through these various points would be very irregular. At one place, such as on the western side of the Atlantic, where the arctic current predominates, the neutral line would be deflected towards the equator, while on the eastern side, where warm currents predominate, the line would be deflected towards the north. It is a difficult problem to determine the mean position of this line; it probably lies somewhere not far north of the tropics.

CHAPTER III.
OCEAN-CURRENTS IN RELATION TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF HEAT OVER THE GLOBE.—(Continued.)

Influence of the Gulf-stream on the Climate of the Arctic Regions.—Absolute Amount of Heat received by the Arctic Regions from the Sun.—Influence of Ocean-currents shown by another Method.—Temperature of a Globe all Water or all Land according to Professor J. D. Forbes.—An important Consideration overlooked.—Without Ocean-currents the Globe would not be habitable.—Conclusions not affected by Imperfection of Data.

Influence of the Gulf-stream on the Climate of the Arctic Regions.—Does the Gulf-stream pass into the arctic regions? Are the seas around Spitzbergen and North Greenland heated by the warm water of the stream?

Those who deny this nevertheless admit the existence of an arctic current. They admit that an immense mass of cold water is continually flowing south from the polar regions around Greenland into the Atlantic. If it be admitted, then, that a mass of water flows across the arctic circle from north to south, it must also be admitted that an equal mass flows across from south to north. It is also evident that the water crossing from south to north must be warmer than the water crossing from north to south; for the temperate regions are warmer than the arctic, and the ocean in temperate regions warmer than the ocean in the arctic; consequently the current which flows into the arctic seas, to compensate for the cold arctic current, must be a warmer current.

Is the Gulf-stream this warm current? Does this compensating warm current proceed from the Atlantic or from the Pacific? If it proceeds from the Atlantic, it is simply the warm water of the Gulf-stream. We may call it the warm water of the Atlantic if we choose; but this cannot materially affect the question at issue, for the heat which the waters of the Atlantic possess is derived, as we have seen, to an enormous extent from the water brought from the tropics by the Gulf-stream. If we deny that the warm compensating current comes from the Atlantic, then we must assume that it comes from the Pacific. But if the cold current flows from the arctic regions into the Atlantic, and the warm compensating current from the Pacific into the arctic regions, the highest temperature should be found on the Pacific side of the arctic regions and not on the Atlantic side; the reverse, however, is the case. In the Atlantic, for example, the 41° isothermal line reaches to latitude 65°30′, while in the Pacific it nowhere goes beyond latitude 57°. The 27° isotherm reaches to latitude 75° in the Atlantic, but in the Pacific it does not pass beyond 64°. And the 14° isotherm reaches the north of Spitzbergen in latitude 80°, whereas on the Pacific side of the arctic regions it does not reach to latitude 72°.

On no point of the earth’s surface does the mean annual temperature rise so high above the normal as in the northern Atlantic, just at the arctic circle, at a spot believed to be in the middle of the Gulf-stream. This place is no less than 22°·5 above the normal, while in the northern Pacific the temperature does not anywhere rise more than 9° above the normal. These facts prove that the warm current passes up the Atlantic into the arctic regions and not up the Pacific, or at least that the larger amount of warm water must pass into the arctic regions through the Atlantic. In other words, the Gulf-stream is the warm compensating current. Not only must there be a warm stream, but one of very considerable magnitude, in order to compensate for the great amount of cold water that is constantly flowing from the arctic regions, and also to maintain the temperature of those regions so much above the temperature of space as they actually are.

No doubt, when the results of the late dredging expedition are published, they will cast much additional light on the direction and character of the currents forming the north-eastern branch of the Gulf-stream.

The average quantity of heat received by the arctic regions as a whole per unit surface to that received at the equator, as we have already seen, is as 5·45 to 12, assuming that the percentage of rays cut off by the atmosphere is the same at both places. In this case the mean annual temperature of the arctic regions, taken as a whole, would be about −69°, did those regions depend entirely for their temperature upon the heat received directly from the sun. But the temperature would not even reach to this; for the percentage of rays cut off by the atmosphere in arctic regions is generally believed to be greater than at the equator, and consequently the actual mean quantity of heat received by the arctic regions will be less than 5·45−12ths of what is received at the equator.

In the article on Climate in the “Encyclopædia Britannica” there is a Table calculated upon the principle that the quantity of heat cut off is proportionate to the number of aërial particles which the rays have to encounter before reaching the surface of the earth—that, as a general rule, if the tracts of the rays follow an arithmetical progression, the diminished force with which the rays reach the ground will form a decreasing geometrical progression. According to this Table about 75 per cent. of the sun’s rays are cut off by the atmosphere in arctic regions. If 75 per cent. of the rays were cut off by the atmosphere in arctic regions, then the direct rays of the sun could not maintain a mean temperature 100° above that of space. But this is no doubt much too high a percentage for the quantity of heat cut off; for recent discoveries in regard to the absorption of radiant heat by gases and vapours prove that Tables computed on this principle must be incorrect. The researches of Tyndall and Melloni show that when rays pass through any substance, the absorption is rapid at first: but the rays are soon “sifted,” as it is called, and they then pass onwards with but little further obstruction. Still, however, owing to the dense fogs which prevail in arctic regions, the quantity of heat cut off must be considerable. If as much as 50 per cent. of the sun’s rays are cut off by the atmosphere in arctic regions, the amount of heat received directly from the sun would not be sufficient to maintain a mean annual temperature of −100°. Consequently the arctic regions must depend to an enormous extent upon ocean-currents for their temperature.

Influence of Ocean-currents shown by another Method.—That the temperature of the arctic regions would sink enormously, and the temperature of the equator rise enormously, were all ocean-currents stopped, can be shown by another method—viz., by taking the mean annual temperature from the equator to the pole along a meridian passing through the ocean, say, the Atlantic, and comparing it with the mean annual temperature taken along a meridian passing through a great continent, say, the Asiatic.

Professor J. D. Forbes, in an interesting memoir,[26] has endeavoured by this method to determine what would be the temperature of the equator and the poles were the globe all water or all land. He has taken the temperature of the two meridians from the tables and charts of Professor Dove, and ascertained the exact proportion of land and water on every 10° of latitude from the equator to the poles, with the view of determining what proportion of the average temperature of the globe in each parallel is due to the land, and what to the water which respectively belongs to it. He next endeavours to obtain a formula for expressing the mean temperature of a given parallel, and thence arrives at “an approximate answer to the inquiry as to what would have been the equatorial or polar temperature of the globe, or that of any latitude, had its surface been entirely composed of land or of water.”

The result at which he arrived is this: that, were the surface of the globe all water, 71°·7 would be the temperature of the equator, and 12°·5 the temperature of the poles; and were the surface all land, 109°·8 would be the temperature of the equator, and −25°·6 the temperature of the poles.

But in Professor Forbes’s calculations no account whatever is taken of the influence of currents, whether of water or of air, and the difference of temperature is attributed wholly to difference of latitude and the physical properties of land and water in relation to their powers in absorbing and detaining the sun’s rays, and to the laws of conduction and of convection which regulate the internal motion of heat in the one and in the other. He considers that the effects of currents are all compensatory.

“If a current of hot water,” he says, “moderates the cold of a Lapland winter, the counter-current, which brings the cold of Greenland to the shores of the United States, in a great measure restores the balance of temperature, so far as it is disturbed by this particular influence. The prevalent winds, in like manner, including the trade-winds, though they render some portions of continents, on the average, hotter or colder than others, produce just the contrary effect elsewhere. Each continent, if it has a cold eastern shore, has likewise a warm western one; and even local winds have for the most part established laws of compensation. In a given parallel of latitude all these secondary causes of local climate may be imagined to be mutually compensatory, and the outstanding gradation of mean or normal temperature will mainly depend, 1st, upon the effect of latitude simply; 2nd, on the distribution of land and water considered in their primary or statical effect.”

It is singular that a physicist so acute as Professor Forbes should, in a question such as this, leave out of account the influence of currents, under the impression that their effects were compensatory.

If there is a constant transference of hot water from the equatorial regions to the polar, and of cold water from the polar regions to the equatorial (a thing which Professor Forbes admitted), then there can only be one place between the equator and the pole where the two sets of currents compensate each other. At all places on the equatorial side of this point a cooling effect is the result. Starting from this neutral point, the preponderance of the cooling effect over the heating increases as we approach towards the equator, and the preponderance of the heating effect over the cooling increases as we recede from this point towards the pole—the cooling effect reaching a maximum at the equator, and the heating effect a maximum at the pole.

Had Professor Forbes observed this important fact, he would have seen at once that the low temperature of the land in high latitudes, in comparison with that of the sea, was no index whatever as to how much the temperature of those regions would sink were the sea entirely removed and the surface to become land; for the present high temperature of the sea is not due wholly to the mere physical properties of water, but to a great extent is due to the heat brought by currents from the equator. Now, unless it is known how much of the absolute temperature of the ocean in those latitudes is due to currents, we cannot tell how much the removal of the sea would lower the absolute temperature of those places. Were the sea removed, the continents in high latitudes would not simply lose the heating advantages which they presently derive from the mere fact of their proximity to so much sea, but the removal would, in addition to this, deprive them of an enormous amount of heat which they at present receive from the tropics by means of ocean-currents. And, on the other hand, at the equator, were the sea removed, the continents there would not simply lose the cooling influences which result from their proximity to so much water, but, in addition to this, they would have to endure the scorching effects which would result from the heat which is at present carried away from the tropics by ocean-currents.

We have already seen that Professor Forbes concluded that the removal of the sea would raise the mean temperature of the equator 30°, and lower the temperature of the poles 28°; it is therefore perfectly certain that, had he added to his result the effect due to ocean-currents, and had he been aware that about one-fifth of all the heat possessed by the Atlantic is actually derived from the equator by means of the Gulf-stream, he would have assigned a temperature to the equator and the poles, of a globe all land, differing not very far from what I have concluded would be the temperature of those places were all ocean and aërial currents stopped, and each place to depend solely upon the heat which it received directly from the sun.

Without Ocean-currents the Globe would not be habitable.—All these foregoing considerations show to what an extent the climatic condition of our globe is due to the thermal influences of ocean-currents.

As regards the northern hemisphere, we have two immense oceans, the Pacific and the Atlantic, extending from the equator to near the north pole, or perhaps to the pole altogether. Between these two oceans lie two great continents, the eastern and the western. Owing to the earth’s spherical form, far too much heat is received at the equator and far too little at high latitudes to make the earth a suitable habitation for sentient beings. The function of these two great oceans is to remove the heat from the equator and carry it to temperate and polar regions. Aërial currents could not do this. They might remove the heat from the equator, but they could not, as we have already seen, carry it to the temperate and polar regions; for the greater portion of the heat which aërial currents remove from the equator is dissipated into stellar space: the ocean alone can convey the heat to distant shores. But aërial currents have a most important function; for of what avail would it be, though ocean-currents should carry heat to high latitudes, if there were no means of distributing the heat thus conveyed over the land? The function of aërial currents is to do this. Upon this twofold arrangement depends the thermal condition of the globe. Exclude the waters of the Pacific and the Atlantic from temperate and polar regions and place them at the equator, and nothing now existing on the globe could live in high latitudes.

Were these two great oceans placed beside each other on one side of the globe, and the two great continents placed beside each other on the other side, the northern hemisphere would not then be suitable for the present order of things: the land on the central and on the eastern side of the united continent would be far too cold.

The foregoing Conclusions not affected by the Imperfection of the Data.—The general results at which we have arrived in reference to the influence of ocean-currents on the climatic condition of the globe are not affected by the imperfection of the data employed. It is perfectly true that considerable uncertainty prevails regarding some of the data; but, after making the fullest allowance for every possible error, the influence of currents is so enormous that the general conclusion cannot be materially affected. I can hardly imagine that any one familiar with the physics of the subject will be likely to think that, owing to possible errors in the data, the effects have probably been doubled. Even admitting, however, that this were proved to be the case, still that would not materially alter the general conclusion at which we have arrived. The influence of ocean-currents in the distribution of heat over the surface of the globe would still be admittedly enormous, whether we concluded that owing to them the present temperature of the equator is 55° or 27° colder than it would otherwise be, or the poles 83° or 41° hotter than they would be did no currents exist.

Nay, more, suppose we should again halve the result; even in that case we should have to admit that, owing to ocean-currents, the equator is about 14° colder and the poles about 21° hotter than they would otherwise be; in other words, we should have to admit that, were it not for ocean-currents, the mean temperature of the equator would be about 100° and the mean temperature of the poles about −21°.

If the influence of ocean-currents in reducing the difference between the temperature of the equator and poles amounted to only a few degrees, it would of course be needless to put much weight on any results arrived at by the method of calculation which I have adopted; but when it is a matter of two hundred degrees, it is not at all likely that the general results will be very much affected by any errors which may ever be found in the data.

Objections of a palæontological nature have frequently been urged against the opinion that our island is much indebted for its mild climate to the influence of the Gulf-stream; but, from what has already been stated, it must be apparent that all objections of that nature are of little avail. The palæontologist may detect, from the character of the flora and fauna brought up from the sea-bottom by dredging and other means, the presence of a warm or of a cold current; but this can never enable him to prove that the temperate and polar regions are not affected to an enormous extent by warm water conveyed from the equatorial regions. For anything that palæontology can show to the contrary, were ocean-currents to cease, the mean annual temperature of our island might sink below the present midwinter temperature of Siberia. What would be the thermal condition of our globe were there no ocean-currents is a question for the physicist; not for the naturalist.

CHAPTER IV.
OUTLINE OF THE PHYSICAL AGENCIES WHICH LEAD TO SECULAR CHANGES OF CLIMATE.

Eccentricity of the Earth’s Orbit; its Effect on Climate.—Glacial Epoch not the direct Result of an Increase of Eccentricity.—An important Consideration overlooked.—Change of Eccentricity affects Climate only indirectly.—Agencies which are brought into Operation by an Increase of Eccentricity.—How an Accumulation of Snow is produced.—The Effect of Snow on the Summer Temperature.—Reason of the low Summer Temperature of Polar Regions.—Deflection of Ocean-currents the chief Cause of secular Changes of Climate.—How the foregoing Causes deflect Ocean-currents.—Nearness of the Sun in Perigee a Cause of the Accumulation of Ice.—A remarkable Circumstance regarding the Causes which lead to secular Changes of Climate.—The primary Cause an Increase of Eccentricity.—Mean Temperature of whole Earth should be greater in Aphelion than in Perihelion.—Professor Tyndall on the Glacial Epoch.—A general Reduction of Temperature will not produce a Glacial Epoch.—Objection from the present Condition of the Planet Mars.

Primary cause of Change of Eccentricity of the Earth’s Orbit.—There are two causes affecting the position of the earth in relation to the sun, which must, to a very large extent, influence the earth’s climate; viz., the precession of the equinoxes and the change in the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit. If we duly examine the combined influence of these two causes, we shall find that the northern and southern portions of the globe are subject to an excessively slow secular change of climate, consisting in a slow periodic change of alternate warmer and colder cycles.

According to the calculations of Leverrier, the superior limit of the earth’s eccentricity is 0·07775.[27] The eccentricity is at present diminishing, and will continue to do so during 23,980 years, from the year 1800 a.d., when its value will be then ·00314.

The change in the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit may affect the climate in two different ways; viz., by either increasing or diminishing the mean annual amount of heat received from the sun, or by increasing or diminishing the difference between summer and winter temperature.

Let us consider the former case first. The total quantity of heat received from the sun during one revolution is inversely proportional to the minor axis.

The difference of the minor axis of the orbit when at its maximum and its minimum state of eccentricity is as 997 to 1000. This small amount of difference cannot therefore sensibly affect the climate. Hence we must seek for our cause in the second case under consideration.

There is of course as yet some little uncertainty in regard to the exact mean distance of the sun. I shall, however, in the present volume assume it to be 91,400,000 miles. When the eccentricity is at its superior limit, the distance of the sun from the earth, when the latter is in the aphelion of its orbit, is no less than 98,506,350 miles; and when in the perihelion it is only 84,293,650 miles. The earth is therefore 14,212,700 miles further from the sun in the former position than in the latter. The direct heat of the sun being inversely as the square of the distance, it follows that the amount of heat received by the earth when in these two positions will be as 19 to 26. Taking the present eccentricity to be ·0168, the earth’s distance during winter, when nearest to the sun, is 89,864,480 miles. Suppose now that, according to the precession of the equinoxes, winter in our northern hemisphere should happen when the earth is in the aphelion of its orbit, at the time when the orbit is at its greatest eccentricity; the earth would then be 8,641,870 miles further from the sun in winter than at present. The direct heat of the sun would therefore be one-fifth less during that season than at present; and in summer one-fifth greater. This enormous difference would affect the climate to a very great extent. But if winter under these circumstances should happen when the earth is in the perihelion of its orbit, the earth would then be 14,212,700 miles nearer the sun in winter than in summer. In this case the difference between winter and summer in the latitude of this country would be almost annihilated. But as the winter in the one hemisphere corresponds with the summer in the other, it follows that while the one hemisphere would be enduring the greatest extremes of summer heat and winter cold, the other would be enjoying a perpetual summer.

It is quite true that whatever may be the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, the two hemispheres must receive equal quantities of heat per annum; for proximity to the sun is exactly compensated by the effect of swifter motion—the total amount of heat received from the sun between the two equinoxes is the same in both halves of the year, whatever the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit may be. For example, whatever extra heat the southern hemisphere may at present receive from the sun during its summer months owing to greater proximity to the sun, is exactly compensated by a corresponding loss arising from the shortness of the season; and, on the other hand, whatever deficiency of heat we in the northern hemisphere may at present have during our summer half year in consequence of the earth’s distance from the sun, is also exactly compensated by a corresponding length of season.

It has been shown in the introductory chapter that a simple change in the sun’s distance would not alone produce a glacial epoch, and that those physicists who confined their attention to purely astronomical effects were perfectly correct in affirming that no increase of eccentricity of the earth’s orbit could account for that epoch. But the important fact was overlooked that although the glacial epoch could not result directly from an increase of eccentricity, it might nevertheless do so indirectly. The glacial epoch, as I hope to show, was not due directly to an increase in the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, but to a number of physical agents that were brought into operation as a result of an increase.

I shall now proceed to give an outline of what these physical agents were, how they were brought into operation, and the way in which they led to the glacial epoch.

When the eccentricity is about its superior limit, the combined effect of all those causes to which I allude is to lower to a very great extent the temperature of the hemisphere whose winters occur in aphelion, and to raise to nearly as great an extent the temperature of the opposite hemisphere, where winter of course occurs in perihelion.

With the eccentricity at its superior limit and the winter occurring in the aphelion, the earth would be 8,641,870 miles further from the sun during that season than at present. The reduction in the amount of heat received from the sun owing to this increased distance would, upon the principle we have stated in [Chapter II.], lower the midwinter temperature to an enormous extent. In temperate regions the greater portion of the moisture of the air is at present precipitated in the form of rain, and the very small portion which falls as snow disappears in the course of a few weeks at most. But in the circumstances under consideration, the mean winter temperature would be lowered so much below the freezing-point that what now falls as rain during that season would then fall as snow. This is not all; the winters would then not only be colder than now, but they would also be much longer. At present the winters are nearly eight days shorter than the summers; but with the eccentricity at its superior limit and the winter solstice in aphelion, the length of the winters would exceed that of the summers by no fewer than thirty-six days. The lowering of the temperature and the lengthening of the winter would both tend to the same effect, viz., to increase the amount of snow accumulated during the winter; for, other things being equal, the larger the snow-accumulating period the greater the accumulation. I may remark, however, that the absolute quantity of heat received during winter is not affected by the decrease in the sun’s heat,[28] for the additional length of the season compensates for this decrease. As regards the absolute amount of heat received, increase of the sun’s distance and lengthening of the winter are compensatory, but not so in regard to the amount of snow accumulated.

The consequence of this state of things would be that, at the commencement of the short summer, the ground would be covered with the winter’s accumulation of snow.

Again, the presence of so much snow would lower the summer temperature, and prevent to a great extent the melting of the snow.

There are three separate ways whereby accumulated masses of snow and ice tend to lower the summer temperature, viz.:—

First. By means of direct radiation. No matter what the intensity of the sun’s rays may be, the temperature of snow and ice can never rise above 32°. Hence the presence of snow and ice tends by direct radiation to lower the temperature of all surrounding bodies to 32°.

In Greenland, a country covered with snow and ice, the pitch has been seen to melt on the side of a ship exposed to the direct rays of the sun, while at the same time the surrounding air was far below the freezing-point; a thermometer exposed to the direct radiation of the sun has been observed to stand above 100°, while the air surrounding the instrument was actually 12° below the freezing-point.[29] A similar experience has been recorded by travellers on the snow-fields of the Alps.[30]

These results, surprising as they no doubt appear, are what we ought to expect under the circumstances. The diathermancy of air has been well established by the researches of Professor Tyndall on radiant heat. Perfectly dry air seems to be nearly incapable of absorbing radiant heat. The entire radiation passes through it almost without any sensible absorption. Consequently the pitch on the side of the ship may be melted, or the bulb of the thermometer raised to a high temperature by the direct rays of the sun, while the surrounding air remains intensely cold. “A joint of meat,” says Professor Tyndall, “might be roasted before a fire, the air around the joint being cold as ice.”[31] The air is cooled by contact with the snow-covered ground, but is not heated by the radiation from the sun.

When the air is humid and charged with aqueous vapour, a similar cooling effect also takes place, but in a slightly different way. Air charged with aqueous vapour is a good absorber of radiant heat, but it can only absorb those rays which agree with it in period. It so happens that rays from snow and ice are, of all others, those which it absorbs best. The humid air will absorb the total radiation from the snow and ice, but it will allow the greater part of, if not nearly all, the sun’s rays to pass unabsorbed. But during the day, when the sun is shining, the radiation from the snow and ice to the air is negative; that is, the snow and ice cool the air by radiation. The result is, the air is cooled by radiation from the snow and ice (or rather, we should say, to the snow and ice) more rapidly than it is heated by the sun; and, as a consequence, in a country like Greenland, covered with an icy mantle, the temperature of the air, even during summer, seldom rises above the freezing-point. Snow is a good reflector, but as simple reflection does not change the character of the rays they would not be absorbed by the air, but would pass into stellar space.

Were it not for the ice, the summers of North Greenland, owing to the continuance of the sun above the horizon, would be as warm as those of England; but, instead of this, the Greenland summers are colder than our winters. Cover India with an ice sheet, and its summers would be colder than those of England.

Second. Another cause of the cooling effect is that the rays which fall on snow and ice are to a great extent reflected back into space.[32] But those that are not reflected, but absorbed, do not raise the temperature, for they disappear in the mechanical work of melting the ice. The latent heat of ice is about 142° F.; consequently in the melting of every pound of ice a quantity of heat sufficient to raise one pound of water 142° disappears, and is completely lost, so far as temperature is concerned. This quantity of heat is consumed, not in raising the temperature of the ice, but in the mechanical work of tearing the molecules separate against the forces of cohesion binding them together into the solid form. No matter what the intensity of the sun’s heat may be, the surface of the ground will remain permanently at 32° so long as the snow and ice continue unmelted. [**P1:missing page number]

Third. Snow and ice lower the temperature by chilling the air and condensing the vapour into thick fogs. The great strength of the sun’s rays during summer, due to his nearness at that season, would, in the first place, tend to produce an increased amount of evaporation. But the presence of snow-clad mountains and an icy sea would chill the atmosphere and condense the vapour into thick fogs. The thick fogs and cloudy sky would effectually prevent the sun’s rays from reaching the earth, and the snow, in consequence, would remain unmelted during the entire summer. In fact, we have this very condition of things exemplified in some of the islands of the Southern Ocean at the present day. Sandwich Land, which is in the same parallel of latitude as the north of Scotland, is covered with ice and snow the entire summer; and in the island of South Georgia, which is in the same parallel as the centre of England, the perpetual snow descends to the very sea-beach. The following is Captain Cook’s description of this dismal place:—“We thought it very extraordinary,” he says, “that an island between the latitudes of 54° and 55° should, in the very height of summer, be almost wholly covered with frozen snow, in some places many fathoms deep.... The head of the bay was terminated by ice-cliffs of considerable height; pieces of which were continually breaking off, which made a noise like a cannon. Nor were the interior parts of the country less horrible. The savage rocks raised their lofty summits till lost in the clouds, and valleys were covered with seemingly perpetual snow. Not a tree nor a shrub of any size were to be seen. The only signs of vegetation were a strong-bladed grass growing in tufts, wild burnet, and a plant-like moss seen on the rocks.... We are inclined to think that the interior parts, on account of their elevation, never enjoy heat enough to melt the snow in such quantities as to produce a river, nor did we find even a stream of fresh water on the whole coast.”[33]

Captain Sir James Ross found the perpetual snow at the sea-level at Admiralty Inlet, South Shetland, in lat. 64°; and while near this place the thermometer in the very middle of summer fell at night to 23° F.; and so rapidly was the young ice forming around the ship that he began, he says, “to have serious apprehensions of the ships being frozen in.”[34] At the comparatively low latitude of 59° S., in long. 171° E. (the corresponding latitude of our Orkney Islands), snow was falling on the longest day, and the surface of the sea at 32°.[35] And during the month of February (the month corresponding to August in our hemisphere) there were only three days in which they were not assailed by snow-showers.[36]

In the Straits of Magellan, in 53° S. lat., where the direct heat of the sun ought to be as great as in the centre of England, MM. Churrca and Galcano have seen snow fall in the middle of summer; and though the day was eighteen hours long, the thermometer seldom rose above 42° or 44°, and never above 51°.[37]

This rigorous condition of climate chiefly results from the rays of the sun being intercepted by the dense fogs which envelope those regions during the entire summer; and the fogs again are due to the air being chilled by the presence of the snow-clad mountains and the immense masses of floating ice which come from the antarctic seas. The reduction of the sun’s heat and lengthening of the winter, which would take place when the eccentricity is near to its superior limit and the winter in aphelion, would in this country produce a state of things perhaps as bad as, if not worse than, that which at present exists in South Georgia and South Shetland.

If we turn our attention to the polar regions, we shall find that the cooling effects of snow and ice are even still more marked. The coldness of the summers in polar regions is owing almost solely to this cause. Captain Scoresby states that, in regard to the arctic regions, the general obscurity of the atmosphere arising from fogs or clouds is such that the sun is frequently invisible during several successive days. At such times, when the sun is near the northern tropic, there is scarcely any sensible quantity of light from noon till midnight.[38] “And snow,” he says, “is so common in the arctic regions, that it may be boldly stated that in nine days out of ten during the months of April, May, and June more or less falls.”[39]

On the north side of Hudson’s Bay, for example, where the quantity of floating ice during summer is enormous, and dense fogs prevail, the mean temperature of June does not rise above the freezing-point, being actually 13°·5 below the normal temperature; while in some parts of Asia under the same latitude, where there is comparatively little ice, the mean temperature of June is as high as 60°.

The mean temperature of Van Rensselaer Harbour, in lat. 78° 37′ N., long. 70° 53′ W., was accurately determined from hourly observations made day and night over a period of two years by Dr. Kane. It was found to be as follows:—

But although the quantity of heat received from the sun at that latitude ought to have been greater during the summer than in England,[40] yet nevertheless the temperature is only 1°·38 above the freezing-point.

The temperature of Port Bowen, lat. 73° 14′ N., was found to be as follows:—

Here the summer is only 2°·4 above the freezing-point.

The condition of things in the antarctic regions is even still worse than in the arctic. Captain Sir James Ross, when between lat. 66° S. and 77° 5′ S., during the months of January and February, 1841, found the mean temperature to be only 26°·5; and there were only two days when it rose even to the freezing-point. When near the ice-barrier on the 8th of February, 1841, a season of the year equivalent to August in England, he had the thermometer at 12° at noon; and so rapidly was the young ice forming around the ships, that it was with difficulty that he escaped being frozen in for the winter. “Three days later,” he says, “the thick falling snow prevented our seeing to any distance before us; the waves as they broke over the ships froze as they fell on the decks and rigging, and covered our clothes with a thick coating of ice.”[41] On visiting the barrier next year about the same season, he again ran the risk of being frozen in. He states that the surface of the sea presented one unbroken sheet of young ice as far as the eye could discover from the masthead.

Lieutenant Wilkes, of the American Exploring Expedition, says that the temperature they experienced in the antarctic regions surprised him, for they seldom, if ever, had it above 30°, even at midday. Captain Nares, when in latitude 64°S., between the 13th and 25th February last (1874), found the mean temperature of the air to be 31°·5; a lower temperature than is met with in the arctic regions, in August, ten degrees nearer the pole.[42]

These extraordinarily low temperatures during summer, which we have just been detailing, were due solely to the presence of snow and ice. In South Georgia, Sandwich Land, and some other places which we have noticed, the summers ought to be about as warm as those of England; yet to such an extent is the air cooled by means of floating ice coming from the antarctic regions, and the rays of the sun enfeebled by the dense fogs which prevail, that there is actually not heat sufficient even in the very middle of summer to melt the snow lying on the sea-beach.

We read with astonishment that a country in the latitude of England should in the very middle of summer be covered with snow down to the sea-shore—the thermometer seldom rising much above the freezing-point. But we do not consider it so surprising that the summer temperature of the polar regions should be low, for we are accustomed to regard a low temperature as the normal condition of things there. We are, however, mistaken if we suppose that the influence of ice on climate is less marked at the poles than at such places as South Georgia or Sandwich Land.

It is true that a low summer temperature is the normal state of matters in very high latitudes, but it is so only in consequence of the perpetual presence of snow and ice. When we speak of the normal temperature of a place we mean, of course, as we have already seen, the normal temperature under the present condition of things. But were the ice removed from those regions, our present Tables of normal summer temperature would be valueless. These Tables give us the normal June temperature while the ice remains, but they do not afford us the least idea as to what that temperature would be were the ice removed. The mere removal of the ice, all things else remaining the same, would raise the summer temperature enormously. The actual June temperature of Melville Island, for example, is 37°, and Port Franklin, Nova Zembla, 36°·5; but were the ice removed from the arctic regions, we should then find that the summer temperature of those places would be about as high as that of England. This will be evident from the following considerations:—

The temperature of a place, other things being equal, is proportionate to the quantity of heat received from the sun. If Greenland receives per given surface as much heat from the sun as England, its temperature ought to be as high as that of England. Now, from May 10 till August 3, a period of eighty-five days, the quantity of heat received from the sun in consequence of his remaining above the horizon is actually greater at the north pole than at the equator.

Column II. of the following Table, calculated by Mr. Meech,[43] represents the quantity of heat received from the sun on the 15th of June at every 10° of latitude. To simplify the Table, I have taken 100 as the unit quantity received at the equator on that day instead of the unit adopted by Mr. Meech:—

The calculations are, of course, made upon the supposition that the quantity of rays cut off in passing through the atmosphere is the same at the poles as at the equator, which, as we know, is not exactly the case. But, notwithstanding the extra loss of solar heat in high latitudes caused by the greater amount of rays that are cut off, still, if the temperature of the arctic summers were at all proportionate to the quantity of heat received from the sun, it ought to be very much higher than it actually is. Column III. represents the actual mean June temperature, according to Prof. Dove, at the corresponding latitudes. A comparison of these two columns will show the very great deficiency of temperature in high latitudes during summer. At the equator, for example, the quantity of heat received is represented by 100 and the temperature 80°; while at the pole the temperature is only 27°·4, although the amount of heat received is 136. This low temperature during summer, from what has been already shown, is due chiefly to the presence of snow and ice. If by some means or other we could remove the snow and ice from the arctic regions, they would then enjoy a temperate, if not a hot, summer. In Greenland, as we have already seen, snow falls even in the very middle of summer, more or less, nine days out of ten; but remove the snow from the northern hemisphere, and a snow-shower in Greenland during summer would be as great a rarity as it would be on the plains of India.

Other things being equal, the quantity of solar heat received in Greenland during summer is considerably greater than in England. Consequently, were it not for snow and ice, it would enjoy as warm a climate during summer as that of England. Conversely, let the polar snow and ice extend to the latitude of England, and the summers of that country would be as cold as those of Greenland. Our summers would then be as cold as our winters are at present, and snow in the very middle of summer would perhaps be as common as rain.

Mr. Murphy’s Theory.—In a paper read before the Geological Society by Mr. Murphy[44] he admits that the glacial climate was due to an increase of eccentricity, but maintains in opposition to me that the glaciated hemisphere must be that in which the summer occurs in aphelion during the greatest eccentricity of the earth’s orbit.

I fear that Mr. Murphy must be resting his theory on the mistaken idea that a summer in aphelion ought to melt less snow and ice than one in perihelion. It is quite true that the longer summer in aphelion—other things being equal—is colder than the shorter one in perihelion, but the quantity of heat received from the sun is the same in both cases. Consequently the quantity of snow and ice melted ought also to be the same; for the amount melted is in proportion to the quantity of energy in the form of heat received.

It is true that with us at present less snow and ice are melted during a cold summer than during a warm one. But this is not a case in point, for during a cold summer we have less heat than during a warm summer, the length of both being the same. The coldness of the summers in this case is owing chiefly to a portion of the heat which we ought to receive from the sun being cut off by some obstructing cause.

The reason why we have so little snow, and consequently so little ice, in temperate regions, is not, as Mr. Murphy seems to suppose, that the heat of summer melts it all, but that there is so little to melt. And the reason why we have so little to melt is that, owing to the warmth of our winters, we have generally rain instead of snow. But if you increase the eccentricity very much, and place the winter in perihelion, we should probably have no snow whatever, and, as far as glaciation is concerned, it would then matter very little what sort of summer we had.

But it is not correct to say that the perihelion summer of the glacial epoch must have been hot. There are physical reasons, as we have just seen, which go to prove that, notwithstanding the nearness of the sun at that season, the temperature would seldom, if ever, rise much above the freezing-point.

Besides, Mr. Murphy overlooks the fact that the nearness of the sun during summer was nearly as essential to the production of the ice, as we shall shortly see, as his great distance during winter.

We must now proceed to the consideration of an agency which is brought into operation by the foregoing condition of things, an agency far more potent than any which has yet come under our notice, viz., the Deflection of Ocean-currents.

Deflection of Ocean-currents the chief Cause of secular Changes of Climate.—The enormous extent to which the thermal condition of the globe is affected by ocean-currents seems to cast new light on the mystery of geological climate. What, for example, would be the condition of Europe were the Gulf-stream stopped, and the Atlantic thus deprived of one-fifth of the absolute amount of heat which it is now receiving above what it has in virtue of the temperature of space? If the results just arrived at be at all justifiable, it follows that the stoppage of the stream would lower the temperature of northern Europe to an extent that would induce a condition of climate as severe as that of North Greenland; and were the warm currents of the North Pacific also at the same time to be stopped, the northern hemisphere would assuredly be subjected to a state of general glaciation.

Suppose also that the warm currents, having been withdrawn from the northern hemisphere, should flow into the Southern Ocean: what then would be the condition of the southern hemisphere? Such a transference of heat would raise the temperature of the latter hemisphere about as much as it would lower the temperature of the former. It would consequently raise the mean temperature of the antarctic regions much above the freezing-point, and the ice under which those regions are at present buried would, to a great extent at least, disappear. The northern hemisphere, thus deprived of the heat from the equator, would be under a condition of things similar to that which prevailed during the glacial epoch; while the other hemisphere, receiving the heat from the equator, would be under a condition of climate similar to what we know prevailed in the northern hemisphere during a part of the Upper Miocene period, when North Greenland enjoyed a climate as mild as that of England at the present day.

This is no mere picture of the imagination, no mere hypothesis devised to meet a difficult case; for if what has already been stated be not completely erroneous, all this follows as a necessary consequence from physical principles. If the warm currents of the equatorial regions be all deflected into one hemisphere, such must be the condition of things. How then do the agencies which we have been considering deflect ocean-currents?

How the foregoing Causes deflect Ocean-currents.—A high condition of eccentricity tends, we have seen, to produce an accumulation of snow and ice on the hemisphere whose winters occur in aphelion. This accumulation tends in turn to lower the summer temperature, to cut off the sun’s rays, and so to retard the melting of the snow. In short, it tends to produce on that hemisphere a state of glaciation. Exactly opposite effects take place on the other hemisphere, which has its winter in perihelion. There the shortness of the winters and the highness of the temperature, owing to the sun’s nearness, combine to prevent the accumulation of snow. The general result is that the one hemisphere is cooled and the other heated. This state of things now brings into play the agencies which lead to the deflection of the Gulf-stream and other great ocean-currents.

Owing to the great difference between the temperature of the equator and the poles, there is a constant flow of air from the poles to the equator. It is to this that the trade-winds owe their existence. Now as the strength of these winds, as a general rule, will depend upon the difference of temperature that may exist between the equator and higher latitudes, it follows that the trades on the cold hemisphere will be stronger than those on the warm. When the polar and temperate regions of the one hemisphere are covered to a large extent with snow and ice, the air, as we have just seen, is kept almost at the freezing-point during both summer and winter. The trades on that hemisphere will, of necessity, be exceedingly powerful; while on the other hemisphere, where there is comparatively little snow and ice, and the air is warm, the trades will, as a consequence, be weak. Suppose now the northern hemisphere to be the cold one. The north-east trade-winds of this hemisphere will far exceed in strength the south-east trade-winds of the southern hemisphere. The median-line between the trades will consequently lie to a very considerable distance to the south of the equator. We have a good example of this at the present day. The difference of temperature between the two hemispheres at present is but trifling to what it would be in the case under consideration; yet we find that the south-east trades of the Atlantic blow with greater force than the north-east trades, and the result is that the south-east trades sometimes extend to 10° or 15° N. lat., whereas the north-east trades seldom blow south of the equator. The effect of the northern trades blowing across the equator to a great distance will be to impel the warm water of the tropics over into the Southern Ocean. But this is not all; not only would the median-line of the trades be shifted southwards, but the great equatorial currents of the globe would also be shifted southwards.

Let us now consider how this would affect the Gulf-stream. The South American continent is shaped somewhat in the form of a triangle, with one of its angular corners, called Cape St. Roque, pointing eastwards. The equatorial current of the Atlantic impinges against this corner; but as the greater portion of the current lies a little to the north of the corner, it flows westward into the Gulf of Mexico and forms the Gulf-stream. A considerable portion of the water, however, strikes the land to the south of the Cape and is deflected along the shores of Brazil into the Southern Ocean, forming what is known as the Brazilian current.

Now it is perfectly obvious that the shifting of the equatorial current of the Atlantic only a few degrees to the south of its present position—a thing which would certainly take place under the conditions which we have been detailing—would turn the entire current into the Brazilian branch, and instead of flowing chiefly into the Gulf of Mexico as at present, it would all flow into the Southern Ocean, and the Gulf-stream would consequently be stopped. The stoppage of the Gulf-stream, combined with all those causes which we have just been considering, would place Europe under glacial conditions; while, at the same time, the temperature of the Southern Ocean would, in consequence of the enormous quantity of warm water received, have its temperature (already high from other causes) raised enormously.

Deflection of the Gulf-stream during the Glacial Epoch indicated by the Difference between the Clyde and Canadian Shell-beds.—That the glaciation of north-western Europe resulted to a great extent from the stoppage of the Gulf-stream may, I think, be inferred from a circumstance pointed out by the Rev. Mr. Crosskey, several years ago, in a paper read before the Glasgow Geological Society.[45] He showed that the difference between the glacial shells of Canada and those now existing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is much less marked than the difference between the glacial shells of the Clyde beds and those now existing in the Firth. And from this he justly infers that the change of climate in Canada since the glacial epoch has been far less complete than in Scotland.

The return of the Gulf-stream has raised the mean annual temperature of our island no less than 15° above the normal, while Canada, deprived of its influence and exposed to a cold stream from polar regions, has been kept nearly as much below the normal.

Let us compare the present temperature of the two countries. In making our comparison we must, of course, compare places on the same latitude. It will not do, for example, to compare Glasgow with Montreal or Quebec, places on the latitude of the south of France and north of Italy. It will be found that the difference of temperature between the two countries is so enormous as to appear scarcely credible to those who have not examined the matter. The temperatures have all been taken from Professor Dove’s work on the “Distribution of Heat over the Surface of the Globe,” and his Tables published in the Report of the British Association for 1847.

The mean temperature of Scotland for January is about 38° F., while in some parts of Labrador, on the same latitude, and all along the central parts of North America lying to the north of Upper Canada, it is actually 10°, and in many places 13° below zero. The January temperature at the Cumberland House, which is situated on the latitude of the centre of England, is more than 13° below zero. Here is a difference of no less than 51°. The normal temperature for the month of January in the latitude of Glasgow, according to Professor Dove, is 10°. Consequently, owing to the influence of the Gulf-stream, we are 28° warmer during that month than we would otherwise be, while vast tracts of country in America are 23° colder than they should be.

The July temperature of Glasgow is 61°, while on the same latitude in Labrador and places to the west it is only 49°. Glasgow during that month is 3° above the normal temperature, while America, owing to the influence of the cold polar stream, is 9° below it. The mean annual temperature of Glasgow is nearly 50°, while in America, on the same latitude, it is only 30°, and in many places as low as 23°. The mean normal temperature for the whole year is 35°. Our mean annual temperature is therefore 15° above the normal, and that of America from 5° to 12° below it. The American winters are excessively cold, owing to the continental character of the climate, and the absence of any benefit from the Gulf-stream, while the summers, which would otherwise be warm, are, in the latitude of Glasgow, cooled down to a great extent by the cold ice from Greenland; and the consequence is, that the mean annual temperature is about 20° or 27° below that of ours. The mean annual temperature of the Gulf of St. Lawrence is as low as that of Lapland or Iceland. It is no wonder, then, that the shells which flourished in Canada during the glacial epoch have not left the gulf and the neighbouring seas.

We have good reason to believe that the climate of America during the glacial epoch was even then somewhat more severe than that of Western Europe, for the erratics of America extend as far south as latitude 40°, while on the old continent they are not found much beyond latitude 50°. This difference may have resulted from the fact that the western side of a continent is always warmer than the eastern.

In order to determine whether the cold was as great in America during the glacial epoch as in Western Europe, we must not compare the fossils found in the glacial beds about Montreal, for example, with those found in the Clyde beds, for Montreal lies much further to the south than the Clyde. The Clyde beds must be compared with those of Labrador, while the beds of Montreal must be compared with those of the south of France and the north of Italy, if any are to be found there.

On the whole, it may be concluded that had the Gulf-stream not returned to our shores at the close of the glacial epoch, and had its place been supplied by a cold stream from the polar regions, similar to that which washes the shores of North America, it is highly probable that nearly every species found in our glacial beds would have had their representatives flourishing in the British seas at the present day.

It is no doubt true that when we compare the places in which the Canadian shell-beds referred to by Mr. Crosskey are situated with places on the same latitude in Europe, the difference of climate resulting from the influence of the Gulf-stream is not so great as between Scotland and those places which we have been considering; but still the difference is sufficiently great to account for why the change of climate in Canada has been less complete than in Scotland.

And what holds true in regard to the currents of the Atlantic holds also true, though perhaps not to the same extent, of the currents of the Pacific.

Nearness of the Sun in Perigee a Cause of the Accumulation of Ice.—But there is still another cause which must be noticed:—A strong under current of air from the north implies an equally strong upper current to the north. Now if the effect of the under current would be to impel the warm water at the equator to the south, the effect of the upper current would be to carry the aqueous vapour formed at the equator to the north; the upper current, on reaching the snow and ice of temperate regions, would deposit its moisture in the form of snow; so that, notwithstanding the great cold of the glacial epoch, it is probable that the quantity of snow falling in the northern regions would be enormous. This would be particularly the case during summer, when the earth would be in the perihelion and the heat at the equator great. The equator would be the furnace where evaporation would take place, and the snow and ice of temperate regions would act as a condenser.

Heat to produce evaporation is just as essential to the accumulation of snow and ice as cold to produce condensation. Now at Midsummer, on the supposition of the eccentricity being at its superior limit, the sun would be 8,641,870 miles nearer than at present during that season. The effect would be that the intensity of the sun’s rays would be one-fifth greater than now. That is to say, for every five rays received by the ocean at present, six rays would be received then, consequently the evaporation during summer would be excessive. But the ice-covered land would condense the vapour into snow. It would, no doubt, be during summer that the greatest snowfall would take place. In fact, the nearness of the sun during that season was as essential to the production of the glacial epoch as was his distance during winter.

The direct effect of eccentricity is to produce on one of the hemispheres a long and cold winter. This alone would not lead to a condition of things so severe as that which we know prevailed during the glacial epoch. But the snow and ice thus produced would bring into operation, as we have seen, a host of physical agencies whose combined efforts would be quite sufficient to do this.

A remarkable Circumstance regarding those Causes which lead to Secular Changes of Climate.—There is one remarkable circumstance connected with those physical causes which deserves special notice. They not only all lead to one result, viz., an accumulation of snow and ice, but they react on one another. It is quite a common thing in physics for the effect to react on the cause. In electricity and magnetism, for example, cause and effect in almost every case mutually act and react upon each other. But it is usually, if not universally, the case that the reaction of the effect tends to weaken the cause. The weakening influences of this reaction tend to impose a limit on the efficiency of the cause. But, strange to say, in regard to the physical causes concerned in the bringing about of the glacial condition of climate, cause and effect mutually reacted so as to strengthen each other. And this circumstance had a great deal to do with the extraordinary results produced.

We have seen that the accumulation of snow and ice on the ground resulting from the long and cold winters tended to cool the air and produce fogs which cut off the sun’s rays. The rays thus cut off diminished the melting power of the sun, and so increased the accumulation. As the snow and ice continued to accumulate, more and more of the rays were cut off; and on the other hand, as the rays continued to be cut off, the rate of accumulation increased, because the quantity of snow and ice melted became thus annually less and less.

Again, during the long and dreary winters of the glacial epoch the earth would be radiating off its heat into space. Had the heat thus lost simply gone to lower the temperature, the lowering of the temperature would have tended to diminish the rate of loss; but the necessary result of this was the formation of snow and ice rather than the lowering of temperature.

And, again, the formation of snow and ice facilitated the rate at which the earth lost its heat; and on the other hand, the more rapidly the earth parted with its heat, the more rapidly were the snow and ice formed.

Further, as the snow and ice accumulated on the one hemisphere, they at the same time continued to diminish on the other. This tended to increase the strength of the trade-winds on the cold hemisphere, and to weaken those on the warm. The effect of this on ocean currents would be to impel the warm water of the tropics more to the warm hemisphere than to the cold. Suppose the northern hemisphere to be the cold one, then as the snow and ice began gradually to accumulate there, the ocean currents of that hemisphere would begin to decrease in volume, while those on the southern, or warm, hemisphere, would pari passu increase. This withdrawal of heat from the northern hemisphere would tend, of course, to lower the temperature of that hemisphere and thus favour the accumulation of snow and ice. As the snow and ice accumulated the ocean currents would decrease, and, on the other hand, as the ocean currents diminished the snow and ice would accumulate,—the two effects mutually strengthening each other.

The same must have held true in regard to aërial currents. The more the polar and temperate regions became covered with snow and ice, the stronger would become the trades and anti-trades of the hemisphere; and the stronger those winds became, the greater would be the amount of moisture transferred from the tropical regions by the anti-trades to the temperate regions; and on the other hand, the more moisture those winds brought to temperate regions, the greater would be the quantity of snow produced.

The same process of mutual action and reaction would take place among the agencies in operation on the warm hemisphere, only the result produced would be diametrically opposite of that produced in the cold hemisphere. On this warm hemisphere action and reaction would tend to raise the mean temperature and diminish the quantity of snow and ice existing in temperate and polar regions.

Had it been possible for each of those various physical agents which we have been considering to produce its direct effects without influencing the other agents or being influenced by them, its real efficiency in bringing about either the glacial condition of climate or the warm condition of climate would not have been so great.

The primary cause that set all those various physical agencies in operation which brought about the glacial epoch, was a high state of eccentricity of the earth’s orbit. When the eccentricity is at a high value, snow and ice begin to accumulate, owing to the increasing length and coldness of the winter on that hemisphere whose winter solstice is approaching toward the aphelion. The accumulating snow then begins to bring into operation all the various agencies which we have been describing; and, as we have just seen, these, when once in full operation, mutually aid one another. As the eccentricity increases century by century, the temperate regions become more and more covered with snow and ice, first by reason of the continued increase in the coldness and length of the winters, and secondly, and chiefly, owing to the continued increase in the potency of those physical agents which have been called into operation. This glacial state of things goes on at an increasing rate, and reaches a maximum when the solstice-point arrives at the aphelion. After the solstice passes the aphelion, a contrary process commences. The snow and ice gradually begin to diminish on the cold hemisphere and to make their appearance on the other hemisphere. The glaciated hemisphere turns, by degrees, warmer and the warm hemisphere colder, and this continues to go on for a period of ten or twelve thousand years, until the winter solstice reaches the perihelion. By this time the conditions of the two hemispheres have been reversed; the formerly glaciated hemisphere has now become the warm one, and the warm hemisphere the glaciated. The transference of the ice from the one hemisphere to the other continues as long as the eccentricity remains at a high value. This will, perhaps, be better understood from an inspection of the frontispiece.

The Mean Temperature of the whole Earth should be greater in Aphelion than in Perihelion.—When the eccentricity becomes reduced to about its present value, its influence on climate is but little felt. It is, however, probable that the present extension of ice on the southern hemisphere may, to a considerable extent, be the result of eccentricity. The difference in the climatic conditions of the two hemispheres is just what should be according to theory:—(1) The mean temperature of that hemisphere is less than that of the northern. (2) The winters of the southern hemisphere are colder than those of the northern. (3) The summers, though occurring in perihelion, are also comparatively cold; this, as we have seen, is what ought to be according to theory. (4) The mean temperature of the whole earth is greater in June, when the earth is in aphelion, than in December, when it is in perihelion. This, I venture to affirm, is also what ought to follow according to theory, although this very fact has been adduced as a proof that eccentricity has at present but little effect on the climatic condition of our globe.

That the mean temperature of the whole earth would, during the glacial epoch, be greater when the earth was in aphelion than when in perihelion will, I think, be apparent from the following considerations:—When the earth was in the perihelion, the sun would be over the hemisphere nearly covered with snow and ice. The great strength of the sun’s rays would in this case have little effect in raising the temperature; it would be spent in melting the snow and ice. But when the earth was in the aphelion, the sun would be over the hemisphere comparatively free, or perhaps wholly free, from snow and ice. Consequently, though the intensity of the sun’s rays would be less than when the earth was in perihelion, still it ought to have produced a higher temperature, because it would be chiefly employed in heating the ground and not consumed in melting snow and ice.

Professor Tyndall on the Glacial Epoch.—“So natural,” says Professor Tyndall, “was the association of ice and cold, that even celebrated men assumed that all that is needed to produce a great extension of our glaciers is a diminution of the sun’s temperature. Had they gone through the foregoing reflections and calculations, they would probably have demanded more heat instead of less for the production of a glacial epoch. What they really needed were condensers sufficiently powerful to congeal the vapour generated by the heat of the sun.” (The Forms of Water, p. 154. See also, to the same effect, Heat Considered as a Mode of Motion, chap. vi.)

I do not know to whom Professor Tyndall here refers, but certainly his remarks have no application to the theory under consideration, for according to it, as we have just seen, the ice of the glacial epoch was about as much due to the nearness of the sun in perigee as to his great distance in apogee.

There is one theory, however, to which his remarks justly apply, viz., the theory that the great changes of climate during geological ages resulted from the passage of our globe through different temperatures of space. What Professor Tyndall says shows plainly that the glacial epoch was not brought about by our earth passing through a cold part of space. A general reduction of temperature over the whole globe certainly would not produce a glacial epoch. Suppose the sun were extinguished and our globe exposed to the temperature of stellar space (−239° F.), this would certainly freeze the ocean solid from its surface to its bottom, but it would not cover the land with ice.

Professor Tyndall’s conclusions are, of course, equally conclusive against Professor Balfour Stewart’s theory, that the glacial epoch may have resulted from a general diminution in the intensity of the sun’s heat.

Nevertheless it would be in direct opposition to the well-established facts of geology to assume that the ice periods of the glacial epoch were warm periods. We are as certain from palæontological evidence that the cold was then much greater than now, as we are from physical evidence that the accumulation of ice was greater than now. Our glacial shell-beds and remains of the mammoth, the reindeer, and musk-ox, tell of cold as truly as the markings on the rocks do of ice.

Objection from the Present Condition of the Planet Mars.—It has been urged as an objection by Professor Charles Martins[46] and others, that if a high state of eccentricity could produce a glacial epoch, the planet Mars ought to be at present under a glacial condition. The eccentricity of its orbit amounts to 0·09322, and one of its southern winter solstices is, according to Dr. Oudemans, of Batavia,[47] within 17° 41′ 8″ of aphelion. Consequently, it is supposed that one of the hemispheres should be in a glacial state and the other free from snow and ice. But it is believed that the snow accumulates around each pole during its winter and disappears to a great extent during its summer.

There would be force in this objection were it maintained that eccentricity alone can produce a glacial condition of climate, but such is not the case, and there is no good ground for concluding that those physical agencies which led to the glacial epoch of our globe exist in the planet Mars. It is perfectly certain that either water must be different in constitution in that planet from what it is in our earth, or else its atmospheric envelope must be totally different from ours. For it is evident from what has been stated in [Chapter II.], that were our globe to be removed to the distance of Mars from the sun, the lowering of the temperature resulting from the decrease in the sun’s heat would not only destroy every living thing, but would convert the ocean into solid ice.

But it must be observed that the eccentricity of Mars’ orbit is at present far from its superior limit of 0·14224, and it may so happen in the economy of nature that when it approaches to that limit a glacial condition of things may supervene.

The truth is, however, that very little seems to be known with certainty regarding the climatic condition of Mars. This is obvious from the fact that some astronomers believe that the planet possesses a dense atmosphere which protects it from cold; while others maintain that its atmosphere is so exceedingly thin that its mean temperature is below the freezing-point. Some assert that the climatic condition of Mars resembles very much that of our earth, while others affirm that its seas are actually frozen solid to the bottom, and the poles covered with ice thirty or forty miles in thickness. For reasons which will be explained in the Appendix, Mars, notwithstanding its greater distance from the sun, may enjoy a climate as warm as that of our earth.

CHAPTER V.
REASON WHY THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE IS COLDER THAN THE NORTHERN.

Adhémar’s Explanation.—Adhémar’s Theory founded upon a physical Mistake in regard to Radiation.—Professor J. D. Forbes on Underground Temperature.—Generally accepted Explanation.—Low Temperature of Southern Hemisphere attributed to Preponderance of Sea.—Heat transferred from Southern to Northern Hemisphere by Ocean-current the true Explanation.—A large Portion of the Heat of the Gulf-stream derived from the Southern Hemisphere.

Adhémar’s Explanation.—It has long been known that on the southern hemisphere the temperature is lower and the accumulation of ice greater than on the northern. This difference has usually been attributed to the great preponderance of sea on the southern hemisphere. M. Adhémar, on the other hand, attempts to explain this difference by referring it to the difference in the amount of heat lost by the two hemispheres in consequence of the difference of seven days in the length of their respective winters. As the northern winter is shorter than the summer, he concludes that there is an accumulation of heat on that hemisphere, while, on the other hand, the southern winter being longer than the summer, there is therefore a loss of heat on the southern hemisphere. “The south pole,” he says, “loses in one year more heat than it receives, because the total duration of its night surpasses that of its day by 168 hours; and the contrary takes place for the north pole. If, for example, we take for unity the mean quantity of heat which the sun sends off in one hour, the heat accumulated at the end of the year at the north pole will be expressed by 168, while the heat lost by the south pole will be equal to 168 times what the radiation lessens it by in one hour, so that at the end of the year the difference in the heat of the two hemispheres will be represented by 336 times what the earth receives from the sun or loses in an hour by radiation.”[48]

Adhémar supposes that about 10,000 years hence, when our northern winter will occur in aphelion and the southern in perihelion, the climatic conditions of the two hemispheres will be reversed; the ice will melt at the south pole, and the northern hemisphere will become enveloped in one continuous mass of ice, leagues in thickness, extending down to temperate regions.

This theory seems to be based upon an erroneous interpretation of a principle, first pointed out, so far as I am aware, by Humboldt in his memoir “On Isothermal Lines and Distribution of Heat over the Globe.”[49] This principle may be stated as follows:—

Although the total quantity of heat received by the earth from the sun in one revolution is inversely proportional to the minor axis of the orbit, yet this amount, as was proved by D’Alembert, is equally distributed between the two hemispheres, whatever the eccentricity may be. Whatever extra heat the southern hemisphere may at present receive from the sun daily during its summer months owing to greater proximity to the sun, is exactly compensated by a corresponding loss arising from the shortness of the season; and, on the other hand, whatever daily deficiency of heat we in the northern hemisphere may at present have during our summer half-year, in consequence of the earth’s distance from the sun, is also exactly compensated by a corresponding length of season.

But the surface temperature of our globe depends as much upon the amount of heat radiated into space as upon the amount derived from the sun, and it has been thought by some that this compensating principle holds true only in regard to the latter. In the case of the heat lost by radiation the reverse is supposed to take place. The southern hemisphere, it is asserted, has not only a colder winter than the northern in consequence of the sun’s greater distance, but it has also a longer winter; and the extra loss of heat from radiation during winter is not compensated by its nearness to the sun during summer, for it gains no additional heat from this proximity. And in the same way it is argued that as our winter in the northern hemisphere, owing to the less distance of the sun, is not only warmer than that of the southern hemisphere, but is also at the same time shorter, so our hemisphere is not cooled to such an extent as the southern. And thus the mean temperature of the winter half-year, as well as the intensity of the sun’s heat, is affected by a change in the sun’s distance.

Although I always regarded this cause of Humboldt’s to be utterly inadequate to produce such effects as those attributed to it by Adhémar, still, in my earlier papers[50] I stated it to be a vera causa which ought to produce some sensible effect on climate. But shortly afterwards on a more careful consideration of the whole subject, I was led to suspect that the circumstance in question can, according to theory, produce little or no effect on the climatic condition of our globe.

As there appears to be a considerable amount of misapprehension in reference to this point, which forms the basis of Adhémar’s theory, I may here give it a brief consideration.[51]

The rate at which the earth radiates into space the heat received from the sun depends upon the temperature of its surface; and the temperature of its surface (other things being equal) depends upon the rate at which the heat is received. The greater the rate at which the earth receives heat from the sun, the greater will therefore be the rate at which it will lose that heat by radiation. Now the total quantity of heat received during winter by the southern hemisphere is exactly equal to that received during winter by the northern. But as the southern winter is longer than the northern, the rate at which the heat is received, and consequently the rate of radiation, during that season must be less on the southern hemisphere than on the northern. Thus the southern hemisphere loses heat during a longer period than the northern, and therefore the less rate of radiation (were it not for a circumstance presently to be noticed) would wholly compensate for the longer period, and the total quantity of heat lost during winter would be the same on both hemispheres. The southern summer is shorter than the northern, but the heat is more intense, and the surface of the ground kept at a higher temperature; consequently the rate of radiation into space is greater.

When the rate at which a body receives heat is increased, the temperature of the body rises till the rate of radiation equals the rate of absorption, after which equilibrium is restored; and when the rate of absorption is diminished, the temperature falls till the rate of radiation equals that of absorption.

But notwithstanding all this, owing to the slow conductivity of the ground for heat, more heat will pass into it during the longer summer of aphelion than during the shorter one of perihelion; for the amount of heat which passes into the ground depends on the length of time during which the earth is receiving heat, as well as upon the amount received. In like manner, more heat will pass out of the ground during the longer winter in aphelion than during the shorter one in perihelion. Suppose the length of the days on the one hemisphere (say the northern) to be 23 hours, and the length of the nights, say one hour; while on the other hemisphere the days are one hour and the nights 23 hours. Suppose also that the quantity of heat received from the sun by the southern hemisphere during the day of one hour to be equal to that received by the northern hemisphere during the day of 23 hours. It is evident that although the surface of the ground on the southern hemisphere would receive as much heat from the sun during the short day of one hour as the surface of the northern hemisphere during the long day of 23 hours, yet, owing to the slow conductivity of the ground for heat, the amount absorbed would not be nearly so much on the southern hemisphere as on the northern. The temperature of the surface during the day, it is true, would be far higher on the southern hemisphere than on the northern, and consequently the rate at which the heat would pass into the ground would be greater on that hemisphere than on the northern; but, notwithstanding the greater rate of absorption resulting from the high temperature of the surface, it would not compensate for the shortness of the day. On the other hand, the surface of the ground on the southern hemisphere would be colder during the long night of 23 hours than it would be on the northern during the short night of only one hour; and the low temperature of the ground would tend to lessen the rate of radiation into space. But the decrease in the rate of radiation would not compensate fully for the great length of the night. The general and combined result of all those causes would be that a slight accumulation of heat would take place on the northern hemisphere and a slight loss on the southern. But this loss of heat on the one hemisphere and gain on the other would not go on accumulating at a uniform rate year by year, as Adhémar supposes.

Of course we are at present simply considering the earth as an absorber and radiator of heat, without taking into account the effects of distribution of sea and land and other modifying causes, and are assuming that everything is the same in both hemispheres, with the exception that the winter of the one hemisphere is longer than that of the other.

What, then, is the amount of heat stored up by the one hemisphere and lost by the other? Is it such an amount as to sensibly affect climate?

The experiments and observations which have been made on underground temperature afford us a means of making at least a rough estimate of the amount. And from these it will be seen that the influence of an excess of seven or eight days in the length of the southern winter over the northern could hardly produce an effect that would be sensible.

Observations were made at Edinburgh by Professor J. D. Forbes on three different substances; viz., sandstone, sand, and trap-rock. By calculation, we find from the data afforded by those observations that the total quantity of heat accumulated in the ground during the summer above the mean temperature was as follows:—In the sandstone-rock, a quantity sufficient to raise the temperature of the rock 1° C. to a depth of 85 feet 6 inches; in the sand a quantity sufficient to raise the temperature 1° C. to a depth of 72 feet 6 inches; and in the trap-rock a quantity only sufficient to raise the temperature 1° C. to a depth of 61 feet 6 inches.

Taking the specific heat of the sandstone per unit volume, as determined by Regnault, at ·4623, and that of sand at ·3006, and trap at ·5283, and reducing all the results to one standard, viz., that of water, we find that the quantity of heat stored up in the sandstone would, if applied to water, raise its temperature 1° C. to a depth of 39 feet 6 inches; that stored up in the sand would raise the temperature of the water 1° C. to a depth of 21 feet 8 inches, and that stored up in the trap would raise the water 1° C. to the depth of 32 feet 6 inches. We may take the mean of these three results as representing pretty accurately the quantity stored up in the general surface of the country. This would be equal to 31 feet 3 inches depth of water raised 1° C. The quantity of heat lost by radiation during winter below the mean was found to be about equal to that stored up during summer.

The total quantity of heat per square foot of surface received by the equator from sunrise till sunset at the time of the equinoxes, allowing 22 per cent. for the amount cut off in passing through the atmosphere, is 1,780,474 foot-pounds. In the latitude of Edinburgh about 938,460 foot-pounds per square foot of surface is received, assuming that not more than 22 per cent. is cut off by the atmosphere. At this rate a quantity of heat would be received from the sun in two days ten hours (say, three days) sufficient to raise the temperature of the water 1° C. to the required depth of 31 feet 3 inches. Consequently the total quantity of heat stored up during summer in the latitude of Edinburgh is only equal to what we receive from the sun during three days at the time of the equinoxes. Three days’ sunshine during the middle of March or September, if applied to raise the temperature of the ground, would restore all the heat lost during the entire winter; and another three days’ sunshine would confer on the ground as much heat as is stored up during the entire summer. But it must be observed that the total duration of sunshine in winter is to that of summer in the latitude of Edinburgh only about as 4 to 7. Here is a difference of two months. But this is not all; the quantity of heat received during winter is scarcely one-third of that received during summer; yet, notwithstanding this enormous difference between summer and winter, the ground during winter loses only about six days’ sun-heat below the maximum amount possessed by it in summer.

But if what has already been stated is correct, this loss of heat sustained by the earth during winter is not chiefly owing to radiation during the longer absence of the sun, but to the decrease in the quantity of heat received in consequence of his longer absence combined with the obliquity of his rays during that season. Now in the case of the two hemispheres, although the southern winter is longer than the northern, yet the quantity of heat received by each is the same. But supposing it held true, which it does not, that the loss of heat sustained by the earth in winter is as much owing to radiation resulting from the excess in the length of the winter nights over those of the summer as to the deficiency of heat received in winter from that received in summer, three days’ heat would then in this case be the amount lost by radiation in consequence of this excess in the length of the winter nights. The total length of the winter nights to those of the summer is, as we have seen, about as 7 to 4. This is a difference of nearly 1200 hours. But the excess of the south polar winter over the north amounts to only about 184 hours. Now if 1200 hours give a loss of three days’ sun-heat, 184 hours will give a loss of scarcely 5½ hours.

It is no doubt true that the two cases are not exactly analogous; but it is obvious that any error which can possibly arise from regarding them as such cannot materially alter the conclusion to which we have arrived. Supposing the effect were double, or even quadruple, what we have concluded it to be, still it would not amount to a loss of two days’ heat, which could certainly have little or no influence on climate.

But even assuming all the preceding reasoning to be incorrect, and that the southern hemisphere, in consequence of its longer winter, loses heat to the extravagant extent of 168 hours, supposed by Adhémar, still this could not materially affect climate. The climate is influenced by the mere temperature of the surface of the ground, and not by the quantity of heat or cold that may be stored up under the surface. The climate is determined, so far as the ground is concerned, by the temperature of the surface, and is wholly independent of the temperature which may exist under the surface. Underground temperature can only affect climate through the surface. If the surface could, for example, be kept covered with perpetual snow, we should have a cold and sterile climate, although the temperature of the ground under the snow was actually at the boiling-point. Let the ground to a depth of, say 40 or 50 feet, be deprived of an amount of heat equal to that received from the sun in 168 hours. This could produce little or no sensible effect on climate; for, owing to the slow conductivity of the ground for heat, this loss would not sensibly affect the temperature of the surface, as it would take several months for the sun’s heat to penetrate to that depth and restore the lost heat. The cold, if I may be allowed to use the expression, would come so slowly out to the surface that its effect in lowering the temperature of the surface would scarcely be sensible. And, again, if we suppose the 168 hours’ heat to be lost by the mere surface of the ground, the effect would certainly be sensible, but it would only be so for a few days. We might in this case have a week’s frozen soil, but that would be all. Before the air had time to become very sensibly affected by the low temperature of the surface the frozen soil would be thawed.

The storing up of heat or cold in the ground has in reality very little to do with climate. Some physicists explain, for example, why the month of July is warmer than June by referring it to the fact that by the month of July the ground has become possessed of a larger accumulation of heat than it possessed in June. This explanation is evidently erroneous. The ground in July certainly possesses a greater store of heat than it did in June; but this is not the reason why the former month is hotter than the latter. July is hotter than June because the air (not the ground) has become possessed of a larger store of heat than it had in June. Now the air is warmer in July than in June because, receiving little increase of temperature from the direct rays of the sun, it is heated chiefly by radiation from the earth and by contact with its warm surface. Consequently, although the sun’s heat is greater in June than it is in July, it is near the middle of July before the air becomes possessed of its maximum store of heat. We therefore say that July is hotter than June because the air is hotter, and consequently the temperature in the shade is greater in the former month than in the latter.

It is therefore, I presume, quite apparent that Adhémar’s theory fails to explain why the southern hemisphere is colder than the northern.

The generally accepted Explanation.—The difference in the mean temperature of the two hemispheres is usually attributed to the proportion of sea to land in the southern hemisphere and of land to sea in the northern hemisphere. This, no doubt, will account for the greater annual range of temperature on the northern hemisphere, but it seems to me that it will not account for the excess of mean temperature possessed by that hemisphere over the southern.

The general influence of land on climate is to exaggerate the variation of temperature due to the seasons. On continents the summers are hotter and the winters colder than on the ocean. The days are also hotter and the nights colder on land than on sea. This is a result which follows from the mere physical properties of land and water, independently of currents, whether of ocean or of air. But it nevertheless follows, according to theory (and this is a point which has been overlooked), that the mean annual temperature of the ocean ought to be greater than that of the land in equatorial regions as well as in temperate and polar regions. This will appear obvious for the following reasons:—(1) The ground stores up heat only by the slow process of conduction, whereas water, by the mobility of its particles and its transparency for heat-rays, especially those from the sun, becomes heated to a considerable depth rapidly. The quantity of heat stored up in the ground is thus comparatively small, while the quantity stored up in the ocean is great. (2) The air is probably heated more rapidly by contact with the ground than with the ocean; but, on the other hand, it is heated far more rapidly by radiation from the ocean than from the land. The aqueous vapour of the air is to a great extent diathermanous to radiation from the ground, while it absorbs the rays from water and thus becomes heated. (3) The air radiates back a considerable portion of its heat, and the ocean absorbs this radiation from the air more readily than the ground does. The ocean will not reflect the heat from the aqueous vapour of the air, but absorbs it, while the ground does the opposite. Radiation from the air, therefore, tends more readily to heat the ocean than it does the land. (4) The aqueous vapour of the air acts as a screen to prevent the loss by radiation from water, while it allows radiation from the ground to pass more freely into space; the atmosphere over the ocean consequently throws back a greater amount of heat than is thrown back by the atmosphere over the land. The sea in this case has a much greater difficulty than the land has in getting quit of the heat received from the sun; in other words, the land tends to lose its heat more rapidly than the sea. The consequence of all these circumstances is that the ocean must stand at a higher mean temperature than the land. A state of equilibrium is never gained until the rate at which a body is receiving heat is equal to the rate at which it is losing it; but as equal surfaces of sea and land receive from the sun the same amount of heat, it therefore follows that, in order that the sea may get quit of its heat as rapidly as the land, it must stand at a higher temperature than the land. The temperature of the sea must continue to rise till the amount of heat thrown off into space equals that received from the sun; when this point is reached, equilibrium is established and the temperature remains stationary. But, owing to the greater difficulty that the sea has in getting rid of its heat, the mean temperature of equilibrium of the ocean must be higher than that of the land; consequently the mean temperature of the ocean, and also of the air immediately over it, in tropical regions should be higher than the mean temperature of the land and the air over it.

The greater portion of the southern hemisphere, however, is occupied by water, and why then, it may be asked, is this water hemisphere colder than the land hemisphere? Ought it not also to follow that the sea in inter-tropical regions should be warmer than the land under the same parallels; yet, as we know, the reverse is actually found to be the case. How then is all this to be explained, if the foregoing reasoning be correct? We find when we examine Professor Dove’s charts of mean annual temperature, that the ocean in inter-tropical regions has a mean annual temperature below the normal, and the land a mean annual temperature above the normal. Both in the Pacific and in the Atlantic the mean temperature sinks to 2°·3 below the normal, while on the land it rises 4°·6 above the normal. The explanation in this case is obviously this: the temperature of the ocean in inter-tropical regions, as we have already seen, is kept much lower than it would otherwise be by the enormous amount of heat that is being constantly carried away from those regions into temperate and polar regions, and of cold that is being constantly carried from temperate and polar regions to the tropical regions by means of ocean-currents. The same principle which explains why the sea in inter-tropical regions has a lower mean annual temperature than the land, explains also why the southern hemisphere has a lower mean annual temperature than the northern. The temperature of the southern hemisphere is lowered by the transference of heat by means of ocean-currents.

Heat transferred from the Southern to the Northern Hemisphere by Ocean-currents the true Explanation.—The great ocean-currents of the globe take their rise in three immense streams from the Southern Ocean, which, on reaching the tropical regions, become deflected in a westerly direction and flow along the southern side of the equator for thousands of miles. Perhaps more than one half of this mass of moving water returns into the Southern Ocean without ever crossing the equator, but the quantity which crosses over to the northern hemisphere is enormous. This constant flow of water from the southern hemisphere to the northern in the form of surface currents must be compensated by under currents of equal magnitude from the northern hemisphere to the southern. The currents, however, which cross the equator are far higher in temperature than their compensating under currents; consequently there is a constant transference of heat from the southern hemisphere to the northern. Any currents taking their rise in the northern hemisphere and flowing across into the southern are comparatively trifling, and the amount of heat transferred by them is also trifling. There are one or two currents of considerable size, such as the Brazilian branch of the great equatorial current of the Atlantic, and a part of the South Equatorial Drift-current of the Pacific, which cross the equator from north to south; but these cannot be regarded as northern currents; they are simply southern currents deflected back after crossing over to the northern hemisphere. The heat which these currents possess is chiefly obtained on the southern hemisphere before crossing over to the northern; and although the northern hemisphere may not gain much heat by means of them, it, on the other hand, does not lose much, for the heat which they give out in their progress along the southern hemisphere does not belong to the northern hemisphere.

But, after making the fullest allowance for the amount of heat carried across the equator from the northern hemisphere to the southern, we shall find, if we compare the mean temperature of the currents from south to north with that of the great compensating under currents and the one or two small surface currents, that the former is very much higher than the latter. The mean temperature of the water crossing the equator from south to north is probably not under 65°, that of the under currents is probably not over 39°. But to the under currents we must add the surface currents from north to south; and assuming that this will raise the mean temperature of the entire mass of water flowing south to, say, 45°, we have still a difference of 20° between the temperature of the masses flowing north and south. Each cubic foot of water which crosses the equator will in this case transfer about 965,000 foot-pounds of heat from the southern hemisphere to the northern. If we had any means of ascertaining the volume of those great currents crossing the equator, we should then be able to make a rough estimate of the total amount of heat transferred from the southern hemisphere to the northern; but as yet no accurate estimate has been made on this point. Let us assume, what is probably below the truth, that the total amount of water crossing the equator is at least double that of the Gulf-stream as it passes through the Straits of Florida, which amount we have already found to be equal to 66,908,160,000,000 cubic feet daily. Taking the quantity of heat conveyed by each cubic foot of water of the Gulf-stream as 1,158,000 foot-pounds, it is found, as we have seen, that an amount of heat is conveyed by this current equal to all the heat that falls within 32 miles on each side of the equator. Then, if each cubic foot of water crossing the equator transfers 965,000 foot-pounds, and the quantity of water be double that of the Gulf-stream, it follows that the amount of heat transferred from the southern hemisphere to the northern is equal to all the heat falling within 52 miles on each side of the equator, or equal to all the heat falling on the southern hemisphere within 104 miles of the equator. This quantity taken from the southern hemisphere and added to the northern will therefore make a difference in the amount of heat possessed by the two hemispheres equal to all the heat which falls on the southern hemisphere within somewhat more than 208 miles of the equator.

A large Portion of the Heat of the Gulf-stream derived from the Southern Hemisphere.—It can be proved that a very large portion of the heat conveyed by the Gulf-stream comes from the southern hemisphere. The proof is as follows:—

If all the heat came from the northern hemisphere, it could only come from that portion of the Atlantic, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico which lies to the north of the equator. The entire area of these seas, extending to the Tropic of Cancer, is about 7,700,000 square miles. But this area is not sufficient to supply the current passing through the “Narrows” with the necessary heat. Were the heat which passes through the Straits of Florida derived exclusively from this area, the following table would then represent the relative quantity per unit surface possessed by the Atlantic in the three zones, assuming that one half of the heat of the Gulf-stream passes into the arctic regions and the other half remains to warm the temperate regions[52]:—

These figures show that the Atlantic, from the equator to the Tropic of Cancer, would be as cold as from the Tropic of Cancer to the North Pole, were it not that a large proportion of the heat possessed by the Gulf-stream is derived from the southern hemisphere.

CHAPTER VI.
EXAMINATION OF THE GRAVITATION THEORY OF OCEANIC CIRCULATION.—LIEUT. MAURY’S THEORY.

Introduction.—Ocean-currents, according to Maury, due to Difference of Specific Gravity.—Difference of Specific Gravity resulting from Difference of Temperature.—Difference of Specific Gravity resulting from Difference of Saltness.—Maury’s two Causes neutralize each other.—How, according to him, Difference in Saltness acts as a Cause.

Introduction.—Few subjects have excited more interest and attention than the cause of ocean circulation; and yet few are in a more imperfect and unsatisfactory condition, nor is there any question regarding which a greater diversity of opinion has prevailed. Our incomplete acquaintance with the facts relating to the currents of the ocean and the modes of circulation actually in operation, is no doubt one reason for this state of things. But doubtless the principal cause of such diversity of opinion lies in the fact that the question is one which properly belongs to the domain of physics and mechanics, while as yet no physicist of note (if we except Dr. Colding, of Copenhagen) has given, as far as I know, any special attention to the subject. It is true that in works of meteorology and physical geography reference is continually made to such eminent physicists as Herschel, Pouillet, Buff, and others; but when we turn to the writings of these authors we find merely a few remarks expressive of their opinions on the subject, and no special discussion or investigation of the matter, nor anything which could warrant us in concluding that such investigations have ever been made. At present the question cannot be decided by a reference to authorities.

The various theories on the subject may be classed under two divisions; the first of these attributes the motion of the water to the impulse of the wind, and the second to the force of gravity resulting from difference of density. But even amongst those who adopt the former theory, it is generally held that the winds are not the sole cause, but that, to a certain extent at least, difference of specific gravity contributes to produce motion of the waters. This is a very natural conclusion; and in the present state of physical geography on this subject one can hardly be expected to hold any other view.

The supporters of the latter theory may be subdivided into two classes. The first of these (of which Maury may be regarded as the representative) attributes the Gulf-stream, and other sensible currents of the ocean, to difference of specific gravity. The other class (at present the more popular of the two, and of which Dr. Carpenter may be considered the representative) denies altogether that such currents can be produced by difference of specific gravity,[53] and affirms that there is a general movement of the upper portion of the ocean from the equator to the poles, and a counter-movement of the under portion from the poles to the equator. This movement is attributed to difference of specific gravity between equatorial and polar water, resulting from difference of temperature.

The widespread popularity of the gravitation theory is no doubt, to a great extent, owing to the very great prominence given to it by Lieut. Maury in his interesting and popular work, “The Physical Geography of the Sea.” Another cause which must have favoured the reception of this theory is the ease with which it is perceived how, according to it, circulation of the waters of the ocean is supposed to follow. One has no difficulty, for example, in perceiving that if the inter-tropical waters of the ocean are expanded by heat, and the waters around the poles contracted by cold, the surface of the ocean will stand at a higher level at the equator than at the poles. Equilibrium being thus disturbed, the water at the equator will tend to flow towards the poles as a surface current, and the water at the poles towards the equator as an under current. This, at first sight, looks well, especially to those who take but a superficial view of the matter.

We shall examine this theory at some length, for two reasons: 1, because it lies at the root of a great deal of the confusion and misconception which have prevailed in regard to the whole subject of ocean-currents: 2, because, if the theory is correct, it militates strongly against the physical theory of secular changes of climate advanced in this volume. We have already seen ([Chapter IV.]) that when the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit reaches a high value, a combination of physical circumstances tends to lower the temperature of the hemisphere which has its winter solstice in aphelion, and to raise the temperature of the opposite hemisphere, whose winter solstice will, of course, be in perihelion. The direct result of this state of things, as was shown, is to strengthen the force of the trade-winds on the cold hemisphere, and to weaken their strength on the warm hemisphere: and this, in turn, we also saw, tends to impel the warm water of the inter-tropical region on to the warm hemisphere, and to prevent it, in a very large degree, from passing into the cold hemisphere. This deflection of the ocean-currents tends to an enormous extent to increase the difference of temperature previously existing between the two hemispheres. In other words, the warm and equable condition of the one hemisphere, and the cold and glacial condition of the other, are, to a great extent, due to this deflection of ocean-currents. But if the theory be correct which attributes the motion of ocean-currents to a difference in density between the sea in inter-tropical and polar regions, then it follows that these currents (other things being equal) ought to be stronger on the cold hemisphere than on the warm, because there is a greater difference of temperature and, consequently, a greater difference of density, between the polar seas of the cold hemisphere and the equatorial seas, than between the polar seas of the warm hemisphere and the equatorial seas. And this being the case, notwithstanding the influence of the trade-winds of the cold hemisphere blowing over upon the warm, the currents will, in all probability, be stronger on the cold hemisphere than on the warm. In other words, the influence of the powerful trade-winds of the cold hemisphere to transfer the warm water of the equator to the warm hemisphere will probably be more than counterbalanced by the tendency of the warm and buoyant waters of the equator to flow towards the dense and cold waters around the pole of the cold hemisphere. But if ocean-currents are due not to difference in specific gravity, but to the influence of the winds, then it is evident that the waters at the equator will be impelled, not into the cold hemisphere, but into the warm.

For this reason I have been the more anxious to prove that inter-tropical heat is conveyed to temperate and polar regions by ocean-currents, and not by means of any general movement of the ocean resulting from difference of gravity. I shall therefore on this account enter more fully into this part of the subject than I otherwise would have done. Irrespective of all this, however, the important nature of the whole question, and the very general interest it excites, warrant a full consideration of the subject.

I shall consider first that form of the gravitation theory advocated by Maury in his work on the “Physical Geography of the Sea,” which attributes the motion of the Gulf-stream and other sensible currents of the ocean to differences of specific gravity. One reason which has induced me to select Maury’s work is, that it not only contains a much fuller discussion on the cause of the motion of ocean-currents than is to be found anywhere else, but also that it has probably passed through a greater number of editions than any other book of a scientific character in the English language in the same length of time.

Examination of Lieut. Maury’s Gravitation Theory.—Although Lieut. Maury has expounded his views on the cause of ocean-currents at great length in the various editions of his work, yet it is somewhat difficult to discover what they really are. This arises chiefly from the generally confused and sometimes contradictory nature of his hydrodynamical conceptions. After a repeated perusal of several editions of his book, the following, I trust, will be found to be a pretty accurate representation of his theory:—

Ocean-currents, according to Maury, due to Difference of Specific Gravity.—Although Maury alludes to a number of causes which, he thinks, tend to produce currents, yet he deems their influence so small that, practically, all currents may be referred to difference of specific gravity.

“If we except,” he says, “the tides, and the partial currents of the sea, such as those that may be created by the wind, we may lay it down as a rule that all the currents of the ocean owe their origin to the differences of specific gravity between sea-water at one place and sea-water at another; for wherever there is such a difference, whether it be owing to difference of temperature or to difference of saltness, &c., it is a difference that disturbs equilibrium, and currents are the consequence” (§ 467)[54]. To the same effect see §§ 896, 37, 512, 520, and 537.

Notwithstanding the fact that he is continually referring to difference of specific gravity as the great cause of currents, it is difficult to understand in what way he conceives this difference to act as a cause.

Difference of specific gravity between the waters of the ocean at one place and another can give rise to currents only through the influence of the earth’s gravity. All currents resulting from difference of specific gravity can be ultimately resolved into the general principle that the molecules that are specifically heavier descend and displace those that are specifically lighter. If, for example, the ocean at the equator be expanded by heat or by any other cause, it will be forced by the denser waters in temperate and polar regions to rise so that its surface shall stand at a higher level than the surface of the ocean in these regions. The surface of the ocean will become an inclined plane, sloping from the equator to the poles. Hydro-statically, the ocean, considered as a mass, will then be in a state of equilibrium; but the individual molecules will not be in equilibrium. The molecules at the surface in this case may be regarded as lying on an inclined plane sloping from the equator down to the poles, and as these molecules are at liberty to move they will not remain at rest, but will descend the incline towards the poles. When the waters at the equator are expanded, or the waters at the poles contracted, gravitation makes, as it were, a twofold effort to restore equilibrium. It in the first place sinks the waters at the poles, and raises the waters at the equator, in order that the two masses may balance each other; but this very effort of gravitation to restore equilibrium to the mass destroys the equilibrium of the molecules by disturbing the level of the ocean. It then, in the second place, endeavours to restore equilibrium to the molecules by pulling the lighter surface water at the equator down the incline towards the poles. This tends not only to restore the level of the ocean, but to bring the lighter water to occupy the surface and the denser water the bottom of the ocean; and when this is done, complete equilibrium is restored, both to the mass of the ocean and to its individual molecules, and all further motion ceases. But if heat be constantly applied to the waters of the equatorial regions, and cold to those of the polar regions, and a permanent disturbance of equilibrium maintained, then the continual effort of gravitation to restore equilibrium will give rise to a constant current. In this case, the heat and the cold (the agents which disturb the equilibrium of the ocean) may be regarded as causes of the current, inasmuch as without them the current would not exist; but the real efficient cause, that which impels the water forward, is the force of gravity. But the force of gravity, as has already been noticed, cannot produce motion (perform work) unless the thing acted upon descend. Descent is implied in the very conception of a current produced by difference of specific gravity.

But Maury speaks as if difference of specific gravity could give rise to a current without any descent.

“It is not necessary,” he says, “to associate with oceanic currents the idea that they must of necessity, as on land, run from a higher to a lower level. So far from this being the case, some currents of the sea actually run up hill, while others run on a level. The Gulf-stream is of the first class” (§ 403). “The top of the Gulf-stream runs on a level with the ocean; therefore we know it is not a descending current” (§ 18). And in § 9 he says that between the Straits of Florida and Cape Hatteras the waters of the Gulf-stream “are actually forced up an inclined plane, whose submarine ascent is not less than 10 inches to the mile.” To the same effect see §§ 25, 59.

It is perfectly true that “it is not necessary to associate with ocean-currents the idea that they must of necessity, as on land, run from a higher to a lower level.” But the reason of this is that ocean-currents do not, like the currents on land, owe their motion to the force of gravitation. If ocean-currents result from difference of specific gravity between the waters in tropical and polar regions, as Maury maintains, then it is necessary to assume that they are descending currents. Whatever be the cause which may give rise to a difference of specific gravity, the motion which results from this difference is due wholly to the force of gravity; but gravity can produce no motion unless the water descend.

This fact must be particularly borne in mind while we are considering Maury’s theory that currents are the result of difference of specific gravity.

Ocean-currents, then, according to that writer, owe their existence to the difference of specific gravity between the waters of inter-tropical and polar regions. This difference of specific gravity he attributes to two causes—(1) to difference as to temperature, (2) to difference as to saltness. There are one or two causes of a minor nature affecting the specific gravity of the sea, to which he alludes; but these two determine the general result. Let us begin with the consideration of the first of these two causes, viz.:—