Page:EB1911 - Volume 11.djvu/670

Rh centre of figure of the globe, but lies to the south of it, has long been known. This greater aggregation of dense material in the southern hemisphere probably dates from the early ages of the earth’s consolidation, and it is difficult to believe that any readjustment of the distribution of this material in the earth’s interior is now possible. But certain rearrangements of the hydrosphere on the surface of the globe may, from time to time, cause a shifting of the centre of gravity, which will affect the level of the ocean. The accumulation of enormous masses of ice around the pole will give rise to such a displacement, and will thus increase the body of oceanic water in the glaciated hemisphere. Various calculations have been made of the effect of the transference of the ice-cap from one pole to the other, a revolution which may possibly have occurred more than once in the past history of the globe. James Croll estimated that if the mass of ice in the southern hemisphere be assumed to be 1000 ft. thick down to lat. 60°, its removal to the opposite hemisphere would raise the level of the sea 80 ft. at the north pole, while the Rev. Osmond Fisher made the rise as much as 409 ft. The melting of the ice would still further raise the sea-level by the addition of so large a volume of water to the ocean. To what extent superficial changes of this kind have operated in geological history remains an unsolved problem, but their probable occurrence in the past has to be recognized as one of the factors that must be considered in tracing the revolutions of the earth’s surface.

The Age of the Earth.—Intimately connected with the relations of our globe to the sun and the other members of the solar system is the question of the planet’s antiquity—a subject of great geological importance, regarding which much discussion has taken place since the middle of the 19th century. Though an account of this discussion necessarily involves allusion to departments of geology which are more appropriately referred to in later parts of this article, it may perhaps be most conveniently included here.

Geologists were for many years in the habit of believing that no limit could be assigned to the antiquity of the planet, and that they were at liberty to make unlimited drafts on the ages of the past. In 1862 and subsequent years, however, Lord Kelvin (then Sir William Thomson) pointed out that these demands were opposed to known physical facts, and that the amount of time required for geological history was not only limited, but must have been comprised within a comparatively narrow compass. His argument rested on three kinds of evidence: (1) the internal heat and rate of cooling of the earth; (2) the tidal retardation of the earth’s rotation; and (3) the origin and age of the sun’s heat.

1. Applying Fourier’s theory of thermal conductivity, Lord Kelvin contended that in the known rate of increase of temperature downward and beneath the surface, and the rate of loss of heat from the earth, we have a limit to the antiquity of the planet. He showed, from the data available at the time, that the superficial consolidation of the globe could not have occurred less than 20 million years ago, or the underground heat would have been greater than it is; nor more than 400 million years ago, otherwise the underground temperature would have shown no sensible increase downwards. He admitted that very wide limits were necessary. In subsequently discussing the subject, he inclined rather towards the lower than the higher antiquity, but concluded that the limit, from a consideration of all the evidence, must be placed within some such period of past time as 100 millions of years.

2. The argument from tidal retardation proceeds on the admitted fact that, owing to the friction of the tide-wave, the rotation of the earth is retarded, and is, therefore, much slower now than it must have been at one time. Lord Kelvin affirmed that had the globe become solid some 10,000 million years ago, or indeed any high antiquity beyond 100 million years, the centrifugal force due to the more rapid rotation must have given the planet a very much greater polar flattening than it actually possesses. He admitted, however, that, though 100 million years ago that force must have been about 3% greater than now, yet “nothing we know regarding the figure of the earth, and the disposition of land and water, would justify us in saying that a body consolidated when there was more centrifugal force by 3% than now, might not now be in all respects like the earth, so far as we know it at present.”

3. The third argument, based upon the age of the sun’s heat, is confessedly less to be relied on than the two previous ones. It proceeds upon calculations as to the amount of heat which would be available by the falling together of masses from space, which gave rise by their impact to our sun. The vagueness of the data on which this argument rests may be inferred from the fact that in one passage P. G. Tait placed the limit of time during which the sun has been illuminating the earth as, “on the very highest computation, not more than about 15 or 20 millions of years”; while, in another sentence of the same volume, he admitted that, “by calculations in which there is no possibility of large error, this hypothesis [of the origin of the sun’s heat by the falling together of masses of matter] is thoroughly competent to explain 100 millions of years’ solar radiation at the present rate, perhaps more.” In more recently reviewing his argument, Lord Kelvin expressed himself in favour of more strictly limiting geological time than he had at first been disposed to do. He insists that the time “was more than 20 and less than 40 millions of years and probably much nearer 20 than 40.” Geologists appear to have reluctantly brought themselves to believe that perhaps, after all, 100 millions of years might suffice for the evolution of geological history. But when the time was cut down to 15 or 20 millions they protested that such a restricted period was insufficient for that evolution, and though they did not offer any effective criticism of the arguments of the physicists they felt convinced that there must be some flaw in the premises on which these arguments were based.

By degrees, however, there have arisen among the physicists themselves grave doubts as to the validity of the physical evidence on which the limitation of the earth’s age has been founded, and at the same time greater appreciation has been shown of the signification and strength of the geological proofs of the high antiquity of our planet. In an address from the chair of the Mathematical Section of the British Association in 1886, Professor (afterwards Sir) George Darwin reviewed the controversy, and pronounced the following deliberate judgment in regard to it: “In considering these three arguments I have adduced some reasons against the validity of the first [tidal friction], and have endeavoured to show that there are elements of uncertainty surrounding the second [secular cooling of the earth]; nevertheless, they undoubtedly constitute a contribution of the first importance to physical geology. Whilst, then, we may protest against the precision with which Professor Tait seeks to deduce results from them, we are fully justified in following Sir William Thomson, who says that ‘the existing state of things on the earth, life on the earth—all geological history showing continuity of life—must be limited within some such period of past time as 100 million years’.” Lord Kelvin has never dealt with the geological and palaeontological objections against the limitation of geological time to a few millions of years. But Professor Darwin, in the address just cited, uttered the memorable warning: “At present our knowledge of a definite limit to geological time has so little precision that we should do wrong summarily to reject theories which appear to demand longer periods of time than those which now appear allowable.” In his presidential address to the British Association at Cape Town in 1905 he returned to the subject, remarking that the argument derived from the increase of underground temperature “seems to be entirely destroyed” by the discovery of the properties of radium. He thinks that “it does not seem extravagant to suppose that 500 to 1000 million years may have elapsed since the birth of the moon.” He has “always believed that the geologists were more nearly correct than the physicists, notwithstanding the fact that appearances were so strongly against them,” and he concludes thus: “It appears, then, that the physical argument is not susceptible of a greater degree of