Back Aa

Nature's Miracles: Familiar Talks on Science, Vol. 1.

<h2>CHAPTER XXVI.</h2> <h3>EVIDENCES AND THEORIES OF AN ICE AGE.</h3> There is abundant and unassailable evidence that at one time, ages ago, a vast ice sheet covered the whole of the northern part of North America, extending south in Illinois to a point between latitudes 37 and 38. This is the most southerly point to which the ice sheet reached. From this point the line of extreme flow runs off in a northeasterly and northwesterly direction. The northeasterly line is through southeastern Ohio and Pennsylvania, striking the Atlantic Ocean about at New York, thence through Long Island and up the coast of Massachusetts. Northwesterly it follows the Mississippi River to its junction with the Missouri, which it crosses at a point some miles west of this junction, following the general course of this river a little south of it through the States of Missouri, Nebraska, Dakota, and Montana. The lines, especially the northeasterly one, are very irregular, shooting out into curves and then receding. This line of extreme ice flow is marked by glacial drift so prominently that no one who has studied glacial action can doubt for a moment what was the cause of these deposits. The line is called the "terminal moraine." By examining a map of North America and tracing the line of the moraine as we have described it, it will be seen that about two-thirds of North America was at one time covered with ice to a greater or less depth. How deep, is simply a matter of conjecture, but in the central portions of the great glacier, where was the bulk of snowfall, it must have reached a depth of several miles to account for the enormous pressure that would be required to carry the ice so far southward. But let us go back and define what is meant by a moraine. A moraine is a name given to the deposits that are of stone, gravel, and earth that have been carried along by the movement of the glaciers and deposited at their margins, sometimes piled up to great depths. The composition of these moraines is determined of course by the nature of the country over which the stream of ice is flowing. Bowlders of enormous size have been carried for hundreds of miles, and the experienced geologist is able to examine any one of them and tell us where its home was before the glacial period. Moraines are divided into different classes according to their position and constitution. The moraine found at the extreme limit of ice-flow is called the "terminal" moraine, as before mentioned. Those that are found inside of this line and between two flows are called "medial" moraines. There is a subdivision called "kettle" or "gravel" moraines, which are very prominent in northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin, and may be said to culminate in the vicinity of Madison. This moraine is a great deposit of gravelly soil. Where this moraine exists the face of the country is covered with "kettle holes" of all sizes and shapes, and in some of them there are small lakes, while others are dry. The great chain of inland lakes that are found in southern Wisconsin and northern Illinois were formed by deposits of ice that had been covered by glacial drift, gravel and otherwise, brought down and deposited upon these masses of ice which gradually melted away, leaving a depression at the points where they lay, while the drift that was piled around them loomed up and became the shores of the lake. This is substantially Dr. Wright's theory, who studied the formation of these "kettle holes" at the mouth of the Muir glacier. This enthusiastic glacialist has spent many summers tracing the terminal moraine with its fringe along the lines heretofore indicated. He is, therefore, entitled to speak with authority on matters of glacial action. The part of the country that has been plowed over by these glaciers is called the glaciated area and the rest the unglaciated. The whole of North America north of the line of the terminal moraine that we have traced is a glacial region, with the exception of a few hundred square miles chiefly in Wisconsin, where the ice seemed to have parted and passed around this area, coming together again on the south side of it. The ice probably did not reach the extreme limit that shows glacial deposit, but undoubtedly the effects of it are seen for some distance to the south, owing to the fact that during the time it was melting great quantities of water flowed away from the extreme edge of the ice, carrying with it more or less of the glacial drift, which was deposited for some distance to the south. When the ice receded it undoubtedly paused at different points, where it remained stationary for a long period of time. I mean stationary at its edges, for the flow of ice was continually moving, but in its progress southward it came to a point where the heat was sufficient to melt the ice as fast as it arrived at that point. The on-moving ice was continually bringing with it the débris that it had gathered up at different points on its journey, so that it is easy to see how these moraines could accumulate to a greater or less depth at the margin of the ice flow, which would be determined by the duration of the period it remained stationary. This, however, is only one factor, as the surface of the earth in some parts of the country would be more easily picked up and carried than in others; therefore, the drift accumulated much more rapidly in some sections than in others. Another factor that was active in the more rapid accumulation at certain points was the speed at which the ice moved, and this would be determined by the pressure that was behind it, and there would always be lines of unequal pressure existing in such a great glacier as must have existed when these moraines were formed. As an instance of the difference in the glacial deposits that are made in different periods during the time of the melting of the great ice sheet we may compare the Kettle Moraines of Wisconsin with the clay deposit mixed with broken gravel that we find along the west coast of Lake Michigan. Those whose homes are situated between Winnetka and Waukegan on the lake shore have the foundations of their houses set in glacial drift that was shoved into position by the ice during the glacial period. Anyone who makes an examination of the bluffs along the shore of this lake will notice that there is no stratification whatever to the deposit such as will always be found in an unglaciated region. Going west from the bluff a few miles we come down to the prairie level, where we find the soil of an entirely different nature. The soil of the prairies of Illinois and Iowa is probably to a great extent a water deposit. It is the kind we find in the bottom of a pond that has stood for many years, and it would seem that at some period all this prairie country with the black soil was the bottom of a great lake. The facts of a glacial period are beyond question, but when it occurred, and how it occurred are questions that many have tried to answer. So far, all that we can say of them is that some of them are shrewd guesses. The evidences adduced for determining the time, are the erosion caused by rivers and streams since the ice subsided. Some of the rivers and outlets of lakes had their courses changed by the action of the ice, so that when it subsided new water courses were formed, and the erosion that they have produced from that time to the present furnishes the data for determining the time since the subsidence of the ice at any particular point. For instance, Niagara Falls was undoubtedly at one time situated at Queenstown, a number of miles below its present position. And the time that it has taken to grind out the great gorge that exists between that point and the present falls is approximately a measure of the time that has elapsed since the subsidence of the ice at that point. Various estimates have been made to determinate the rate of erosion. The earlier ones put the time at about 35,000 years. But there are later investigators who make the time much shorter, not over 10,000 years. So much for the time; but you ask What about the occasion, or cause? This is a question that many have attempted to answer, there having been eight or ten theories promulgated with regard to the cause of the glacial period, but no one of them is entirely satisfactory, and only two or three of them are deserving of much discussion. It is always interesting to know what people think, however, even if we do not agree with them. The first theory named is that the glacial period is due to the decrease of the original heat in our climate. This theory can be dismissed by saying that the planet was cooling at the time and has been cooling ever since, and that the reasons for an ice age are greater now than then, on that theory. Another theory assumes that at some former period there was a greater amount of moisture in the atmosphere; while this of course would be the occasion for greater precipitation of snow, it does not account for the changing conditions that would produce the ice effect. That there was a preglacial period there is abundant evidence, in buried forests, the filling up and changing of river beds, and other evidences that will be referred to further on. This theory, unmodified and stated broadly, is not satisfactory. Another way of accounting for the glacial period is the change in the distribution of land and water, which is supposed to affect the distribution of heat over the earth's surface. There is much in this theory that commends itself as plausible. Another theory supposes that the land in northern Europe and America was elevated to a higher level at that time than it is now. Others attribute it to variation of temperature in space and of the amount of heat radiated by the sun. The final theory for accounting for the ice age is attributed to what is termed the precession of the equinoxes. In short, the precession of the equinoxes means that the division between summer and winter is changing gradually, so that during a period of 10,500 years the summers are growing longer in the northern hemisphere and the winters shorter. We are now in the period of long summers, but in another 10,000 years we shall be in the period of short summers and long winters. This difference of time between the winters and the summers is supposed to be sufficient to change the thermal conditions sufficiently to produce an ice age. It is true that the conditions now are very evenly balanced, so much so that in Switzerland the glaciers will increase for some years together, when the conditions will change, causing them to gradually recede. Several of the theories that have been advanced present evidences that are entitled to careful consideration, but none of them can be said to be entirely satisfactory. It is well known that the chief factors in the production of glaciers are moisture and cold. Cold alone is not sufficient; neither is moisture, unless we can precipitate it in the form of snow. Cold is opposed to the production of moisture, and this is a flaw in the argument presented by the last theory, unless we can couple with it another set of conditions which we will discuss later. The solution, if it is ever reached, is perhaps more likely to be found in the realm of meteorology than geology. It is unnecessary to change the conditions of temperature or the amount of moisture now existing in order to produce the great glacier again, provided this moisture could be precipitated, enough of it, in the right place as snow. For instance, if in Switzerland, where the conditions are nearly balanced, the annual precipitation could be slightly increased we should have a condition that would precipitate more snow in winter than would melt in summer. And the glaciers would gradually accumulate in size until they would fill the valleys and gorges to the same extent as formerly prevailed. There only needs to be such a change in the meteorological conditions as will cause a greater precipitation in that part of the globe favorable to glaciers, as, for instance, in the northern part of North America toward Alaska. This might be produced by a change in the conditions of the equatorial current, so that evaporation would be more rapid in the northern Pacific than it now is. When we consider that evaporation increases in proportion as the heat increases, we can see that heat is just as important a factor in the production of glaciers as cold. If evaporation could be increased in the Pacific Ocean west of Alaska, which would be carried by the wind over the mountains upon the land, and precipitated as snow, the great glaciers in that region would begin to grow instead of gradually receding, as is the case at present, and this without any change in the temperature of the world as a whole or in the amount of heat received from the sun. One can readily see how changes in the elevation of the bottom of the ocean would have such an effect upon the tropical stream as would either increase or decrease the temperature of the thermal river that flows up the western coast of Alaska. Whatever may have been the cause that created the great ice age in North America, so that a sheet of ice covered considerably more than half of the continent, there is no doubt in regard to the fact of the existence of such an age, and it will be interesting to study some of the physical changes that have been made by the ice at that period on the surface of the glaciated area. <hr style="width: 65%;" /> <div style="break-after:column;"></div>

1 of 2

2 of 2

Update Required To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.