CHAPTER III.

GLACIAL MOTION.

That glacial ice actually moves after the analogy of a semi-fluid has been abundantly demonstrated by observation. In the year 1827 Professor Hugi, of Soleure, built a hut far up upon the Aar Glacier in Switzerland, in order to determine the rate of its motion. After three years he found that it had moved 330 feet; after nine years, 2,354 feet; and after fourteen years Louis Agassiz found that its motion had been 4,712 feet. In 1841 Agassiz began a more accurate series of observation upon the same glacier. Boring holes in the ice, he set across it a row of stakes which, on visiting in 1842, he found to be no longer in a straight line. All had moved downwards with varying velocity, those near the centre having moved farther than the others. The displacements of the stakes were in order, from side to side, as follows: 160 feet, 225 feet, 269 feet, 245 feet, 210 feet, and 125 feet. Agassiz followed up his observations for six years, and in 1847 published the results in his celebrated work System Glacière.

But in August, 1841, the distinguished Swiss investigator had invited Professor J. D. Forbes, of Edinburgh, to interest himself in solving the problem of glacial motion. In response to this request, Professor Forbes spent three weeks with Agassiz upon the Aar Glacier. Stimulated by the interest of this visit, Forbes returned to Switzerland in 1842 and began a series of independent investigations upon the Mer de Glace. After a week's observations with accurate instruments, Forbes wrote to Professor Jameson, editor of the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, that he had already made it certain that "the central part of the glacier moves faster than the edges in a very considerable proportion, quite contrary to the opinion generally maintained." This letter was dated July 4, 1842, but was not published until the October following, Agassiz's results, so far as then determined, were, however, published in Comptes Rendus of the 29th of August, 1842, two months before the publication of Forbes's letter. But Agassiz's letter was dated twenty-seven days later than that of Forbes. It becomes certain, therefore, that both Agassiz and Forbes, independently and about the same time, discovered the fact that the central portion of a glacier moves more rapidly than the sides.

In 1857 Professor Tyndall began his systematic and fruitful observations upon the Mer de Glace and other Alpine glaciers. Professor Forbes had already demonstrated that, with an accurate instrument of observation, the motion of a line of stakes might be observed after the lapse of a single clay, or even of a few hours. As a result of Tyndall's observations, it was found that the most rapid daily motion in the Mer de Glace in 1857 was about thirty-seven inches. This amount of motion was near the lower end of the glacier On ascending the glacier, the rate was found in general to be diminished; but the diminution was not uniform throughout the whole distance, being affected both by the size and by the contour of the valley. The motion in the tributary glaciers was also much less than that of the main glacier.

This diminution of movement in the tributary glaciers was somewhat proportionate to their increase in width. For example, the combined width of the three tributaries uniting to form the Mer de Glace is 2,597 yards; but a short distance below the junction of these tributaries the total width of the Mer de Glace itself is only 893 yards, or one-third that of the tributaries combined. Yet, though the depth of the ice is probably here much greater than in the tributaries, the rapidity of movement is between two and three times as great as that of any one of the branches.[AM]

[Footnote AM: See Tyndall's Forms of Water, pp. 78-82.]

From Tyndall's observations it appears also that the line of most rapid motion is not exactly in the middle of the channel, but is pushed by its own momentum from one side to the other of the middle, so as always to be nearer the concave side; in this respect conforming, as far as its nature will permit, to the motion of water in a tortuous channel.

It is easy to account for this differential motion upon the surface of a glacier, since it is clear that the friction of the sides of the channel must retard the motion of ice as it does that of water. It is clear also that the friction of the bottom must retard the motion of ice even more than it is known to do in the case of water. In the formation of breakers, when the waves roll in upon a shallowing beach, every one is familiar with the effect of the bottom upon the moving mass. Here friction retards the lower strata of water, and the upper strata slide over the lower, and, where the water is of sufficient depth and the motion is sufficiently great, the crest breaks down in foam before the ever-advancing tide. A similar phenomenon occurs when dams give way and reservoirs suddenly pour their contents into the restricted channels below. At such times the advancing water rolls onwards like the surf with a perpendicular front, varying in height according to the extent of the flood.

Seasoning from these phenomena connected with moving water, it was naturally suggested to Professor Tyndall that an analogous movement must take place in a glacier. Choosing, therefore, a favourable place for observation on the Mer de Glace where the ice emerged from a gorge, he found a perpendicular side about one hundred and fifty feet in height from bottom to top. In this face he drove stakes in a perpendicular line from top to bottom. Upon subsequently observing them, Tyndall found, as he expected, that there was a differential motion among them as in the stakes upon the surface. The retarding effect of friction upon the bottom was evident. The stake near the top moved forwards about three times as fast as the one which was only four feet from the bottom.

The most rapid motion (thirty-seven inches per day) observed by Professor Tyndall upon the Alpine glaciers occurred in midsummer. In winter the rate was only about one-half as great; but in the year 1875 the Norwegian geologist, Helland, reported a movement of twenty metres (about sixty-five feet) per day in the Jakobshavn Glacier which enters Disco Bay, Greenland, about latitude 70°. For some time there was a disposition on the part of many scientific men to doubt the correctness of Holland's calculations. Subsequent observations have shown, however, that from the comparatively insignificant glaciers of the Alps they were not justified in drawing inferences with respect to the motion of the vastly larger masses which come down to the sea through the fiords of Greenland. The Jakobshavn Glacier was about two and a half miles in width and its depth very likely more than a thousand feet, making a cross-section of more than 1,400,000 square yards, whereas the cross-section of the Mer de Glace at Montanvert is estimated to be but 190,000 square yards or only about one-seventh the above estimate for the Greenland glacier. As the friction of the sides would be no greater upon a large stream than upon a small one, while upon the bottom it would be only in proportion to the area, it is evident that we cannot tell beforehand how rapidly an increase in the volume of the ice might augment the velocity of the glacier.

At any rate, all reasonable grounds for distrusting the accuracy of Helland's estimates seem to have been removed by later investigations. According to my own observations in the summer of 1886 upon the Muir Glacier, Alaska, the central portions, a mile back from the front of that vast ice-current, were moving from sixty-five to seventy feet per day. These observations were taken with a sextant upon pinnacles of ice recognizable from a baseline established upon the shore. It is fair to add, however, that during the summer of 1890 Professor H. F. Reid attempted to measure the motion of the same glacier by methods promising greater accuracy than could be obtained by mine. He endeavoured to plant, after the method of Tyndall, a line of stakes across the ice-current. But with his utmost efforts, working inwards from both sides, he was unable to accomplish his purpose, and so left unmeasured a quarter of a mile or more of the most rapidly-moving portion of the glacier. His results, therefore, of ten feet per day in the most rapidly-moving portion observed cannot discredit my own observations on a portion of the stream inaccessible by his method. A quarter of a mile in width near the centre of so vast a glacier gives ample opportunity for a much greater rate of motion than that observed by Professor Reid. Especially may this be true in view of Tyndall's suggestion that the contour of the bottom over which the ice flows may greatly affect the rate in certain places. A sudden deepening of the channel may affect the motion of ice in a glacier as much as it does that of water in a river.

Other observations also amply sustain the conclusions of Helland. As already stated, the Danish surveying party under Steenstrup, after several years' work upon the southwestern coast of Greenland, have ascertained that the numerous glaciers coming down to the sea in that region and furnishing the icebergs incessantly floating down Baffin's Bay, move at a rate of from thirty to fifty feet per day, while Lieutenants Ryder and Bloch, of the Danish Navy, who spent the year 1887 in exploring the coast in the vicinity of Upernavik, about latitude 73°, found that the great glacier entering the fiord east of the village had a velocity of ninety-nine feet per day during the month of August.[AN]

[Footnote AN: Nature, December 29, 1887.]

It is easier to establish the fact of glacial motion than to explain how the motion takes place, for ice seems to be as brittle as glass. This, however, is true of it only when compelled suddenly to change its form. When subjected to slow and long-continued pressure it gradually yet readily yields, and takes on new forms. From this capacity of ice, it has come to be regarded by some as a really viscous substance, like tar or cooling lava, and upon that theory Professor Forbes endeavours to explain all glacial movement.

The theory, however, seems to be contradicted by familiar facts; for the iceman, after sawing a shallow groove across a piece of ice, can then split it as easily as he would a piece of sandstone or wood. On the glaciers themselves, likewise, the existence of innumerable crevasses would seem to contradict the plastic theory of glacier motion; for, wherever the slope of the glacier's bed increases, crevasses are formed by the increased strain to which the ice is subjected. Crevasses are also formed in rapidly-moving glaciers by the slight strain occasioned by the more rapid motion of the middle portion. Still, in the words of Tyndall, "it is undoubted that the glacier moves like a viscous body. The centre flows past the sides, the top flows over the bottom, and the motion through a curved valley corresponds to fluid motion."[AO]

[Footnote AO: Forms of Water, p. 163.]

To explain this combination of the seemingly contradictory qualities of brittleness and viscosity in ice, physicists have directed attention to the remarkable transformations which take place in water at the freezing-point. Faraday discovered in 1850 that "when two pieces of thawing ice are placed together they freeze together at the point of contact.[AP]

[Footnote AP: Ibid., p. 164.]

"Place a number of fragments of ice in a basin of water and cause them to touch each other; they freeze together where they touch. You can form a chain of such fragments; and then, by taking hold of one end of the chain, you can draw the whole series after it. Chains of icebergs are sometimes formed in this way in the arctic seas."[AQ]

[Footnote AQ: Ibid., pp. 164, 165.]

This is really what takes place when a hard snow-ball is made by pressure in the hand. So, by subjecting fragments of ice to pressure it is first crumbled to powder, and then, as the particles are pressed together in close contact, it resumes the nature of ice again, though in a different form, taking now the shape of the mould in which it has been pressed.

Thus it is supposed that, when the temperature of ice is near the melting-point, the pressure of the superincumbent mass may produce at certain points insensible disintegration, while, upon the removal of the pressure by change of position, regulation instantly takes place, and thus the phenomena which simulate plasticity are produced. As the freezing-point of water is, within a narrow range, determined by the amount of pressure to which it is subjected, it is not difficult to see how these changes may occur. Pressure slightly lowers the freezing-point, and so would liquefy the portions of ice subjected to greatest pressure, wherever that might be in the mass of the glacier, and thus permit a momentary movement of the particles, until they should recongeal in adjusting themselves to spaces of less pressure.[AR] This is the theory by which Professor James Thompson would account for the apparent plasticity of glacial ice.

[Footnote AR: Forms of Water, p. 168.]