Chapter V: The Work of Snow and Ice (3)

All this is strictly consistent with our primary thesis, that a glacier is a crystalline rock of the purest and simplest type, and that it never has other than the crystalline state. This strictly crystalline character is incompatible with viscous liquidity.

_Other Views of Glacier Motion._[137]

While these views of glacial motion seem to us to best accord with the known facts, they are not to be regarded as established in scientific opinion, or as the views most commonly held. The mode of glacial motion has long been a mooted question, and is still so regarded. The main alternative interpretations that have been entertained are the following:

(1) In the early days of glacial studies De Saussure thought that glaciers slid bodily on their beds;

(2) Charpentier and Agassiz referred the movement to the expansion of descending water freezing within the glacier;

(3) Rendu and Forbes, followed by many, perhaps most, modern writers, believed ice to be viscous, and that in sufficiently large masses it flows under the influence of its own weight, like pitch or asphalt;

(4) Others, realizing the fundamental difference between crystalline ice and a true viscous body, have fallen back on a vague notion of plasticity which scarcely amounts to a definite hypothesis at all;

(5) Tyndall urged that the movement was accomplished by minute repeated fracturing and regelation, appealing to the fact that broken pieces of ice slightly pressed together at melting temperatures freeze together, but neglecting the fact that this would destroy the integrity of the crystals;

(6) Moseley assigned the movement to a bodily expansion and contraction of the glacier, analogous to the creeping of a mass of lead on a roof;

(7) James Thompson demonstrated that pressure lowers the melting-point, and while this effect is so small as probably to be ineffectual, it is correlated with the very important fact that compression may cause melting, which is not the case in most other rocks. He recognized that under pressure partial liquefaction took place, that the water so liberated might be refrozen as it escaped from pressure, and appears to have regarded this as a vital factor;

(8) Croll held that the movement was due to a consecutive series of molecular changes somewhat like the chain of chemical combinations in electrolysis;

(9) Hugi, Eli de Beaumont, Bertin, Forel, and others thought that the growth of the granules was the leading factor in the ice movement;

(10) McConnel and Mügge have made the gliding planes of the ice crystals serve an important function in glacial movement.

It will be seen that the principle of partial liquefaction for which Thompson laid the basis, the crystallization of descending water, urged by Charpentier and Agassiz, and the granular growth on which Hugi, Beaumont, Forel, and others founded their hypotheses, are incorporated in the view already presented. Probably the agencies on which some of the other views are based may also be participants in producing glacial motion, sometimes as incidental factors, and sometimes perhaps as important ones, for under different conditions, different agencies may play rôles of varying importance. For example, in going over the brinks of precipices of sufficient height, glaciers break into fragments which are re-cemented below, and the “reconstructed” glacier moves on as before. Here fracture and regelation are evident. The movement of the gliding planes of the ice crystals over each other, which has been looked upon as a special kind of viscoid movement, probably plays a large part in the shearing movements in certain cases. But neither of these is probably a large factor in ordinary glacial movement, and it seems highly improbable that any of them are essential factors in the primary movements in the snow-fields where glacial action begins.