Students of geology have been puzzled for many years by traces remaining from the period when a large part of the earth was covered with a heavy cap of ice. These shreds of evidence all seem to point to the conclusion that the centre of the ice-covered region was quite far away from the present position of the north pole of the earth. If we are to regard the pole as very near the point of greatest cold, it becomes a matter of much interest to examine whether the pole has always occupied its present position, or whether it has been subject to slow changes of place upon the earth's surface. Therefore, the geologists have appealed to astronomers to discover whether they are in possession of any observational evidence tending to show that the pole is in motion.

Now we may say at once that astronomical research has not as yet revealed the evidence thus expected. Astronomy has been unable to come to the rescue of geological theory. From about the year 1750, which saw the beginning of precise observation in the modern sense, down to very recent times, astronomers were compelled to deny the possibility of any appreciable motion of the pole. Observational processes, it is true, furnished slightly divergent pole positions from time to time. Yet these discrepancies were always so minute as to be indistinguishable from those slight personal errors that are ever inseparable from results obtained by the fallible human eye.

But in the last few years improved methods of observation, coupled with extreme diligence in their application by astronomers generally, have brought to light a certain small motion of the pole which had never before been demonstrated in a reliable way. This motion, it is true, is not of the character demanded by geological theory, for the geologists had been led to expect a motion which would be continuous in the same direction, no matter how slow might be its annual amount; for the vast extent of geologic time would give even the slowest of motions an opportunity to produce large effects, provided its results could be continuously cumulative. Given time enough, and the pole might move anywhere on the earth, no matter how slow might be its tortoise speed.

But the small motion we have discovered is neither cumulative nor continuous in one direction. It is what we call a periodic motion, the pole swinging now to one side, and now to the other, of its mean or average position. Thus this new discovery cannot be said to unravel the mysterious puzzle of the geologists. Yet it is not without the keenest interest, even from their point of view; for the proof of any form of motion in a pole previously supposed to be absolutely at rest may mean everything. No man can say what results will be revealed by the further observations now being continued with great diligence.

In the first place, it is important to explain that any such motions as we have under consideration will show themselves to ordinary observational processes principally in the form of changes of terrestrial latitudes. Let us imagine a pair of straight lines passing through the centre of the earth and terminating, one at the observer's station on the earth's surface, and the other at that point of the equator which is nearest the observer. Then, according to the ordinary definition of latitude, the angle between these two imaginary lines is called the latitude of the point of observation. Now we know, of course, that the equator is everywhere just 90 degrees from the pole. Consequently, if the pole is subject to any motion at all, the equator must also partake of the motion.

Thus the angle between our two imaginary lines will be affected directly by polar movement, and the latitude obtained by astronomical observation will be subject to quite similar changes. To clear up the whole question, so far as this can be done by the gathering of observational evidence, it is only necessary to keep up a continual series of latitude determinations at several observatories. These determinations should show small variations similar in magnitude to the wabblings of the pole.

Let us now consider for a moment what is meant by the axis of the earth. It has long been known that the planet has in general the shape of a ball or sphere. That this is so can be seen at once from the way ships at sea disappear at the horizon. As they go farther and farther from us, we first lose sight of the hull, and then slowly and gradually the spars and sails seem to sink down into the ocean. This proves that the earth's surface is curved. That it is more or less like a sphere is evident from the fact that it always casts a round shadow in eclipses. Sometimes the earth passes between the sun and eclipsed moon. Then we see the earth's black shadow projected on the moon, which would otherwise be quite bright. This shadow has been observed in a very large number of such eclipses, and it has always been found to have a circular edge.

While, therefore, the earth is nearly a round ball, it must not be supposed that it is exactly spherical in form. We may disregard the small irregularities of its surface, for even the greatest mountains are insignificant in height when compared with the entire diameter of the earth itself. But even leaving these out of account, the earth is not perfectly spherical. We can describe it best as a flattened sphere. It is as though one were to press a round rubber ball between two smooth boards. It would be flattened at the top and bottom and bulged out in the middle. This is the shape of the earth. It is flattened at the poles and bulges out near the equator. The shortest straight line that can be drawn through the earth's centre and terminated by the flattened parts of its surface may be called the earth's axis of figure; and the two points where this axis meets the surface are called the poles of figure.

But the earth has another axis, called the axis of rotation. This is the one about which the planet turns once in a day, giving rise to the well-known phenomena called the rising and setting of sun, moon, and stars. For these motions of the heavenly bodies are really only apparent ones, caused by an actual motion of the observer on the earth. The observer turns with the earth on its axis, and is thus carried past the sun and stars.

This daily turning of the earth, then, takes place about the axis of rotation. Now, it so happens that all kinds of astronomical observations for the determination of latitude lead to values based on the rotation axis of the earth, and not on its axis of figure. We have seen how the earth's equator, from which we count our latitudes, is everywhere 90 degrees distant from the pole. But this pole is the pole of rotation, or the point at which the rotation axis pierces the earth's surface. It is not the pole of figure.

It is clear that the latitude of any observatory will remain constant only if the pole of figure and the rotation pole maintain absolutely the same positions relatively one to the other. These two poles are actually very near together; indeed, it was supposed for a very long time that they were absolutely coincident, so that there could not be any variations of latitude. But it now appears that they are separated slightly.

Strange to say, one of them is revolving about the other in a little curve. The pole of figure is travelling around the pole of rotation. The distance between them varies a little, never becoming greater than about fifty feet, and it takes about fourteen months to complete a revolution. There are some slight irregularities in the motion, but, in the main, it takes place in the manner here stated. In consequence of this rotation of the one pole about the other, the pole of figure is now on one side of the rotation pole and now on the opposite side, but it never travels continuously in one direction. Thus, as we have already seen, the sort of continuous motion required to explain the observed geological phenomena has not yet been found by astronomers.

Observations for the study of latitude variations have been made very extensively within recent years both in Europe and the United States. It has been found practically most advantageous to carry out simultaneous series of observations at two observatories situated in widely different parts of the earth, but having very nearly the same latitude. It is then possible to employ the same stars for observation in both places, whereas it would be necessary to use different sets of stars if there were much difference in the latitudes.

There is a special advantage in using the same stars in both places. We can then determine the small difference in latitude between the two participating observatories in a manner which will make it quite free from any uncertainty in our knowledge of the positions on the sky of the stars observed; for, strange as it may seem, our star-catalogues do not contain absolutely accurate numbers. Like all other data depending on fallible human observation, they are affected with small errors. But if we can determine simply the difference in latitude of the two observatories, we can discover from its variation the path in which the pole is moving. If, for instance, the observatories are separated by one-quarter the circumference of the globe, the pole will be moving directly toward one of them, when it is not changing its distance from the other one at all.

This method was used for seven years with good effect at the observatories of Columbia University in New York, and the Royal Observatory at Naples, Italy. For obtaining its most complete advantages it is, of course, better to establish several observing stations on about the same parallel of latitude. This was done in 1899 by the International Geodetic Association. Two stations are in the United States, one in Japan, and one in Sicily. We can, therefore, hope confidently that our knowledge as to the puzzling problem of polar motion will soon receive very material advancement.