Redfield's Theory of Storms. 95 



tary, and orbitunl " forces which are most inconsistently re- 

 presented by Mr. Redfield as having upon the atmosphere an 

 opposite effect. 



63. But notwithstanding the opinions expressed in the pa- 

 ragraphs above quoted, and in the following, Mr. Redfield 

 alleges in his reply to my objections, that it is an error to con- 

 sider him as rejecting the influence of heat. It is very possible 

 that his opinions may have changed since he read my " objec- 

 tions;" but that he did reject the influence of heat when the 

 preceding and following opinions were published must be quite 

 evident. " Were it possible to preserve the atmosphere in a 

 uniform temperature all over the surface of the globe, the 

 general winds would not be less brisk than at present, but 

 would be more constant and uniform than ever." — (Silliman's 

 Journal, vol. xxviii. p. 318.) 



64>. Mr. Redfield alleges that the proper inquiry is, What 

 are storms ? not How are storms produced ? And yet it will 

 be found that his great object has been to show that they arise 

 from gyration caused by unequal forces generated in some in- 

 explicable mode by gravitation and the complicated motions 

 of our planet. But suppose that before ascertaining how fire is 

 produced, chemists had waited for an answer to the question 

 what is fire, how much had science been retarded ! I do not 

 therefore blame Mr. Redfield for pursuing both inquiries si- 

 multaneously, inconsistently with his own rule above stated, 

 but I am astonished that he should, without any new experi- 

 ments or any demonstrations, by an ipse dixit undertake to 

 make a novel application of the gravitating power, and the 

 forces arising from the earth's motion ; and to inform one of 

 the most eminent astronomers of the age that he had com- 

 mitted an error in overlooking their all-important meteorolo- 

 gical influence. 



65. Turning from an endless controversy with a writer with 

 whom I differ respecting first principles, I shall address myself 

 to that great school of meteorologists who concur with me in 

 the "grand error" of considering heat and electricity as the 

 principal agents of nature in the production of storms, and 

 who do not concur with Mr. Redfield in considering jjravita- 

 tion and the earth's annual and diurnal motion as the great 

 destroyer of atmospheric equilibrium. So far as it may con- 

 duce to truth, I shall incidentally notice some parts of Mr. 

 Redfield's reply; but my main object will be to show the in- 

 consistency of his theoretic inferences with the laws of nature, 

 and the facts and observations on which those inferences are 

 alleged to be founded. To follow him in detail through all the 

 misunderstandings which have arisen, and which would inevi- 



