484 Mr. Redfield's Reply to Dr. Hare's 



when the preceding and following opinions were published 

 must be quite evident." And he then quotes, somewhat inac- 

 curately, part of the subjoined extract as sustaining this alle- 

 gation; the correctness, or pertinacious unfairness of which, 

 I shall leave unprejudiced readers to determine from the very 

 evidence to which he refers. I had said in immediate connec- 

 tion with the foregoing, as follows : — 



" But, to prevent being misunderstood, I freely admit 



that heat is often an exciting as well as modifying cause 

 of local winds, and other phenomena, and that it has an inci- 

 dental or subordinate action (though not such as is usually 

 assigned) in the organization and development of storms, 

 and that, in certain circumstances, it influences the inter 

 positions of the moving strata of the atmosphere. Its greatest 

 direct influence is probably exhibited in what are called 



LAND AND SEA BREEZES, Or in the DIURNAL MODIFICATIONS 



which are exhibited by regular and general winds. But, 

 so far from being the great prime mover of the atmospheric 

 currents, either in producing a supposed primary north and 

 south current, or in any other manner, I entertain no doubt, 

 that if it were 'possible to preserve [this is the part Dr. H. 

 quotes] the atmosphere at a uniform temperature over the 

 whole surface of the globe, the general winds could not be less 

 brisk, but would become more constant and uniform than 

 ever.'" — Silliman's Journal, 1835, vol. xxviii. p. 317. — And 

 with all this before him, he now reasserts that I then rejected 



THE INFLUENCE OF HEAT 



It appears to dissatisfy Dr. Hare that I should have deemed 

 the first inquiry to be what are storms'? and not how are 

 storms produced? He asks, " suppose that before ascertaining 

 how fire is produced, chemists had waited for an answer to the 

 question what isjire'i how much had science been retarded?" 

 But, waiving any want of analogy between fire and storms, 

 suppose that in treating of fire one chemist should ascribe it 

 to the heat of combustion, another to the smoke and aqueous 

 vapour evolved, while a third should view it as being caused 

 by electricity; would not the proper inquiry then be, what is 

 fire, and what are its obvious phamomena? It appears evi- 

 dent that the laws and phaenomena of storms must be first as- 

 certained and established, ere we can advantageously investi- 

 gate their origin or primary causes. 



If Dr. Hare chooses to consider this an endless controversy 

 which he has waged, and that to follow its misunderstandings 

 would be an Ixion task, ought he not to reflect, that grace to 

 acknowledge those "misunderstandings" which it had brought 

 to light would doubtless have shortened its duration? 



