Additional Objections to Redfield’s Theory of Storms. 125 
self in opposition to the whole school of meteorologists, a doubt 
did not arise whether the “‘ grand error” was not in his views of 
the subject instead of that which they had taken? 
» 45. It seems to have been forgotten, that all the aqueous por- 
tion of the terrestrial surface being, no less than the superincum- 
bent atmosphere, subjected to the gravitating power and the rotary 
and orbitual motions of our planet, no impulse can be given to 
thesone which is not received by the other; and that as the 
heavier the fluid the greater the influence, if this be competent 
to create gales in the atmosphere, it must be no less competent 
to produce torrents in the ocean. Moreover, do not his opinions 
conflict not only with the whole school ef meteorologists, but also 
with a portion of the modern school of geology? Agreeably to 
the last mentioned school, the external portion of the earth con- 
‘sists of a comparatively thin shell of earth and water floating 
upon an ocean of matter kept in fusion by heat ; the oblate sphe- 
roidal form of our planet being due to the perfect equilibrium of 
the “ gravitating, rotary, and orbitual’ forces which are most 
inconsistently represented by Mr. Redfield, as pau upon the 
atmosphere an opposite effect. 
46. But notwithstanding the- opinions expressed in the para- 
graphs above quoted, and in the following, Mr. Redfield alleges 
in his reply to my objections that it is an error to,consider him as 
rejecting the influence of heat. It is. amy possible set: his opie 
lowing opinions svete: published: ‘must be quite evident. oer 
bees the surface of the globe, the general winds would not be Jess 
brisk than at present, but would be more constant and uniform 
than ever.” (This Journal, Vol. xxvuu, p. 318.) 
_.. 47. Mr. Redfield alleges that the proper enquiry 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 inexplica- 
ble mode, by gravitation and the complicated motions of our 
planet. But suppose that before ascertaining how fire is produ- 
ced, chemists had waited for an answer to the question what ts 
fire, how much had science been retarded? Ido not therefore 
blame Mr. Redfield for pursuing both inquiries simultaneously, 
