302 Mr. Redfield’s Reply to Dr. Hare. 
surveys of Prof. Bache, though not comprising all the nartichiitea : 
which I deem essential to a right view of the case, may yet be 
best explained by admitting a general and continued whirlwind 
action. 
Dr. Hare next adduces an imperfect quotation on the law of 
atmospheric circulation, as depending on the earth’s rotation, cen- 
trifugal action, &c.: and presumes me to mean, “ that the cen- 
trifugal force communicated to the air at the equator, causes it to 
rise and give place to those portions of the atmosphere,” from 
adjacent latitudes, which “have less rotary motion ;” and pro- 
ceeds to comment on this presumption. I beg leave to assure 
Dr. Hare that he has greatly misapprehended my meaning: and 
furthermore, that I have never found any evidence of the sup- — 
posed general ascent of the air from the lower to the upper at- 
mosphere in the equatorial regions. 
In my first essay, the prevalence of westerly winds in the upper 
regions of the atmosphere, was incidentally and partially ascribed 
to the deflection of the trade winds by mountains. Dr. H. alleges 
that this explanation harmonizes with the theory of Halley. He 
adds, ‘‘In fact as the water accumulated by these winds in the 
Gulf of Mexico, is productive of the Gulf Stream, is it not reason- 
able that there should be an aerial accumulation and current, cor- 
responding with that of the aqueous current above mentioned ?” 
This comes nearer to my views of the course of circulation in 
the atmosphere, but does not so well accord with the common 
theory of the trade winds. That the alleged accumulation of 
water in the Gulf of Mexico by the trade winds, is the main 
cause of the Gulf Stream, Dr. Hare may perhaps show hereafter. 
The contrary would appear to have been settled by the levellings 
which have already been obtained. ° 
Dr. Hare intimates that the trade winds “cannot be explained 
without the agency of temperature ;” he alleges also that I “ re- 
ject the influence of heat ;” and proceeds to quote a paragraph 
from which, as well as athets, he infers that I “consider gravita- 
tion, uninfluenced by heat or electricity, mainly the cause of at- 
mospheric currents ;” and he inquires, “ what other effect could 
gravitation have, in the absence of calorific and electrical reaction, 
unless that of producing a state of inert quiescence ?” 
speaks of my treating momentum as “the antagonist of gravita- 
tion.” [p. 141-142, par. 5-8.] 
