302 Mr. RedfieWs Reply to Dr. Hare. 



surveys of Prof. Bache, though not comprising all the particulars 

 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, he. : 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. 1 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 shov/ 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 others, he infers that I "consider gravita- 

 tion, uninfluenced by heat or electricity, mainly the cause of at- 

 mospheric currents ;" and he inquires, " what other eflect could 

 gravitation have, in the absence of calorific and electrical reaction, 

 unless that of producing a state of inert quiescence ?" He also 

 speaks of my treating momentum as " the antagonist of gravita- 

 tion." [p. 141-142, par. 5-8.] 



