124 Additional Objections to RedfieWs Theory of Storms. 



objections to what he considers as the " established character of 

 storms,^' he had hesitated to answer them. This cannot excite 

 surprise, when it is recollected "that the whole modern meteoro- 

 logical school," and likewise " Sir John Herschel," are accused bv 

 him of a ^^ grand error ^^'' in not ascribing all atmospheric winds 

 '-'■solely to the gravitating power as connected loith the rotary and 

 orbitual motion of the earth.'''' 



42. For this denunciation he has no better ground than that on 

 which he deems his theory to be above my reach, that is to say, 

 because himself and others have made some observations shew- 

 ing that in certain storms, agreeably to log-book records, certain 

 ships have had the wind in a way to indicate gyration. Being 

 under the impression, that in many instances no better answer 

 need be given to Mr. Redfield's opinions than that created in the 

 minds of scientific readers by his own language, I will here quote 

 his denunciation of the opinions of the meteorological school and 

 of Herschel. 



43. " The grand error into lohich the lohole school of meteo- 

 rologists appear to have fallen, consists in ascribing to heat and 

 rarefaction the origin and support of the great atTnospheric cur- 

 rents which are found to prevail over a great portion of the globe." 

 * * * ^^ An adequate and undeniable cause for the production 

 of the phenomena * * / consider is furnished in the rotative mo- 

 tion of the earth upon its axis, in which originate the centrifugal 

 and other modifying influences of the gravitating poiver, which 

 must always operate upon the great oceans of fluid and aerial 

 matter, which rest upon the earth'' s crust, producing of necessity 

 those great currents to which we have alluded.''^ (See this Jour- 

 nal, Vol. XXVIII, p. 316.) Speaking of Sir John Herschel's ex- 

 planation of the trade winds and others, Mr. Redfield alleges, 

 " Sir John has however erred, like his predecessors, in ascribing 

 mainly, if not pi'imarily, to heat and rarefaction those results 

 v)hich should have been ascribed solely to mechanical gravitation 

 as connected with the rotative and orbitual motion of the earth's 

 surface.'' 



44. Is it not surprising that it did not occur to the author of 

 these remarks, that an astronomer so eminent as Sir John Her- 

 schel would be less likely than himself to be ignorant of any at- 

 mospheric influence resulting from gravitation or the diurnal and 

 annual revolutions of our planet — and that when he found him- 



