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 errof 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 

 the one 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 of 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 orhituaV^ forces which are most 

 inconsistently represented by Mr. Redfield, as having upon the 

 atmosphere an opposite effect. 



46. But notwithstanding the opinions expressed in the para- 

 graphs above quoted, and in the Mlowing, 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 very possible that his opin- 

 ions may have changed since he read my " objections ;" but that 

 he did reject the influence of heat when the preceding and fol- 

 lowing opinions were published must be quite evident. " Were 

 it 'possible to preserve the atmosphere in a uniform temperature all 

 over the surface of the globe, the general winds would not be less 

 brisk than at presejit, but would be more constant and uniform 

 than ever." (This Journal, Yol. xxviii, p. 318.) 



47. Mr. Redfield alleges that the proper enquiry is, What are 

 storms 1 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 is 

 fire, how much had science been retarded 1 I do not therefore 

 blame Mr. Redfield for pursuing both inquiries simultaneously, 



