F. H. Bigelow — Solar and Terrestrial Magnetism. 455 



Art. LYII. — Comments on Bulletin No. 21. " Solar and 

 Terrestrial Magnetism in their relations to Meteorology /" 

 by Frank H. Bigelow. 



[Communicated by permission of the Chief of the Weather Bureau.] 



Complying with a suggestion by the editor of this Journal 

 to set forth the leading conclusions contained in my Bulletin 

 No. 21, recently published by the U. S. Weather Bureau, the 

 following comments are made with the view of bringing out 

 prominently the important features of the subject as now 

 understood. Those who have been familiar with the general 

 conditions of meteorology and terrestrial magnetism, as regards 

 the explanation of the observed phenomena by means of cur- 

 rent hypotheses, must be aware of the very unsatisfactory state 

 of these subjects in many particulars. In meteorology the 

 widely accepted view of the generation of cyclones was based 

 upon the vertical convection currents from local centers, which 

 Professor Ferrel used as his working hypothesis, in his attempt 

 to construct the laws of observed circulation. But the revolt 

 from this position has become general, and it is not too much 

 to say in advance that the outcome of our cloud observations 

 greatly strengthens the position of those who claim that a new 

 theory must be constructed. In terrestrial magnetism affairs 

 were even worse, because there has been only the vaguest 

 approach to a definite conception of the laws likely to account 

 for the diurnal and annual periods, or the disturbances of the 

 elements, to say nothing of the secular variation and the 

 undoubted synchronism observed between the solar and the 

 terrestrial phenomena. It has long been my conviction that 

 these entire subjects needed a thorough overhauling, and that 

 this involved the cutting loose from several opinions generally 

 received in scientific circles. To thus separate from common 

 conceptions involved considerable risk from two sources, (1) 

 lest it be impossible to secure a scientific demonstration of a 

 clear theory, while running counter to public opinion, and (2) 

 the impracticability of publishing in sufficient detail the data 

 involved in the discussion. For it must be admitted that mag- 

 netism in its relation to meteorology is a paradise for all sorts 

 of pseudo-scientists, and that the entire field is cambered with 

 unproved and pretentious propositions. Nevertheless it must 

 also be noted that when an investigator passes away from the 

 observations of precision afforded by astronomy, geodesy and 

 physical laboratory experiments generally, to the fitful meas- 

 ures made at the bottom of the atmosphere, which represent 

 complex stream lines, and also the resultants of many compo- 



