70 DISCUSSION. 



rainfall in the plain country and in the forest country, we are 

 therefore in a position to say that our forests do not increase the 

 rainfall. Again, it has been conclusively shown within the last 

 few years that nearly the whole of the circulation of the 

 atmosphere is a circulation in what is technically called the 

 cyclone system. We all know what a cyclone is in the ordinary 

 sense of the term, but it is only recently known that every wind 

 is moving under the same laws as do those in intense and therefore 

 dangerous cyclones : in fact, whenever we have a breeze or 

 disturbance of the wind : that wind depends upon the relative 

 heights of the barometer and on certain other circumstances. 

 These ordinary cyclones are of enormous extent, and rain is found 

 to be a necessary part of each cyclone. It is just as essential a 

 feature of the cyclone as that the circulation of the wind is 

 due to a fall of the atmospheric pressure, and further that the 

 rainfall which we get from these storms is practically the whole 

 of the rainfall that is deposited on the surface of the earth. 

 Rains may occur in other ways, but the amount is relatively 

 quite inappreciable, in fact, whenever it falls part of a cyclone 

 system is passing over. These cyclones are from 1,000 to 3,000 

 miles in diameter, and such a system passes over the earth's 

 surface just as a railway carriage passes over it, according to 

 definite known laws at a definite rate, although the rate varies 

 from 7 to 20 miles an hour, but still you find that the cyclone is 

 travelling across the surface of the earth, and it is very little 

 affected by the surface conditions. I do not see, therefore, how it 

 is possible that the cutting away of a few trees over a mile or 

 a hundred miles, can in any way affect the circulation of the 

 atmosphere in these enormous cyclones which often cover six to 

 eight millions of square miles. That to my mind is a very strong 

 argument against the statement that cutting down forests will 

 affect our rainfall. There is another point : with regard to the 

 cutting away of forests, and their effect upon rainfall. We know 

 from a paper Mr. Abbott read here some time ago that three- 

 fourths of the forest land in the Upper Hunter has been destroyed 

 by ring-barking, yet if you examine the records, the rainfall in 

 that ring-barked country is just the same as on the surrounding 

 country which is not ring-barked ; and I think that is also a strong 

 argument in favour of the view that forests do not affect rainfall. 

 There is another circumstance not of so much importance, but still 

 worth mentioning. Last year the rainfall in this Colony was 

 heavier than it had been for any year before, since records have 

 been kept. I ask those who argue that trees produce rainfall if 

 it is possible that one year's rainfall should be so excessive compared 

 with others because trees have been planted, and if the planting 

 of trees last year or the year before produced the rainfall of 1887, 

 what has produced the drought of 1888 1 Not the cutting down 



