Geography of the Air

VOL. III, PP. 41–52 MAY 1, 1891
( Presented to the Society January 23, 1891. )
In fulfilling the duties growing out of his official position in connection with this Society, your Vice-President of the Geography of the Air has been so closely occupied with executive and other official duties devolving upon him as to preclude his giving that amount of time and labor to this annual report that the subject merits. Indeed, no report would be submitted this year had it not seemed better to insure a continuity of these annual addresses, even if one of them might not be up to the high standard which should be maintained for them.
It must have impressed every general reader of scientific journals that the past year has been marked by the publication of an unusual number of controversial articles relating entirely or in part to meteorology. Some of the discussions of this subject appear to be in the nature of speculation, which, by good authority, is defined to be chiefly the work of the imagination, and has little to do with realities. The status of the meteorological discussion which has been going on for some time seems to be this: A number of men, applying themselves to investigation in separate branches or stages of the same science, are attempting to reconcile their views, which, based as they are upon entirely different processes of investigation, are not entirely accordant. Some, at least, of these writers are still apparently groping in the preliminary, the natural history stage of the science of meteorology, while one alone stands as the exponent of the natural philosophy of meteorology.
To me it seems that it could not have failed to impress any interested reader who has followed the late publications on the convectional theory that, in order to clear the ground for definite meteorological discussion, it is necessary to determine the exact meaning of the various technical terms employed by the various writers. Whether from looseness of verbiage originally or from the not infrequent habit of disputants when worsted to change their ground by claiming to be misunderstood, we find that some writers are unwilling either to stand by their first criticisms or to openly abandon them; they prefer to explain away their defective statements and gradually shift around to positions almost diametrically opposed to those originally assumed.