We must here take into the account a very important consideration. It is not universally or even generally true, that the atmosphere returns its condensed humidity to the local source from which it receives it. The air is constantly in motion,
—howling tempests scour amain
From sea to land, from land to sea;
[Footnote: Und Sturme brausen um die Wette
Vom Meer aufs Land, vom Land aufs Meer.
Goethe, Faust, Song of the Archangels.]
and, therefore, it is always probable that the evaporation drawn up by the atmosphere from a given river, or sea, or forest, or meadow, will be discharged by precipitation, not at or near the point where it rose, but at a distance of miles, leagues, or even degrees. The currents of the upper air are invisible, and they leave behind them no landmark to record their track. We know not whence they come, or whither they go. We have a certain rapidly increasing acquaintance with the laws of general atmospheric motion, but of the origin and limits, the beginning and end of that motion, as it manifests itself at any particular time and place, we know nothing. We cannot say where or when the vapor, exhaled to-day from the lake on which we float, will be condensed and fall; whether it will waste itself on a barren desert, refresh upland pastures, descend in snow on Alpine heights, or contribute to swell a distant torrent which shall lay waste square miles of fertile corn-land; nor do we know whether the rain which feeds our brooklets is due to the transpiration from a neighboring forest, or to the evaporation from a far-off sea. If, therefore, it were proved that the annual quantity of rain and dew is now as great on the plains of Castile, for example, as it was when they were covered with the native forest, it would by no means follow that those woods did not augment the amount of precipitation elsewhere. The whole problem of the pluviometrical influence of the forest, general or local, is so exceedingly complex and difficult that it cannot, with our present means of knowledge, be decided upon a priori grounds. It must now be regarded as a question of fact which would probably admit of scientific explanation if it were once established what the actual fact is.
Unfortunately, the evidence is conflicting in tendency, and sometimes equivocal in interpretation, but I believe that a majority of the foresters and physicists who have studied the question are of opinion that in many, if not in all cases, the destruction of the woods has been followed by a diminution in the annual quantity of rain and dew. Indeed, it has long been a popularly settled belief that vegetation and the condensation and fall of atmospheric moisture are reciprocally necessary to each other, and even the poets sing of
Afric's barren sand,
Where nought can grow, because it raineth not,
And where no rain can fall to bless the land,
Because nought grows there.
[Footnote: Det golde Strog i Afrika,
Der Intet voxe kan, da ei det regner,
Og, omvendt, ingen Regn kan falde, da
Der Intet voxer.
Paudan-Muller, Adam Hamo, ii., 408.]
Before going further with the discussion, however, it is well to remark that the comparative rarity or frequency of inundations in earlier or later centuries is not necessarily, in most cases not probably, entitled to any weight whatever, as a proof that more or less rain fell formerly than now; because the accumulation of water in the channel of a river depends far less upon the quantity of precipitation in its valley, than upon the rapidity with which it is conducted, on or under the surface of the ground, to the central artery that drains the basin. But this point will be more fully discussed in a subsequent chapter.
In writers on the subject we are discussing, we find many positive assertions about the diminution of rain in countries which have been stripped of wood within the historic period, but these assertions very rarely rest upon any other proof than the doubtful recollection of unscientific observers, and I am unable to refer to a single instance where the records of the rain-gauge, for a considerable period before and after the felling or planting of extensive woods, can be appealed to in support of either side of the question. The scientific reputation of many writers who have maintained that precipitation has been diminished in particular localities by the destruction of forests, or augmented by planting them, has led the public to suppose that their assertions rested on sufficient proof. We cannot affirm that in none of these cases did such proof exist, but I am not aware that it has ever been produced. [Footnote: Among recent writers, Clave, Schacht, Sir John F. W. Herschel, Hohenstein, Barth, Asbjornsen, Boussingault, and others, maintain that forests tend to produce rain and clearings to diminish it, and they refer to numerous facts of observation in support of this doctrine; but in none of these does it appear that these observations are supported by actual pluviometrical measure. So far as I know, the earliest expression of the opinion that forests promote precipitation is that attributed to Christopher Columbus, in the Historie del S. D. Fernando Colombo, Venetia, 157l, cap. lviii., where it is said that the Admiral ascribed the daily showers which fell in the West Indies about vespers to "the great forests and trees of those countries," and remarked that the same effect was formerly produced by the same cause in the Canary and Madeira Islands and in the Azores, but that "now that the many woods and trees that covered them have been felled, there are not produced so many clouds and rains as before."
Mr. H. Harrisse, in his very learned and able critical essay, Fernand Colomb, sa Vie et ses Oeuvres, Paris, 1872, has made it at least extremely probable that the Historie is a spurious work. The compiler may have found this observation in some of the writings of Columbus now lost, but however that may be, the fact, which Humboldt mentions in Cosmos with much interest, still remains, that the doctrine in question was held, if not by the great discoverer himself, at least by one of his pretended biographers, as early as the year 1571.]