FEBRUARY1937 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW 61

Fink, Otto. Vooruitzichten van een dagelijksche weervoorspelling Zur Therniodynamik strenger und milder Winter. Wiirzburg- in Ned.-Indie. Batavia. [1935.1 p. [15]-43. figs., tabs. Aumiihle. 1936. 62 p. tabs., diagrs. 22f$ cm. 24W cm. [At head of title: Overdruk uit het verslag van de Gage, Simon Henry. 15e vergadering van de vereeniging van proefstation-person- The microscope. 16th ed., rev. 15 enl. by the addition of a eel te Batavia, October 1935, pagina 15-43.] chapter on micro-incineration. Ithaca, N. Y. 1936. vii, Bossolasco, M. 617 p. illus., diagrs. 23>4 cm. Resultati preliniinari dei lavori eseguiti dah Stazione geofisica Gillette, Halbert P. di Mogadisco durante il Secondo anno polare internazionale Compound weather and climatic cycles. [n. p.]. 1935. [2 p.] 1932-33. Meteorologia ed aerologia. 1935. 11 p. figs., 28 cm. [Reprinted from the January 1937 issue of Water tab. 24% cm. works and sewerage.] British national committee for the polar year, 1932-1933. Humphreys, William Jackson. Some general characteristics of aurora at Fort Rae, N. W. Some episodes along the nieteorological highway. Wash., Canada, 1932-1933. Edinburgh. 1935. 6 p. 25 cm. [.At D. C. 1936. p. [435]-452. ports., maps. 25f4 cm. [Re- head of title: International polar year, 1932-1933. British printed from Journal of the Washington academy of sciences, expedition to Fort Rae.] v. 26, no. 11, Nov. 15, 1936.1 Brooks, Charles Franklin. Huxley, Julian Sorell, Q Andrade, E. N. da C. The possibilities of long-range seasonal forecasts based on More simple science: earth and inan . . . with drawings by ocean temperatures. [n. p.] 13. p. 23:h cm. [Reprint L. R. Briehtwell and Comerford Watson. New York & from “The semicentenary celebration of the founding of the London. [~1936]. 352 p. illus., diagrs. 20f5 cm. Chap. University of California. 1868-1918.”] 1. “Earth and its climates.’’ p. 1-63. Chap. IV. “Soil.” Conrad, V. p. 154-195. Gutachten iiber die Sonnenscheinverhaltnisse von Bad Ischl. Jaumotte, J. Wien. 1933. 7 p. 22% cm. [At head of title: Sonderab- La diffusion des gaz dans le champ de la pesanteur et l’ozone druck aus Heft 7, Jahrgang 1933, der Mitteilungen des atniosph6riqrie. Bruselles. 1936. 27 p. figs., tables. Volksgesundheitsamtes.] 24% cin. Bibliographie: p. 27. [At head of title: Institut Physikalische Grundlagen der Kliniatologie. [Leipzig.] royal m6tborologiquc de Belgique. MBmoires, vol. VI.] n. d. 43 p. tabs., diagrs. 24% cm. [At head of title: Jensen, Chr. Sonderabdruck aus Tuberkulose-Bibliothek, Nr. 46.1 Die gegenwiirtigen Prohleme und Aufgaben welche mit dem Cornell University. Ithaca, N. Y. Studiuin der atmospharischen Polarisation verkniipft sind. Earth forms: Earth forms of interest to little children. 1thac.z. Kiel. 190s. p. 166-175. tab., diagrs. 29 cm. [Vortrag 1931. 36 p. illus., diagr. 23 cni. (Cornel1 rural school gehslten auf der Versainmluiig der Deutschen meteoro- leaflet. v. 24, no. 3, Jan. 1931.) logischen Gesellschaft in Hamburg, Sept. 1908.1 Courant, Richard. Uher die grosse atiiiosl)liiiriscli-optische Stijriing von Differential and integral calculus. Translated by E. [J.] 1912. Berlin. 1912. 12 p. tabs. 215 cm. [Separatab- McShane. London & Glasgow. 1934-1936. 2 v. (Trims- driick aus den Mitteilungen der Vereinigung von Freunden Zation of Vorlesungen iiber Differential-und Integralrech- der Astronoinie und kosmischen Physik.] nung.) Lugeon, Jean. Dike, P. H. Les travaux de m6tCorologie agricole de I’Institut national The effect of atmospheric humidity on unsealed resistors, m6t6orologique de Pologiie. warsaw. 1935. 31 p. tabs., causes and remedy. Philadelphia. 1936. 12 p. figs., diagr., maps (1 fold.) tabs. 27 cm. [Reprinted from The review of scientific instruments, July 1936.1 Metropolitan life insurance company. Douglas and Clydesdale, Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, marquis of, Deaths from heat and sunstroke in the United States. New 8 M’Intyre, D. F. York. 1936. 11 p. tabs., diagr. 2356 cm. [At head of The pilots’ book of Everest. Preface by Lt.-Col. the Rt. title: Statistical bulletin. v. 17, no. 7, July 1936.1 Hon. the Lord Tweedsmuir. Garden City, N. Y. 1936. Milch, W. xvi, 270 p. illus. (incl. maps), plates (part fold.), 2 ports. Optik der Atmosphare. Leipxig. 1928. p. [213]-253. tabs. (incl. front.) 22 cm. Maps on lining-papers. “First edi- 245 cm. [Ponderdruck aus Handbuch der Experimental- tion.” physik, Rd. 25, Teil 1.1 Eklund. Ernest E. Moyer, James Ambrose, h Fittz, Raymond U. Report on a nieteorological survey of proposed sites for the Air conditioriiiig. 1st ed. New Pork & London. 1933. vii, San Francisco municipal airport. [wash.] 1928. 69p. 390 p. illus., diagrs. (part fold.) 23% cm. “Tables”: p. illus., tabs. (part fold.), map. 25 cm. (Typewritten.) 376-384. SOLAR OBSERVATIONS THE COMPUTATION OF p AND w FROM SOLAR when P=0; the difference from the European curves ap- RADIATION INTENSITY MEASUREMENTS pears insignificant when m=0, but increases as m in- creases. The American curves (MONTHLYWEATHER By HERBERTH. KIMBALL,Research Assistant, Harvnrd UniverFity REVIEW,1933, PI. 82 and S3, figures 2, 3, and 4) were In the ~~ONTHLYWEATHER REVIEWfor January 1937, computed from !Ingstrorn’s well known equations; but page 18, reference is made to a previous intention that, for O=O, data and equations originally developed by beginning with January 1937, the hgstriim-Hoelper- Lord Rayleigh and later modified by King, were employed. Feussner curves for the determination of P and u’ should See Smithson kin Aleteorologiccil Tobles, 5th revised edition, replace the curves that had been computed by myself 1931, p. lsssiii, and table iii, p. 240. and had heretofore been used in the United States. Atten- The following esnmple will illustrate the reduction of tion was drawn to the fact, however, that in-almost the pyrheliometric observations for the computation of p and first attempt to use the new curves for computing fi ancl w w: The first line in the accompanying table gives the from intensity measurements obtained at the Blue Hill observed values at Blue Hill on February 27, 1937. In Observatory, the difference I,- I, fell above the curved the second line these values have been reduced to mean line representing B=O, while from my own curves a solar distance. In the third line: I,,,has been divided by definite value of B was consistently obtained. The same 1.940 ancl is, therefore, represented as a percentage of the circumstance occurred several times during January and solar constant (71.1 percent); Iy and I, have been further February of the present year. Since a value of P less than reduced by dividing them by the transmissions of the zero can have no meaning, it is necessary to Fontinue the respective screens for a temperature three degrees higher use of my curves until the above discrepnncy 1s esplnined. than the air temperature at the time the measurements Apparently, the difference in the two sets of curves were macle (table 4, MONTHLYWEATHER REVIEW, arises from a higher value of I,,,given by my computations January 1936, p. 5).

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 09/27/21 05:24 AM UTC 62 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW FEBRUARY1937 I have preferred to determine the water vapor content consideration, the depletion for ?n=1.900 is given by of the atmosphere from the amount of depletion it pro- 0.089/1.3S=0.064, or 6.4 percent of the solar constant. duces in the intensity of the radiation in the entire spec- This is principally absorbed by w-ater vapor, but 0.2 per- trum. On the day under consideration, February 37, cent to 0.4 percent is attributed by Fowle to absorption by 1937, 8, computed from Im-Ir, is 0.015, and computed ozone, leaving 6.0 percent to absorption by water vapor. from Iv-Ir is 0.033, giving a mean Palue of 0.024. With An equation on page lsssiii, Smithsonian Meteorologi- this value of 0 the value of Im(dry) is 0.800, as compared ccil Tubles, 5th revised edition, 1931, which is there with 0.711 cleterminecl from I, reduced to mean solar attributed to Fowle, is repudiated by him. He casually distance and divided by 1.94; the difference, 0.S00-0.711 nientionecl it in the hfoNTHLi- WEATHERREVIEW, Vol. 42, =0.089, represents the absorption of solar raditxtion in pp. 2-4, 1914, as an approximation formula that might be passing over a path m= 1.900. used when a better method was not available; but Hnnn The length of the path over which the solar rays pass appears to have been the originittor of this equation (see before reaching the place OI observation is a factor in Sriiiihsonicrn Meteorologicill Tubles, p. lxxii), which served determining: the depletion. In plotting the sunis of the a useful purpose in earlier days before elaborate studies of absorption in individual bands as determined by Fowle, the great water vapor absorption bands in the infra-red it was found that on an average this depletion (the section of the solar spectrum by modern spectroscopic absorption when m=1) was represented by the total methods were available. measured absorption divided by m"; i. e., in the case under

I,-. Date and hour angle Solar Air I, - e altitude mass I. 81- 8u-v 8mu.m 1.94 1.94 ll' --~-~~. 1937 February 27: O ' 7n gr. eal. gr. cal. gr. tal. mm (1) 214 p. m ...... 30 65 1.94 1.405 0.933 0.i56 ...... (2) ...... 1.350 ,916 ,742 ...... (3) ...... 0.711 1.083 .878 0.015 0.033 0.024 80.0 6. 9 6.4 SOLAR RADIATION MEASUREMENTS DURING TABLE 1.-Solar radiation intensities during February 1937-con. FEBRUARY 193 7 MADISON, WiS. CHARLESM. LENNAHAN ~ By Sun's zenith distance For a description of the instruments dnd their exposures, the reacler is referred to the January 1935 REVIEW, ai:z, 1 78.7' I 75.7' I 70.7' I 60.0° I 0.0' I 60.0' I 70.7' I 75.7' 187.70 1 Noon page 24. Date. Air mass Table 1 shows that solar radiation intensities averagecl 75th Local mer. below normal for the morning observations at Washington. time solar The average intensities were above normal for Blue Hill A.M. 1 I P. M. time and for the afternoon observations at Washington. hiacli- '1.0 son and Lincoln intensities are scattered about the nornial 1 e 1 5.0 4.0 I 3.0 1 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 e ~------values, with no definite positive or negative tendencies. ea!. cal. cal. cal. eal. al. al. cal. mm. 1.10 ...... 1.37 Table 2 shows that the values of the total solar (direct 1.14 1.32 ...... 1.02 and cliffuse) radiation received on a horizontal surface . i6 1. L% 1.40 ______1.07 1.W 1.16 1.36 ...... 79 were below normal at half (7) of the stations for which .94 1.14 1.54 ______1.54 ______._____2.OR 1.00 1.17 1.38 ...... 1.30 ...... 3.63 normals are wed, and were above normal at the others. 1.00 1.11 ...... 1.45 The turbidity values for Washington, as shown in table ...... 1.35 ...... 1.96 3, are relatively low. It should also be noted that the Means ...... 85 .99 11.20 11.41 ...... (1.42) ...... variation in water-vapor is very slight. Departures.... 1::::::1--.07 -.07 .OO +.05 ...... -.03 ...... No polarization observations mere made during Feb- ruary because of the presence of a snow cover on the days Fdi. 2 ...... 1.45 1.07 1.23 1.35 1.50 ______1.48 1.32 1.16 1.01 1.45 wlkh were otherwise favorable for such observations. Fell. 4 ...... 81 ...... 1.47 ...... 1.46 ...... 1.12 Feh. 9...... 91 ...... 1.49 1.30 1.13 1.05 .96 Feh. 10...... 1.07 __.___1.07 1.26 1.44 ._____1.31 1.15 .95 ..____2.62 TABLE1.-Solar radiation intensities during February 1967 Feb. 13...... 4.37 ...... 1.31 1.45 ...... 2.74 Feb. 16.___.___ 2.06 1.01 1.14 1.29 1.47 ...... 1.46 1.12 ...... 2.74 [Gram-calories per minute per square centimeter ofnormal surface] Feh. 18...... 3.6: ...... 78 .21 ...... 10 .30 ...... 3.45 Feh. 23...... 2 62 ...... 1.44 ...... 1.60 WASHINGTON. D. C. Feh. 24 ...... 1 68 ...... 1.2s ...... 1.85 Feb. 25 ...... 1.12 .90 1.03 1.16 1.39 ...... 1.37 I Sun's zenith distance Means ...... 99 1.15 1.08 1.30 __.___1.44 1.00 .82 (1.03) ______Departures._.. ~ _____ +.OG f.13 +.03 -.07 ...... +. 08 -.15 -.I9 +.11 ......

- - - Date Air mass Local Feh. 1...... 3. 5 ...... 1.38 ...... 1.38 1.10 2.6 75th mean Feh. 2. 2.0 ...... 1.20 1.0 mer...... time A. hl. P. M. solar Feb. 3______._ 1. 5 ...... 1.23 ...... 1.7 II time.. - Feh. 4 ...... 1. 5 1.12 1.18 1.25 1.32 ...... 1.35 1.25 1. 7 Feb. 7...... 2. 1 ...... 1.00 1.30 ...... 1.30 1.23 1.6 e 6.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 e Feb. 10...... 3.3 ...... 1.34 1.23 3.2 ------Feb. 11.._____. 2.0 ...... 1.28 ...... 1.43 1.33 1.2 mm. cal. col. cal. cal. cal. eal. eal. eal. cal. mm. Feb. 12...... 2. 1 ...... 1.13 1.10 2.4 Feh. 2...... 1.78 0.43 0.67 0.96 1. 13 ______1.15 ...... 1.45 Feh. 16 ...... a. 5 ...... 1.20 ...... 2.6 Feb. 3______1.68 .70 .86 1.M 1.3 ______1.25 1. 12 1. 00 0.83 1. 52 Feb. 17...... 1.4 ...... 1.37 1.26 1.15 1.06 .ti Feb. 6 ______2.36 .41 .52 .76 .si ._____.___...... 2.87 Feb. 19...... 2.9 ._..__.84 1.10 1.27 __.___1.14 1.07 1.9 Feb. 10...... 3.00 .48 .56 .76 1.0s ...... 2.49 Feb. ?3 ...... 2.3 ...... 1.05 1.10 ...... 1.10 .97~1:~~~1" 2.0 Feb. 11...... 1.37 .49 .64 .66 1.27 ______1.25 1.10 .90 .64 1.24 Feh. 24 ...... 3.0 ...... 1.03 ...... 3.6 Feb. 12______._ 2. i4 ._____---.-. .90 1.16 ___.__...... 2. i4 Feh. ?fi ...... 2. a ...... 1.03 ...... 2.0 Feb. 14______6.18 .___..---.-...... 1.24 .79 .____._____.2.49 Feb. ?7-- ______2. 1 ...... 1.40 ...... 1.40 1.30 1.21 1.13 1. 2 Feb. 15.______3.81 .72 .86 .98 1.29 ______...... 3.30 Feb. 28 ...... 1.3 I...... 1 ...... I1.24Il.36I ...... ~1.40~1.31~1.20~1.14~1.6 Feb. 17______1.68 ______1.16 1.30 1.52 _____ ~ 1.39 1.21 __._..______2.26 Mems...... (1 12) (1 01) 1 16 1 28 ...... 1 27 1 20 1 08 1 03 ______Means ...... 6d .76 .92 1 19 ______1.26 1.06 (.95) (.84) ______Departures.___ I______I+:24 /+:02 /+:OS I+:OZ 1 ______l+:Ol 1+:04 I+:Ol I+:O2 I______Departures ____ ._..__-. 17 -.07 -.09 l-:Ol ___.__1+.65 t.06 +.OS f.07 I_.._._ I *Extrapolated. Unauthenticated | Downloaded 09/27/21 05:24 AM UTC