Atmospheric Electricity

Abstract

IF I drew an erroneous inference as to the Carnegie reduction factors I regret the fact; but if so, it seems a case not of the reviewer's inadvertence but of the inexactitude of the language quoted in the review. Consultation of pp. 207–209 still leaves uncertainty as to what really happened. On p. 209 it is stated, as Dr. Bauer remarks, that the final mean results were based on “all reduction-factor observations during the years 1915 to 1921,” but we should infer from p. 207 that after an observation on April 1915—the original deductions from which we learn from p. 209 were from 24 to 35 per cent. in error—no further observations were taken until the commencement of Cruise VI. (1919 presumably). The other observations chronicled occurred in 1921. I referred to the point in connexion with the question whether the neglect of Potsdam results, which did not support a sunspot influence, was justified on account of an alleged uncertainty in the reduction factor, an uncertainty which seemed to me unlikely to be greater than that affecting the Carnegie factors. The rejection of Potsdam data is, however, now advocated on the ground of “the severe climatic conditions to which that station is subject.” To this we can only say, what of Eskdalemuir?