0 ——— nn 
Survey of Northeast Greenland. 187 
X IX V Skerry II 
Date Hour | Temp. dk dk dk dk Hour | Temp. | _ АЕ — 
+ ЕЕ +] _ zn 
25.July … | 7745| +82 | 8 1165 19| 22 | | | 
26. — ...| moo| 4 5.8 |101| | 78 106 273 Hat 
27. Aug. ... | 8P00| + 0.8 60 14 168 171| 8240| -- 0.8 | | 457 
13. Sept. ... | 7200| +46] | 13| 34| | 30 17 7720| +46] | 92 
14. — ... | 7520| +65 641 |109, 28 23| 1240 +68) | 158 
9.June... | 7200! +08 16 120 131 326 | 7220 | +02 |133. 
15. — ... | 6210 | +24 | 57 303 101 95 6230| +24] | 77 
20. — ... | Op50| +25 | 211183| | 47 | 222 7200 | +44 | 141) 
Mean.. | 7p.l | | +1 | +54 | +13 | +95 | 74 | | +85 
27. July ... |11r00 | + 7.0 20|158| | 19 815|11r20| +70 | 119 
29. — ... | 10200| +24| 9 6| |171 |168 10p40 | + 2.4 | 164 | 
30. — ... | 8P40; +71] 4 29 | | 125 368] 9710) + 7.1 | 52 
8. Aug. ... |10P10] +0.7 | 18 36| |126 154 | | 
1272... | 8230-50 51 142 | 51 | 317 9200 + 3.5 | 15 
23. — ..:| 8p30| -=-0.9 | 5) NR 64 125| 9210 +12 | 248 
11. Sept. ... | 8p20| +43 95 31| 61 78 8240 - 4.3 |191 
15. June … |10210| +10] | 3) 1466) [407| | 1047) 1030) +11 1449 
Mean.. | 924 | ем + | +51 | +205 | ws| +75 
In order to facilitate the general view I have in Fig. 15 given a 
graphic sketch of the daily rate of the co-efficient of refraction, 
leaving out, however, the value of Horizon II, the grouping of which 
seems to have been particularly unsuccessful. It must be borne in 
mind that the abscissa line in Fig. 15 stands for the mean value of 
the co-efficient of refraction for each of the four lines of vision, in 
other words, a value which differs greatly in the case of each of 
the four lines. 
The table and Fig. 15 show that the sudden and strong os- 
cillations of the co-efficient of refraction make themselves felt in the 
mean values computed for the single groups, sometimes in a rather 
disturbing manner. In the figure this appears strongly, as far as 
the “Skerry” is concerned, in that the greatly deviating high value 
of 9P.4 is owing to the abnormal value of Jk on June 15th at 10P10. 
It appears particularly in the case of Horizon II, where the above- 
mentioned four values of 11250 and 8P40, grouped with a somewhat 
doubtful justice, rather confuse the picture. If we had, in an arbi- 
trary manner, interchanged the two values of 11250 and so also the 
two values of 8P40, the daily rate of the co-efficient of refraction in 
the line of vision at Horizon II would have fitted in very well with 
the other values. 
If it must thus be admitted that the material collected is not 
