Abstract
I AM glad to read Mr. Cook's reply to my remarks, but believe that my criticism cannot be dismissed as a mere a priori one, and that it goes to the root of the matter. It is true that Mr. Cook illustrated his proposal in a most exhaustive manner, and that he did not suggest that his method might be of service in comparing the rainfalls of places in quite different climatic regions. But the general reasoning in the first paragraph of my former letter cannot be both correct and incorrect. Assuming it to be correct, it follows directly that even if we confine our attention to the records for a single station we might have the same C.G. for two years which differed greatly from one another as regards the monthly distribution of rainfall. In such a case, what possible significance could attach to the position of the C.G.?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
