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.?
Read full abstract