I'm not interested in engaging with you, but when I see you post false information I feel compelled to point out your false claims.
There are tables that show the correction for non-standard temps and pressures. Your number is highly exaggerated. Crude is an understatement.
Are you seriously suggesting that given the prevailing conditions that morning, the normal criteria applied....really?
You must be consulting kitchen tables, Here is an actual Table showing corrections to be applied to Mean Refraction according to the prevailing air temperature and barometric pressures.
"The coefficient of refraction is directly related to the local vertical temperature gradient and the atmospheric temperature and pressure. "
The maximum distortion conditions prevailed. Do you know what the possibilities regarding the amount of refraction existed at that time? No, you don't, nor do I, but it would have been considerable... Hence Tim Malton's findings of "Much refraction". Why don't you simply admit that you did not think to factor that in when considering Rostron's sighting of the green flare? Might the unthinkable be true? That you might just be wrong?
Edited to correct confused quotation formatting. MAB
Last edited by a moderator: