I think a reasonable compromise is that maybe amounts are inflated by like 10% on average today because I don't think anyone used the clear method 100 years ago...I am even willing to concede that, but this obstinant insistance that its 15-20% is frustrating becaues its not as clear cut as he portrays it. I'm sure the array of reports wasn't as dense as it is today, either, so maybe snowfall back then was also a bit under represented if some higher amounts were missed. I don't reject that entire concept, but just feel its overstated.