All miniscule and insignificant.
You have timelapses on your Wiki which demonstrate how refraction varies over the course of a day.
It is not admittedly that big an effect, but over the distance of miles can yield quite variable observations.
Also, out of curiosity, what do you think the change in altitude is when you're looking at the fucking horizon?
When I was talking about change of altitude I was talking about change in viewer height. If we are on a globe then that would mean you can see further over the curve, which is why the distance to it increases with altitude.
Considering that I've already given countless examples
Cool. Then it shouldn't be hard for you to pick one. You are notoriously unwilling to answer a straight question with a straight answer. If you have countless examples then just pick one. Come on. One specific example. We both know you wont because you do this sort of thing a lot. Avoid giving a straight answer and providing specific examples and then pretend you did. It comes across as gaslighting.
There is a gaping hole in your logic, and you know it well.
As usual you're speaking in riddles. You claim there's a hole in my logic, don't say what it is and then say I know what it is.

But OK, let me guess. Is it that I'm claiming EA is an ad hoc mechanism and then using refraction to "fix" problems in inconstant observations when they don't match a RE? If that is it then all I can do is repeat you are drawing a false equivalence between refraction and EA in terms of how well understood and well formed a theory they are. And observations "not matching RE" is pretty much always because the RE model which observations are compared to is the simple one where we live on a perfect sphere with no atmosphere. Or, at best, an atmosphere with "standard" refraction. As I've said, that isn't the RE model. In real life the atmosphere is turbulent and chaotic and refraction varies over the course of a day - you literally have timelapses on your Wiki which demonstrate that.