"Then the 2004 temp. would have broken the 1930 record of 98, and the news would report it as such. It would not have broken the 1850 record of 101.



"If the 2004 temp. had broken the 1850 record, the news would have reported it as being so hot that it broke all recorded temps. So, while it sounds sensational to say that it broke a record set in 1930 record, in fact, it was hotter on this day in the year 1850. This means that there have been 154 years in a row of temps. that have been cooler on this day than the recorded 1850 temp."



please correct me if i am wrong, perhaps i have been misled in my knowledge of the definition of records. i thought that a 'record' meant that it was the most extreme. so in your example, if there was a record temp. of 98* in 1930, wouldn't that mean that in 1930 there were no temperatures higher than 98* in previous recorded history? otherwise there would be nothing at all sensational about the temp. hitting 98* in 1930--no one would care, and the record temp would still have been the 101 of 1850.



thanks for your reply--i like this forum . it's a lot nicer than that war zone known as the leopard gecko forum.



amanda

[ Show Entire Thread ]