Hi Amanda,





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.



While I like your reasoning, "record" has two definitions, and I think you are confusing the two. One definition is "something that is recorded" and another definition is "the most extreme." When a statement is made that the temperature today broke the 1930 record, it means that the temperature that was recorded in 1930 was broken. It does not mean that 1930 was an all time "record/extreme" high temperature.



You are absolutely correct, that in 1930, no one cared that the temperature hit 98. But today, when you look back at history, and look at all the temperatures recorded over the last 200 years, it then becomes a significant reading. (For example, if you look back at the example I made up in the previous post, and consider the 2004 reading of 99 degrees, then you would look back at the temperatures of previous years until you found a higher temp. (the one in 1850) Once you found the date of that higher temp.(1850), you would then look between that date(1850) and today's date to find the next highest temperature. That would bring you to 1930. So you would say that today's temp. broke the "record" in 1930. You must look between todays temp. and a higher temp. to find this next highest "record", in order for this next highest temp. to be broken.) When you say today's temperature broke the "record" of 1930, you are saying that today's temperature is higher than it was in 1930, and that the 1930 "recorded" temperature was higher than every year's "recorded" temp., on this day, from 1930 until today's temp. broke it. And by omitting the statement that it broke "all historical records", you are also saying that there was at least one higher "recorded" temp previous to 1930.



I hope I am explaining this well.



-----



Another way to look at it. If 1930 had been a maximum record, then today's temp. would have broken all recorded historical data. The news makes a distinction between a heat wave breaking all recorded historical data, and breaking a record on a previous date. This distinction wouldn't even exist if the 1930 reading was indeed a "maximum" record.



Rodney

[ Show Entire Thread ]