On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 12:22:32 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Swanson) wrote:

In article , says...

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 01:14:09 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Swanson) wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:54:26 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Swanson) wrote:

15 August 2007

RECORD EVENT REPORTS FROM NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA

NEW PREVIOUS YEAR OF
LOCATION RECORD RECORD PREVIOUS

STATIONS SETTING (OR TIED) A NEW RECORD HIGH TEMPERATU

SEATTLE, WA 84 83 2002
============================================== ===============
I just took this one at random and found that the record for Seattle
on August 15th was 96 degrees F set in 1942. And, I don't think it
was anywhere near 84 last Wednesday. (the high was 73 today)

Hey, I don't make this stuff up:

http://www.weather.gov/view/validPro...=RER&node=KSEW
================================================ ==============
I'm at a loss to figure out what that is that you're referencing. If
you go to:
http://www.weather.com/weather/clima...o&cm_cat=www.y
ahoo.com&cm_pla=

you'll see that the average record high temperature for August in
Seattle is about 93. The hottest ever was in 1981 at 99.

The data I posted was from the official National Weather Service
Office in Seattle. Now, if you want to use the Weather Channel
as an accurate source of data, go ahead. First, tell us the
exact location of the measurements they present. I'd bet that
the NWS site is the Seattle airport. There are lots of other
sites around Seattle, which might explain the difference.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/sew/observations.php

Of course, there's always the chance for human error.
Don't throw out all the other data just because you think there
might be a problem with one value. There were 192 records set
according to the NCDC site and many of the NWS reports are not
included in the NCDC data set.
================================================== =
You are correct. The temperatures I was using must have come from
another site.
The high record of 84 just caught my eye as it was so low, the lowest
high record in August by the looks of it.