This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The highest shaded temperature ever recorded in San Luis R.C was recorded on August 11, 1933. the temperature was 136.8 degrees Fahrenheit ( 58.2 Centigrades). This is the heighest officially accepted reading in the world under "standard conditions". This reading edges out Death Vally`s 134.0 on July 10, 1913 and 134.6 Degrees fahrenheit on July 13, 1934. It also edges out Al 'Aziziyah`s reading of 135.9 Fahrenheit on September 13, 1922. Another place is Nosrat`abad in Lut Desert in Iran, that recorded 138.0 Fahrenheit also set in the 1930`s, but this reading is under further investigation by WMO.
Note that the above user often adds exaggerated climate data such as these edits. Graham87 12:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, there is no need to add erroneous historical temperature data to articles, which is why I have continued to revert the edits which introduced it. The fact that it's still on a government meteorology website doesn't mean that it's correct. Graham87 01:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
So, if the Mexican Meteorological Service is wrong, then Who in the World, according to you, it is who knows about the weather and the climate of Mexico? ★ Nacho ★(Contact me) ★ 21:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
They're not necessarily "wrong", they just haven't gotten around to removing old data that hasn't been quality-controlled from their database. I've found similar problems with data from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. And the book by the Spanish university is not a reliable source in this case; you can find many books that use weather data that is now considered rather suspect. For what it's worth, Christopher C. Burt says of this record that "The thermometer used for this reading was considered badly overexposed and this record is invalid". Also, you cannot use averages for one period of time while using records from a longer period of time ... some of the climate records, like the 48.0 degrees in March, seem incredibly suspicious to me as well. Graham87 01:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)