{"id":9278,"date":"2019-01-10T15:30:54","date_gmt":"2019-01-10T23:30:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stormbruiser.com\/chase\/?p=9278"},"modified":"2021-01-20T19:26:01","modified_gmt":"2021-01-21T03:26:01","slug":"unravelling-death-valleys-134f-record-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stormbruiser.com\/chase\/2019\/01\/10\/unravelling-death-valleys-134f-record-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Unravelling Death Valley’s 134F Record, Part 2 Early Greenland Ranch Data Reliability"},"content":{"rendered":"

PART ONE is here<\/a><\/p>\n

PART THREE is here<\/a><\/p>\n

PART FOUR is here<\/a><\/p>\n

PART FIVE is here<\/a><\/p>\n

PART SIX is here<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

August 2016 update<\/strong> —- This part is complete through early 1921, or through the Oscar Denton time as observer at Greenland Ranch. \u00a0A close examination of the following few decades of the Greenland Ranch record is needed, but that work will come later.<\/p>\n

\n

January 2019 update<\/strong> —- I am adding charts of the daily maximum temperatures for many periods during the Denton and pre-Denton years. \u00a0These help to show how the regional daily maximum temperatures behave, and are useful for revealing possibly problematic data.<\/p>\n

Some parts updated in January 2021<\/strong>. \u00a0I added the daily temperatures (in pdf files) at Greenland Ranch from 1911 to 1921.<\/p>\n

—-<\/p>\n

This is Part 2 (of 6 parts or more!) of my research regarding the early temperature records for Death Valley, and especially its record maximum temperature of 134F.\u00a0 Part 1 looks closely at Death Valley weather station histories and previous studies on the 134F record.\u00a0 Part 2 dives into the first ten to twenty years of record at Greenland Ranch cooperative weather station and examines the data reliability.\u00a0 It will be shown that these early records are fraught with errors, inconsistencies, and poor observing practices.\u00a0 Because of the relatively routine problematic nature of the temperature data, it allows the researcher to make some assumptions regarding the character and capabilities of the observer(s).\u00a0 And, it makes it easier to dismiss, or reject, records which appear problematic.<\/p>\n

The Death Valley record maximum of 134F has stood for 100 years.\u00a0 It is practically “etched in stone” in the minds of most climatologists and people with an interest in weather.\u00a0 It is not easy to undo records such as this one.\u00a0 If I just throw out a few statements and statistics, such as:\u00a0 “Death Valley’s long-term climatological record and the surrounding station data do not support the 130-degree temperatures.”\u00a0 And, “The observer back then was ill-suited for the task…”\u00a0 Well, that alone is not going to change a lot of minds.\u00a0 A solid body of research to support these contentions is required!<\/p>\n

In order to convincingly discredit the 130-plus temperature reports at Greenland Ranch in July, 1913, there are two crucial elements to realize:\u00a0 a) the observer (i.e., Oscar Denton) could not be relied upon to provide trustworthy data, and b) maximum temperatures from surrounding stations do not support the record maximums in Death Valley.\u00a0 Before the detailed comparisons of high temperatures in the region, it is prudent to first delve into the minefield that is the early Greenland Ranch temperature record.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Early Greenland Ranch Record Woes<\/strong><\/p>\n

The reports received from any weather station are only as good as, only as reliable as, only as useful as the quality and reliability and proper exposure of the instruments and equipment; further, the records and reports from any weather station are only as good as, only as reliable as, only as useful as the competence, commitment, concern and due diligence of the person or persons responsible for the observations.\u00a0 The weather instruments at Greenland Ranch were carefully and properly set up by U.S. Weather Bureau personnel in 1911, and were left in the hands of the superintendent of the Pacific Coast Borax Company. \u00a0The superintendent in 1911 was Fred Corkhill, and apparently he had other workers with the company perform the weather observing tasks.\u00a0 (In the Climatological Data publications through 1914, “J.W. Corkhill” is shown as observer for Greenland Ranch. \u00a0Additional research indicates that Corkhill set up the instrumentation at Greenland Ranch, and that USWB personnel likely did not visit the station until 1924. \u00a0Corkhill was an observer at the USWB station in Candelaria, Nevada, during the late 1890s, and was familiar with the equipment and observing procedures.) \u00a0Little is known about the background of the observers at Greenland Ranch. \u00a0 (However Part 6 here<\/a> provides some research on Oscar Denton.) \u00a0Did they receive extra pay for taking the observations once a day?\u00a0 Were they thoroughly trained regarding the instrumentation and the proper procedure for making the observations?\u00a0 Did they fully appreciate the importance of providing consistent, accurate temperature and precipitation records?\u00a0 Did they welcome the weather observing job, or was the daily routine of taking the observations a nuisance or a “drag”? \u00a0(New research on Greenland Ranch and Oscar Denton is in Part 6.<\/a>)<\/p>\n

The Greenland Ranch weather observer was tasked to read and reset the maximum and minimum thermometers in the wooden shelter just once per day, every day, at or around the official observation time of 5 p.m.\u00a0 It takes just a minute or so to carefully check the thermometers and to reset them.\u00a0 Then, of course, the observer had to enter the daily maximum temperature, the daily minimum temperature, and the “set max” temperature onto the monthly form.\u00a0 The “set max” temperature is the temperature shown by the maximum thermometer after it is spun a time or two. \u00a0 After a proper reset, it should show the current air temperature, and it should be very close (within a degree or so) of the temperature indicated by the minimum thermometer.\u00a0 Both thermometers should be in a horizontal position before the observer closes the shelter door.\u00a0 The daily temperature readings should reflect the highest and lowest shelter temperatures attained during the previous 24-hour period, since the previous day’s observation at 5 p.m.\u00a0 If there has been any rain since the previous observation, the observer is also tasked to determine the amount that has collected in the rain gage.\u00a0 Rain which enters the catchment portion of the standard 8-inch gage is funneled into a narrower metal tube, which allows readings to the nearest “hundredth of an inch” with a long, graduated, measuring stick.<\/p>\n

This section scrutinizes the Greenland Ranch record from June, 1911, to 1921. \u00a0Denton’s final month as observer was February, 1921, or thereabouts. \u00a0His successor, Victor Ceballos, may have been filling in for Denton a little prior to then. \u00a0There is quite a bit of comparison, detail and discussion, all of which is designed to provide a better understanding of observing at cooperative weather stations and of temperature patterns and behavior in the Death Valley region.\u00a0 One thing to keep in mind is that, when comparisons are made between Death Valley stations and surrounding stations, it is generally assumed, unless otherwise stated, that the data from the non-Death Valley stations are trustworthy, and are legitimate.\u00a0 The climate researcher should never blindly assume that the published weather data are good!\u00a0 Mistakes can and do occur in a variety of ways.\u00a0 It is the job of the climatologist to separate the good data from that which might be suspect.<\/p>\n

This detailed review will show that a very large portion of the early Greenland Ranch climate record is riddled with errors, inconsistencies, suspect temperatures, curious data sets, and instrument malfunctions.\u00a0 The problematic data are due almost entirely to observer incompetence, carelessness, ignorance and\/or laziness…and\/or perhaps due in part to observer “over-zealousness.”\u00a0 If an observer does not know how to, or does not care to, provide a solid and reliable temperature record, then it is not realistic to expect consistently trustworthy data.<\/p>\n

Forms for Independence are provided, also. \u00a0The Independence weather station observer was the U.S. Weather Bureau, and the published data should be trustworthy and of excellent quality. \u00a0Though Independence is about 75 miles west-northwest of Furnace Creek and Greenland Ranch, and about 4000 feet higher in elevation, the changes in temperature from day-to-day and week-to-week are comparable, especially during the warm half of the year. \u00a0Both of the Greenland Ranch and Independence stations are near the bottom of their respective north-south and deep basins. \u00a0Owens Valley and Death Valley are usually under the influence of the same air mass. \u00a0If maximum temperatures are trending in opposite directions between the two stations for a period of time, then that may well mark a period of questionable reports from one of the stations.<\/p>\n

\n

New Section added to Part 2! \u00a0I am compiling all of the Greenland Ranch daily max and min temperature (and precipitation) figures.<\/p>\n

Well, at least all of them through 1921, for now. \u00a0The entries in the table below are those original figures as they were entered onto the original climate forms by the observer (or by the Greenland Ranch superintendent). \u00a0The purpose of this information is to demonstrate much of the problematic data during the first ten years of record at Greenland Ranch. \u00a0For some months before about 1916, when the “set max” information was provided, some maximums (on the original forms) were increased to match the set max temperature entered for the previous day. \u00a0It is assumed that these “write-overs,” or corrections, were made by the USWB. \u00a0It is possible that these corrections were made by the observer’s supervisor (the Greenland Ranch superintendent), but I do not think that that was the case.<\/p>\n

In the tables you will find columns for daily max and min temperature, the daily temperature range, the set max temperature (before 1916), and the precipitation amount. \u00a0I provide the set max temperature where it is higher than the next day’s maximum temperature, and in the few cases where it is lower than the minimum temperature provided for that day. \u00a0(I know — that sounds ludicrous, but it did happen). \u00a0Again, in the temperature tables are the original entries as provided by the observer. \u00a0The “write-over” entries which match the previous-day set-max temperatures were changed back to the original entry, if that original entry was decipherable.<\/p>\n

The average daily maximums and minimums, the monthly means, and the monthly extremes in the tables here may differ some from the values shown on the original forms. \u00a0They may also differ some from the values to be found in the tables for Greenland Ranch and Death Valley as provided by the Western Region Climate Center (WRCC). \u00a0Some of the WRCC tables incorporate “corrected” data, and\/or temperature data that has been discarded because it appears to be bad data.<\/p>\n

These are pdf files. \u00a0You can make them large enough to read by mousing over the (+) thingie at the bottom and clicking.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

GR 1911 Daily temps<\/a><\/p>\n

GR 1912 daily temps<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0GR 1913 Daily Temps<\/a><\/p>\n

GR 1914 Daily temps\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

GR 1915 daily temps<\/a><\/p>\n

GR 1916 Daily Temps<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0GR 1917 Daily Temps<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0GR 1918 daily temps<\/a><\/p>\n

GR 1919 Daily Temps<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0GR 1920 Daily Temps<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0GR 1921 Daily Temps<\/a><\/p>\n

GR 1911 – 1920 summaries<\/a><\/p>\n

(MORE UPDATES\/January 2021).\u00a0This entire “part” (Part 2) of the study is quite detailed and quite lengthy. \u00a0Below, after the overviews and starting with the “Greenland Ranch Data Quality, 1911” section, you will find detailed discussions of the problematic temperature data at Greenland Ranch from 1911 to 1921. \u00a0This is for those who enjoy getting into the weeds and the particulars and who yearn to really understand why these early temperature records are very suspect. \u00a0Immediately below, in this updated section, I am going to insert what is hopefully a more succinct and reader-friendly summary of the data issues from 1911 to 1921.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1911 GR Data Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n

Station opened on June 8, 1911<\/p>\n

Observer: \u00a0Thomas Osborn<\/p>\n

Set Max data were provided for each observation. \u00a0The set max data set appear good, but suggest that the time of observation was usually quite a bit later than the official 5 p.m. observations time.<\/p>\n

Temperature Data Quality: \u00a0The GR temperature data for 1911 appear to be very good. \u00a0The daily ranges are quite large compared to most of the GR temperature record. \u00a0This strongly suggests that the instruments were above and\/or near the “cultivated land” at the ranch, as indicated in the station’s Substation History notation. \u00a0The evaporative cooling effects of the nearby moist ground surface promotes cooler maximums by a few degrees (F) and also promotes cooler minimums by perhaps 5 to 10 degrees (F) or more most days, compared to nearby locales which are not affected by the cooling effects of the ranch area. \u00a0The smallest daily range at GR from June to December was 20 degrees! \u00a0The average daily range was a very healthy 35.7 degrees.<\/p>\n

1912 GR Data Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n

Observers: \u00a0Thomas Osborn for the first 5-6 months. \u00a0William Weston for about July and August. \u00a0Oscar Denton for about September to December. \u00a0Osborn contracted typhoid at the ranch and died in 1912.<\/p>\n

Set Max temperatures were provided for each observation. \u00a0The set max data are not problematic until October 21, when the maximum temperature for the day is lower than the previous-day set max. \u00a0There were about 12 additional such occurrences from late October through December this year. \u00a0This problem suggests that the set max temperature entries were “made up,” and\/or the maximum thermometer was being reset more than once per day on a regular basis by the new observer, Oscar Denton.<\/p>\n

Temperature Data Quality: \u00a0The GR temperature data for 1912 appear to be very good through September. \u00a0One exception may be the 120F maximum on May 29, which appears to be an outlier and about 5-10 degrees too high. \u00a0The minimum temperatures begin to behave in an abnormal fashion by early November. \u00a0In November and December, the minimums during stretches of many days show little change while slowly decreasing in value. \u00a0It is hypothesized that the minimum thermometer was not functioning properly and was unusable for the most part, perhaps as early as October 20th. \u00a0It is hypothesized that the observer may have been resetting the maximum thermometer in the morning to help in an estimation of the minimum temperature. \u00a0This would explain the beginning of the “set max” temperature discrepancies noted above. \u00a0The minimum temperatures are not trustworthy from October to December. \u00a0A minimum of 42F on October 2 is probably a 72F.<\/p>\n

All daily temperature ranges were above 20 degrees in 1912, except for one day in July with a range of only 17 degrees. \u00a0The instrumentation was very likely above and\/or near the cultivated ranch land and its significant evaporative cooling effects. \u00a0The average daily range for 1912 was a very healthy 35.6 degrees.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1913 GR Data Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n

Observer: \u00a0Oscar Denton<\/p>\n

Set-max temperature data are provided for each month, but are “lined-out” on the form for December, 1913. \u00a0Most months this year have at least a few instances where the set-max temperature is higher than the next-day’s maximum, and\/or have “fixed” maximums to match the previous-day set-max temperature.<\/p>\n

The overall temperature data quality for 1913 is very poor. \u00a0The percentage of maximums and minimums which end in a “0” or a “5” is disproportionately high, and is likely indicative of many “estimated” temperature entries. \u00a0During the spring and summer months are many maximums which appear to be too high as they are not supported by the maximums at surrounding stations (including the July reports of 127F to 134F). \u00a0The minimum temperatures appear to be especially problematic in the fall and early winter, as they become increasingly and abnormally warm towards December.<\/p>\n

Daily ranges of less than 20 degrees become increasingly common after July, and average daily ranges become absurdly low by November and December. \u00a0The continued large average daily ranges of the first half of 1913 suggest a moist instrument environment, and the very low and very untrustworthy average daily ranges of the last few months of 1913 suggest major problems with the instrumentation and\/or observer observing methods.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1914 GR Data Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n

Observer: Oscar Denton<\/p>\n

Set max data are provided for each month, but are “lined-out” for January, July-October and December. \u00a0By fall and early winter, nearly all of the set-max temperatures range from one-to-three degrees lower than the maximum temperature for the day. \u00a0It appears that all or most set-max temperatures were fabricated for the last few months, at least.<\/p>\n

The overall temperature data quality is extremely poor and untrustworthy during 1914. \u00a0A note for April says that the minimum thermometer had a “split column” and was out of service for three days. \u00a0The too-warm minimums and too-small daily ranges of late 1913 continued in early 1914 and resurfaced again from October to December, 1914. \u00a0Most of the maximums of September appear to be estimated, as most are either 109 or 110. \u00a0 Given so many problems, it is difficult to trust ANY of the summer maximums. \u00a0Some entries may be good, and the extreme monthly maximums are probably good. \u00a0A high percentage of temperature entries are likely estimates due to the large number of “0” and “5” values.<\/p>\n

The very problematic minimum temperature reports contributed to an average daily range of only 23.8 degrees for 1914, or about 12 degrees lower than that for 1911 and 1912. \u00a0UGH!! \u00a0 Was the thermometer shelter still above or near the cultivated land? \u00a0The flawed data make it impossible to determine.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1915 GR Data Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n

Observer: \u00a0Oscar Denton<\/p>\n

Set max data are available for January through September only. \u00a0From June to September, nearly all of the set-max entries are exactly two degrees less than the maximum temperature for day. \u00a0In other words, the set-max temperature information is of no use, except to provide a well-earned decrease in trust in any and all of the temperature data. \u00a0On a couple of January dates, the set max temperature was lower than the minimum for the day. \u00a0There are plenty of write-over maximums during the warm season to match the previous-day set-max temperatures. \u00a0This is sad, as the set-max data are largely bogus to begin with.<\/p>\n

The overall temperature data quality of 1915 is extremely poor. \u00a0Similar to 1914, the early months of 1915 were afflicted with the absurdly high minimums and small daily ranges. \u00a0Daily ranges look too small for the bulk of the warm season also, especially if the instrumentation was still above and\/or near the cultivated field. \u00a0 The average daily range for 1915 was a paltry 21.6 degrees. \u00a0Continued minimum thermometer problems likely persisted. \u00a0Minimums are missing for most of December, and the minimum thermometer was out of service through the following January. \u00a0The number of “0” and “5” entries soared to 210 in 1915, or about 2 out of every 7 temperatures. \u00a0(Statistically, this ratio should be close to 2 out of 10.) \u00a0The “0” and “5” values are believed to represent a good chunk of estimated data, which may or may not be very close to reality.<\/p>\n

The warm-season maximums show at least a handful of suspect values. \u00a0Can most of the monthly maximum temperatures be trusted, and were these from the original shelter location, adjacent to the cultivated field? \u00a0The best answers that I can provide, given the “look” of the data and how it compares, is “maybe” and “maybe.” \u00a0 Since so much of the data are suspect, it makes it difficult to put much trust into any of the temperature reports.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1916 GR Data Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n

Observer: \u00a0Oscar Denton<\/p>\n

No set-max data provided in 1916.<\/p>\n

The overall temperature data quality for 1916 is poor. \u00a0There were no minimums entered in January due to the out-of-service thermometer, but thereafter the minimums appeared to be much better compared to previous years. \u00a0Nine consecutive days in June had missing minimums. \u00a0241 out of the 690 (or thereabouts) total maximum and minimum temperature entries (35 percent) ended in a “0” or a “5.” \u00a0There are plenty of timeframes during 1916 (of maybe 2-7 days in length) where the temperatures appear estimated, suspect, or just plain bad. \u00a0However, the average daily range for the year came up to a reasonable 28.9 degrees. \u00a0If we can assume that the minimums are accurate for the most part this year, then it may be the case that the instrumentation was now not as close to the cooling effects of the cultivated land at the ranch, and was above the bare ground which was apparent in the station photos circa 1920. \u00a0I am not ready to hang my hat on that assumption. \u00a0Like 1915, the monthly maximums in 1916 are probably authentic, but it is very difficult to trust much of the daily maximum temperatures.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1917 GR Data Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n

Observer: Oscar Denton<\/p>\n

No set-max data are provided by the observer.<\/p>\n

The overall temperature data quality for 1917 at Greenland Ranch is fair, at best. \u00a0It appears that the minimum thermometer is not problematic, and the absurdly high minimums and small daily ranges of the winters of 1913-14, 1914-15, and 1915-16 are no longer. \u00a0The temperature data for most of the non-summer months appear reasonable, though with the occasional short spurts of curious data (i.e., the “0” and “5” data and the even-numbers). \u00a0The quality for the year is deemed as “fair at best” because many of the July and August maximums appear estimated and inauthentic, as they are much too warm compared to surrounding stations. \u00a0The average daily range of 30.9 degrees in 1917 is about 5 degrees lower than those for 1911 and 1912, suggesting that the instrumentation might be at the photographed but not-officially-documented “bare ground” site by 1917. \u00a0The current Death Valley station, above bare ground, has an average annual daily range of about 29 degrees. \u00a0Please see the 1917 section below for more a detailed discussion on the problematic July and August temperatures.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1918 GR Data Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n

Observer: \u00a0Oscar Denton<\/p>\n

No set-max temperatures are provided.<\/p>\n

The overall data quality for 1918 at Greenland Ranch is back down to “poor.” \u00a0Amazingly, 318 out of the 730 maximum and minimum temperatures have a “0” or a “5” as the last digit (44 percent!). \u00a0It appears that a good number of the temperature entries in 1918 were estimated due to missed observations. \u00a0No doubt, some estimates were pretty good, and some were pretty bad. \u00a0The monthly maximum and minimum temperatures are probably<\/em>\u00a0good. \u00a0The average daily range slips down to only 26.6 degrees. \u00a0If the minimum thermometer was not problematic during 1918 (which seems to be the case), this smallish average daily range suggests that the instrumentation was above bare ground and not cooled significantly by evaporative cooling at the ranch. \u00a0This researcher also thinks that the decreasing daily range values (compared to 1916 and 1917) are due in part to the increase of estimated entries by the observer, which seem to err on the conservative side. \u00a0That is, the estimated maximums ran a little lower than reality, and the estimated minimums ran a little higher than reality. \u00a0A daily minimum of 110F this summer, and one daily July maximum of 85F, are very likely bogus.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1919 GR Data Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n

Observer: \u00a0Oscar Denton<\/p>\n

No set-max temperatures provided.<\/p>\n

The overall temperature data quality in 1919 at Greenland Ranch is fair, bordering closely on poor! \u00a0In 1919, the number of “0” and “5” entries decreased a little, and the average daily range came up to 29.3 degrees. \u00a0This value is close to what one would expect at a bare-ground station near the ranch. \u00a0Still, there are plenty of periods with curious temperature patterns: \u00a0periods with the “0” and “5” and even-number routines during which comparison with surrounding stations tends to become less tight.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1920 GR Data Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n

Observer: \u00a0Oscar Denton, though the climate forms late in the year show some entries in the handwriting of Victor Ceballos, who replaced Denton in early 1921.<\/p>\n

No set-max temperatures are provided.<\/p>\n

The overall temperature data quality in 1920 at Greenland Ranch is poor. \u00a0This year showed an increase of “0” and “5” entries (284 out of 730, or 39 percent), and a decrease in average daily temperature range to only 24.7 degrees. \u00a0It appears that Denton was estimating a very large number of daily extremes, and that his estimates were conservatively low on the maximums and conservatively high on the minimums. \u00a0There are too many poor temperature comparisons with surrounding stations this year to provide even a “fair” assessment of the data quality.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1921 GR Data Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n

Observer: \u00a0Denton for Jan and Feb, Victor Ceballos March to December<\/p>\n

No set-max data<\/p>\n

I have not looked closely at the 1921 data, but the first two months with Denton as observer continue the trend of numerous estimated temperatures, presumably. \u00a0The average daily range values increase quite a bit after January to values much greater than during the previous 3 years, which may suggest that Ceballos was a more reliable observer who was missing fewer observations.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Greenland Ranch Data Quality, 1911<\/strong><\/p>\n

Monthly Greenland Ranch and Independence forms for 1911:<\/p>\n

GR 1911 06<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0inde-1911-06<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

GR 1911 07<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0inde-1911-07<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

GR 1911 08<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0inde-1911-08<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

GR 1911 09<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0inde-1911-09<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

GR 1911 10<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0inde-1911-10<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

GR 1911 11<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0inde-1911-11<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

GR 1911 12<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0inde-1911-12<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Daily maximum temperature charts for Death Valley and select surrounding stations for June to September, 1911:<\/p>\n\n\t\t