Rare Weather Station: Unchanged Over 138 Years, Data Show No CO2 Impact On Temperature!

In Germany there is one weather station that has be intact and unchanged for some 138 years.

It has never been moved and never been corrupted by the urban heat island (UHI) effect. Moreover it has consistently used the same instrumentation and computation method over the entire period, thus making it rare indeed. Few station can boast having those instrumentation qualities.

That measurement station is one operated at the Klostergarten of the St. Stephan Abbey in Augsburg just northwest of Munich.

44-year veteran German meteorologist Klaus Hager reports the following results of this station (reproduced with permission):

A look at the January mean temperature in Augsburg from 1879 – 2017 ( 138 years)

The chart below shows the chaotic ups and downs of the mean value of the January temperatures measured in the Klostergarten of the St. Stephan Abbey in Augsburg:


First it’s important to note:

  1. The measurement location has not changed since 1879, nor has it been relocated. The garden area remains 1 hectare in size, and thus is completely representative of the Augsburg inner city area.
  2. The mean temperature was computed by halving the sum of the high temperature and the low temperature.
  3. The measurements were always done using glass thermometers – a mercury thermometer for the maximum and an alcohol thermometer for the minimum – inside an official so-called Stevenson screen.

Thus real continuity with respect to measurement is assured.

Over the entire 138-year observation period the measurements were carried out according to the same technical requirements, which is something that unfortunately can only be said about very few measurement stations.

As the chart above shows, one can see considerable temperature fluctuations from year to year. The deviations from the 138-year mean of -1.0°C are shown in red for above-mean temperatures and in blue for those below the mean. Of course since the end of the 1980s, positive deviations have been far more common, but there remains no detectable relationship with the continuously rising CO2 in the air.

Because nature – as is the case with temperature – is constantly undergoing fluctuations, one ought to be especially careful when it comes to making projections into the future. Unfortunately nature’s complexity also does not allow it to be modelled adequately.

January of 2017 was the seventh coldest since 1879, posting a mean of – 6.1°C.

Finally let’s not forget to thank the fathers of the St. Stephan Abbey for having recorded the temperatures every day until today.


47 responses to “Rare Weather Station: Unchanged Over 138 Years, Data Show No CO2 Impact On Temperature!”

  1. Ryddegutt

    It would have been interesting to see the adjusted version by GHCN from the same region.

  2. SebastianH

    Is that a hand drawn graph? Wow …

    Is your emphasize on the fluctuations a preparation for the way too warm January 2018? 🙂

    1. AndyG55

      Another MEANINGLESS empty comment from seb the child-troll.

      1. TedM

        Correction “infant troll”.

    2. AndyG55

      Look at those temperatures, -1.0°C average.

      No wonder Germany needs COAL power to keep warm in winter.

      Only a total idiot would complain about a slightly warmer winter. (Probably snuggled up in his granny’s fossil fuel heated basement.)

      1. SebastianH

        Only “a total idiot” would say something like what you just said …

        1. AndyG55

          So Germany doesn’t need COAL to stay warm…?

          … and you keep your basement at -1.0ºC.

          Right, seb…

          No wonder you have no time for finding any actual science.

    3. wlhyde

      Wow! What an airhead you are! How else would the monks draw a graph? With their feet? Mouth painting? Next time read, and then think before commenting! Sheesh, what a dope!

      1. SebastianH

        Did you just say that monks are not capable of using computers in 2017? The stereotypes are strong with you …

    4. Kurt in Switzerland


      You wrote, “… for the way too warm January 2018?”

      Look… at… the… graph.

      Did you happen to notice the values for past Januaries:
      specifically 1915, 1920, 1921, 1948, 1974, 1975, 1983 and 2007.

      Those months were apparently 3.0 deg. C warmer than the norm in Augsburg. If abnormally warm January temperatures in 1974, 1975, 1983 and 2007 were caused by excessive human CO2 emissions, what do you reckon could possibly have been responsible for the same phenomenon occurring in 1915, 1920, 1921 and 1948?

      BTW, are you suggesting that a hand-drawn graph would be inferior (or perhaps less accurate) than one generated by a plotter?

      1. SebastianH

        One weather station doesn’t say a lot about global warming and would be hard to correlate to anything. As Pierre wrote, the fluctuations are massive and you can only see trends over a long time period (compute a moving average with 30 years length).

        I am suggesting that it takes a special type of person to hand draw a graph in 2017 … use a computer, include trend lines, don’t calculate the mean temperature as the average of the warmest and coldest temperature, etc

        1. RAH

          One weather station with very rare uncorrupted data over such a long time period shows a record that indicates there is no warming at it’s location. I would suggest you find a station somewhere else that has the same or similar history that does show warming before you comment on the import of that.

        2. AndyG55

          You know you WERE NOT suggesting that..

          You are just squirming out of another of your snide comment.

          LYING even to yourself.. !!

        3. Kurt in Switzerland


          I noticed that you avoided my question entirely, instead choosing to offer a statement implying that “Global Warming [due to human CO2]” is clear and present, despite “one station data” suggesting it hasn’t made a measurable difference.

          So please find those regional, continental or global long-term stations with uncorrupted data demonstrating that there has been a [noticeable temperature effect] due to rising human CO2 emissions.

        4. Bob Armstrong

          “One weather station doesn’t say a lot about global warming ”

          It shows a hell of a lot about the irrelevance of any fraction of a degree change in estimated global mean to the climate in that region .

        5. yonason (from my cell phone)

          Yes, chatbot. It’s much better to use fabricated temperature “data” from multiple locations, than to cite a trend from a single well managed station with REAL data.


          You might as well be an AI for your inability to think critically (in a good way).

          See graph on page 13 in the following link (THAT I’VE POSTED BEFORE), to see what SebH wants us to be terrified of, and realize that the folly is exposed by comparing what he’s worried about with the temps from just one month from one city.

          It’s the warmists, not the skeptics, who are the “flat earthers.”

    5. Bitter&twisted


  3. Eric

    My bet is somehow that long running weather station will be lost in some accident.

  4. MGC

    If you actually put this data into a spreadsheet and do a regression analysis, you find that there is an extremely noisy yet statistically significant (p = 0.0014) upward trend. The claim that “there remains no detectable relationship with the continuously rising CO2 in the air” is incorrect.

    1. lemiere jacques

      sure. that s quite clear and factual.

    2. Ric Werme

      You’re reporting a trend against time. Given that CO2 concentrations have not changed at a linear pace, you should be comparing the temperature anomaly to CO2, not time.

      There’s a good chance you’ll find a stronger relationship.

  5. Paul Stevens

    One wonders what the results are from the “very few measurement stations” that have had measurements taken according to the same technical requirements? Rural stations in remote areas, with no taint of UHI effect? Isolated locations with written records (Arctic radar stations, Antarctica scientific stations)?

    1. AndyG55
      1. AndyG55

        And to show the quality of this station.


  6. gnome

    Are you seriously suggesting that because it’s in a one hectare garden it isn’t affected by an urban heat island effect?

    I’d want a much bigger buffer than that before I’d accept that.

    1. AndyG55

      I agree that there is likely to be small urban effect.

      But a lot of the area around would have been there for a long time.


      The station itself is quite close to the south east corner of the block, rather close to building for my liking.
      Easy enough to find on Google Earth.

    2. AndyG55

      ps, In Pierre’s link you can zoom in and see someone actually taking readings 🙂

  7. Velcro

    So what’s intrinsically wrong with a hand drawn graph, Seb?

    1. SebastianH

      It’s 2017 and historical data should be available in a computer readable format. They only publish temperature data (in graphical form) beginning with the year 2011 on their website (http://w1.onoca.de/). The station has been in the DWD (German weather service) records until 1974. You can find it here ftp://ftp-cdc.dwd.de/pub/CDC/observations_germany/climate/monthly/kl/historical/ (station number 00231).

      You can do so much more with a graphing software, e.g. show that there is a clear trend upwards 😉

      1. Kenneth Richard

        The “clear trend upwards” is from the 1880s to the 1940s. After that, there is effectively no net warming. In other words, there is no correlation with anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

        Will you be supplying the data you claimed you had soon, SebastianH? Or will you be continuing to dodge these requests to back up your claims?

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Here’s another continuous instrumental temperature station record from a lighthouse in SE Australia that shows…no warming since the 1800s.


        2. AndyG55

          Seb has no data, and NO SCIENCE to back up anything he says.

          He just squirms like a mullet every time he is asked for some, or runs away like a headless chook.

          He STILL can’t produce a single piece of empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming in our convective atmosphere.

        3. AndyG55

          The data at seb’s ftp link has a massive hole in it from start 1914 to start 1936. Zero data through that period.

          Like everything else seb posts here, it is WORTHLESS.

          Any pretence of a “clear upwards trend” from his data is a LIE. (nothing unusual about LIES from seb, is there)


      2. ewing caldwell

        Seb said:
        “It’s 2017 and historical data should be available in a computer readable format.”
        “You can do so much more with a graphing software, e.g. show that there is a clear trend upwards ”

        The Abbey is looked after and the meteorological measurements are taken by monks of the Benedictine Order who live by the Rule of St Benedict which includes a vow of a vow of Voluntary Poverty. If you feel so strongly about their lack of computerisation, Seb, then you should donate your computer and its “graphing software” to them. I’m certain the monks will be able to put it to vastly better use.

  8. Jamie

    Just eyeballing the graph I see about 15 tenths of warming… need to plot data more accurately to determine the trend…..the 15 tenths is still 1.5 degrees c

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Actually, the graph shows no warming from the mid-1970s to today, and the mid-1970s had CO2 concentrations in the 320s ppm. That’s +90 ppm CO2 and +0.0 degrees C warming.

      In contrast, nearly all the warming from the start to the end of the record occurred from the 1880s to the 1940s, when CO2 concentrations rose by but a tiny fraction of what they did from the 1970s to now.

      These trends for this one temperature station in Germany (abrupt warming between the 1880s and 1940s, cooling to the 1960s/1970s, and then a warming similar in magnitude to the 1920s-1940s warm period through to the present) are similar to the ones for the Northern Hemisphere….


      …and Northern Europe:


      And, interestingly, none of these oscillating temperature trends follow the path of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. That is why the article states there is no CO2 signature in these temperature anomalies for the last 138 years. Understand now?

      1. otheus

        The graph certainly _does_ show warming from 1975 to today. I’m not sure what you’re looking at, but I see one which clearly shoes more red than blue. It might be that the blue spikes are taller than the red ones, but the red areas under the curve are certainly “heavier”, indicating much more energy during those times than in the previous decades. Even so, the _average_ might have remained neutral. 3 years of a +1 warmer January and a 4th January whose average is -3 colder will appear to have a net-0 average. But it might yet indicate a warming compared to previous years.

        CO2 levels are always down in the the winter. I don’t recall seeing a graph of January CO2 levels. Do they also show the increase seen in the overall picture?

        We also need a temperature July / August graph to compare to.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          CO2 levels are always down in the the winter.

          Why do you think that is? What’s the mechanism, since human emissions don’t drop seasonally?

          1. AndyG55

            There is an animation of satellite measure CO2 levels somewhere. Can’t find it in my bookmarks though.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            Are you referring to the one from NASA that shows the highest concentrations of CO2 are in the non-industrialized tropical areas?

          3. AndyG55

            I vaguely remember one that also showed CO2 changing with the seasons, but I can’t remember which way.

            Plants use more in summer, obviously, but more is released as decay etc in summer as well.

            Oh well, still can’t find it.

  9. Steve

    I don’t give a rats arse about CO2 emissions, or the climate
    They are just not a problem.
    Bullshit is a problem and a lot of that is coming from ‘he who’s name shall not be mentioned’

  10. Jamie

    @Kenneth it does not appear to be much warming from the mid 70’s. This is only one month of data….what do the other months show. I would agree that almost all the temperature records do not have a high correlation to co2 increases. Co2 is not the only factor in climate change. Btw I believe that ecs due to co2 is very low. The other factors make high and low variations in the temperature record. That is why the correlation is low.

  11. A C Osborn

    Can I ask if they have any data for the other months of the Year?

  12. Rare Weather Station: Unchanged Over 138 Years, Data Show No CO2 Impact On Temperature! | Un hobby...

    […] by P Gosselin, January 19, 2018 in NoTricksZone […]

  13. dar7yl

    Just a minor quibble. The satellite image shows that the spot where the measuring station resides is occluded by a large tree. Surely that tree has been constantly growing. Surely, that would be a significant factor in the consistency of the temperature data.

    1. AndyG55

      You can find the St Stephen’s screen pretty easily


      Trees are not that big, and they appear to be to the north-east, so would have very little effect.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy