I have downloaded the Jones et al Model data for Oxford UK from “http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2009/12/08/uk.csv” (an extract from “http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/reference/All.zip”) and compared it to the Actual temperatures as recorded at “http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/oxforddata.txt” for the relevant dates, 1900-1980.

These two series are believed to be the same station.

Model.

Number= 038900
Name= OXFORD
Country= UK
Lat= 51.7
Long= 1.2
Height= 63

and

Actual.

Oxford
Location: 4509E 2072N 63 Meters

I have caclulated the tMonthlyMean values from the Actual data (tMonthlyMax, tMonthlyMin) and compared it to the Model tMonthlyMean figures on a month by month basis. These mostly show a +-0.05 difference (which is presumably due to some rounding errors to get to 0.1 degree published values either by me or by others).

Can anyone tell me why, then, the last fews years of the Model data (1978-1980) differs so widely from the Actual recorded temperatures? The Model is out by up to 2.2 degress C and an average of 0.36 degress C of apparent warming when compared to the Actual temperatures for just these last few years. That is, the Model shows a unexpected temperature rise of up to 2.2 degrees C in Oxford if using the Actual figures.

Actual – Model Oxford 1978-1980
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1978 0.15 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.25 0.40 0.35 0.25 0.05 0.45
1979 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.15 0.25 0.40 0.90 0.25 0.20 0.05
1980 0.20 0.25 0.70 0.40 0.35 0.15 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.30 0.15 2.20

Anyone with any insights into this divergence of the Jones et al Model from Actual?

and then download the related zip file from one of these sites:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206
http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009

so does this mean the opposite is true and data quality is thought of rarely?

Seems to me that, for Intellectual Property Rights to apply in this case, the clear implication is that the data is a work of fiction.

The IPR issue is likely to be a non-disclosure agreement.

It is possible that these agencies require purchasers of the data to agree not to pass it on to other parties. It is an issue for international standards committees. These groups used to finance themselves, in part anyway, by the sale of copies of the standards. Copying machines were an issue with this but the advent of the web was a particular problem. People expected that these public standards should be free to access. That was possible but how were the standards groups going to get the money to make them free to access.

Some of the data he uses comes from other countries, and part of the arguement he uses is that there are some countries that don’t want their data released. Yet he even refuses to list which contries these are, so that other researchers can approach them and ask to use the data.

But in both cases the patentee or copyright holder is asserting a right involving creations of the mind that have been prevously disclosed to the public, not data taken from instrument measurements. There’s no creativity in the latter, and keeping such data secret is completely antithetical to patent and copyright law—not to mention to the spirit of science itself.

Imagine if Michelson and Morley had said “Yep, our data confirms the existence of the ether — but we’re not going to share it with you.” They would rightly have been regarded as charlatans.

Wasn’t there a spoof called “The Journal of Irreproducible Results”?
Maybe Jones can publish and copyright his data there.