what about the FSU Superensemble

[kevin]

We could have used that 600,000 dollars worth of behavioral science that might expand our understanding of group dynamics and offer interesting insights into the evolution of behavior, and bought a seat cushion for a stealth bomber.

[air360]

oh...my...goodness.......................................................................

[clfenwi]

http://tinyurl.com/c7a9m

Again, an old reference, but scroll down to page 11 and you will see the grant money received by the meteorology department of FSU between 1997 and 2000.

[CentralFlGal]

Now at this point you might be wondering how do you conduct a study into the sex life of squirrels. You could put on a lab coat, get a pen and paper and try to interview the squirrels, or you could do the more traditional route and apply for a federal grant, take grad students to Africa and study the squirrels over there.

That's exactly what Dr. Waterman did and you're paying for it. What's that costing you? $600,000.

Well, shoot. I would've let them sit in my backyard for fifty bucks to watch squirrel playtime in the cypress trees...

[themusk]

Most of that strange-looking research that people ridicule is good solid useful science.

An example I often use with people who don't understand how "money wasting" research is often very important is that of the researchers who spent plenty of money to study whether people in burning buildings move away from the smoke and fire. I'm sure if the popular, non-scientific media had learned of the research before it was completed they would have ridiculed it in every newspaper in America. What a boondoggle! Everyone knows that people run away from smoke and fire!

Except they don't.

We now know, thanks to this research and other research like it, that in a fire many people run towards the smoke and flames.

Some do so to try to see for themselves that there is a fire, to determine the size of the fire, to see what risk the fire poses, etc. Unfortunately most people don't understand that with fire they usually have seconds, not minutes, and certainly not tens of minutes, to get out of harm's way. This misguided urge to confirm the existence and extent of the fire is responsible for a significant percentage of fire fatalities.

Others do so because, in a crisis, many persons revert to routine. If the fire is in the path of their usual exit or their designated fire escape, these persons will try to walk through the smoke and flames to get to that exit. These people, too, end up as casualties.

Learning that people often move toward the smoke and fire in a burning building puts us in a much better position to save lives.

So when the media makes fun of scientific research, I remind myself that very few reporters and editors -- even very few "science" reporters -- have any scientific background at all. The media regularly mangles and misunderstands science, including the point of scientific research, and the media adores hype and scandal, even if it has to manufacture it.

Of course there is trash research out there. Plenty of papers never see the light of day in peer reviewed journals, and for good reason. But even the most respected and reliable media outlets wouldn't know the difference between trash science and scientific treasures.

[Big-Iguana]

Weather Predict, Inc. was created in 2000, to commercialize the Super Ensemble weather forecasting model invented by internationally acclaimed FSU meteorologist T.N. Krishnamurti. Although this model is best known for its continuing success in predicting hurricane storm tracks, Weather Predict uses the model to tailor weather forecasts to the needs of large companies with weather dependent operations. Headquartered in Raleigh N.C., with an office in Tallahassee, Weather Predict offers clients accurate long-term local forecasts with hourly updates on a nationwide basis.

The multi-model Super Ensemble™ is a patented forecast technology of Florida State University that is used under exclusive license by Weather Predict (WP).

http://www.weatherpredict.com/forecastingProcess.htm

[jlauderdal]

Most of that strange-looking research that people ridicule is good solid useful science.

An example I often use with people who don't understand how "money wasting" research is often very important is that of the researchers who spent plenty of money to study whether people in burning buildings move away from the smoke and fire. I'm sure if the popular, non-scientific media had learned of the research before it was completed they would have ridiculed it in every newspaper in America. What a boondoggle! Everyone knows that people run away from smoke and fire!

Except they don't.

We now know, thanks to this research and other research like it, that in a fire many people run towards the smoke and flames.

Some do so to try to see for themselves that there is a fire, to determine the size of the fire, to see what risk the fire poses, etc. Unfortunately most people don't understand that with fire they usually have seconds, not minutes, and certainly not tens of minutes, to get out of harm's way. This misguided urge to confirm the existence and extent of the fire is responsible for a significant percentage of fire fatalities.

Others do so because, in a crisis, many persons revert to routine. If the fire is in the path of their usual exit or their designated fire escape, these persons will try to walk through the smoke and flames to get to that exit. These people, too, end up as casualties.

Learning that people often move toward the smoke and fire in a burning building puts us in a much better position to save lives.

So when the media makes fun of scientific research, I remind myself that very few reporters and editors -- even very few "science" reporters -- have any scientific background at all. The media regularly mangles and misunderstands science, including the point of scientific research, and the media adores hype and scandal, even if it has to manufacture it.

Of course there is trash research out there. Plenty of papers never see the light of day in peer reviewed journals, and for good reason. But even the most respected and reliable media outlets wouldn't know the difference between trash science and scientific treasures.

ok, most of it is useful, studying squirls having sex in africa isn't and is open to plenty of ridicule. let's give the 600k to feed the kids in africa or 600k to ortt for hurricane research. we have strayed a bit off topic and i had asked for cooler heads to prevail on the thread which was ignored last night so lets keep our cool and continue the search for more info on the mysterious superensemble and who is paying and more importantly why it's kept so secret and I believe at one time it was public.

[jlauderdal]

I launched an email this morning to several people at FSu including Professor T.N. Krishnamurti the prof that developed the idea. I will let everyone know what the response is.

[dhweather]

No your tax dollars are not funding that model. That was likely developed using research grants

Furthermore, just because your tax dollars pay for something, doesn't mean you are entitled to it. Using that logic, you are entitled to classified national security info just because your tax dollars fund it

That depends on the origin of the grant. If NOAA or any other
government agency gave FSU the grant, then yes, tax dollars paid for it.
The federal government gives out millions of dollars in research grants each year.

That Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) actually does entitle taxpayers to
a lot of information, but you have to file a FOIA request to get the
information. As Derek pointed out, that does not apply to issues such as
national security and such.

Here's NOAA's FOIA page:

http://www.rdc.noaa.gov/~foia/

[Andy_L]

Weather Predict, Inc. was created in 2000, to commercialize the Super Ensemble weather forecasting model invented by internationally acclaimed FSU meteorologist T.N. Krishnamurti. Although this model is best known for its continuing success in predicting hurricane storm tracks, Weather Predict uses the model to tailor weather forecasts to the needs of large companies with weather dependent operations. Headquartered in Raleigh N.C., with an office in Tallahassee, Weather Predict offers clients accurate long-term local forecasts with hourly updates on a nationwide basis.

The multi-model Super Ensemble™ is a patented forecast technology of Florida State University that is used under exclusive license by Weather Predict (WP).

http://www.weatherpredict.com/forecastingProcess.htm

I think you have your answer as to WHY its not available right there don't you?? Its a commercial product

[jlauderdal]

No your tax dollars are not funding that model. That was likely developed using research grants

Furthermore, just because your tax dollars pay for something, doesn't mean you are entitled to it. Using that logic, you are entitled to classified national security info just because your tax dollars fund it

That depends on the origin of the grant. If NOAA or any other
government agency gave FSU the grant, then yes, tax dollars paid for it.
The federal government gives out millions of dollars in research grants each year.

That Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) actually does entitle taxpayers to
a lot of information, but you have to file a FOIA request to get the
information. As Derek pointed out, that does not apply to issues such as
national security and such.

Here's NOAA's FOIA page:

http://www.rdc.noaa.gov/~foia/

Thanks for the info. I posed the tax dollar question in my email to the prof as well as the reasoning behind protecting the data from the public. We will see if I get a response. If I don't get a response I have other places to send my request. There has to be a good explanation for all of this, right?

[jlauderdal]

Response received from "krish" the prof and he has asked Mr Jayant Khaldikar of Weather Predict to respond. I will parapharase the answers I receive as I don't think it is fair to do a copy n paste of an email without someones permission.

[kevin]

You're right. Understanding why the squirrels are not in aggressive competition for mates isn't important. You realize this is basically the same thing as finding a purple flamingo right? Wouldn't you want to know why the flamingo is purple?

Males compete for mates.

Do you see this kind of behavior in bars?

is that the males live together in a non-aggressive way even though they are competing for sexual favors of the female."

No.

Do you see it in antelope, goats, kangaroos, and lions? Nope. Do you see it in the squirrels behind your house? No again.

Why are they different? Why doesn't something fit the pattern? That is the nature of science. Its really off topic, I know. But there is good science and bad science, from what you've posted this sounds like really good science. Just not your kind of science, and I understand that.

[jlauderdal]

You're right. Understanding why the squirrels are not in aggressive competition for mates isn't important. You realize this is basically the same thing as finding a purple flamingo right? Wouldn't you want to know why the flamingo is purple?

Males compete for mates.

Do you see this kind of behavior in bars?

is that the males live together in a non-aggressive way even though they are competing for sexual favors of the female."

No.

Do you see it in antelope, goats, kangaroos, and lions? Nope. Do you see it in the squirrels behind your house? No again.

Why are they different? Why doesn't something fit the pattern? That is the nature of science. Its really off topic, I know. But there is good science and bad science, from what you've posted this sounds like really good science. Just not your kind of science, and I understand that.

there is also wierd science as in that crappy movie about 15 years ago