article on FSU Superensemble and NHC from Lakeland Ledger

[Downdraft]

Here's a hypothetical but I think it makes an analogy. Say I develop a system that can not only forecast tornado development but predict 1 hour in advance the path a tornado can take. Then I convince the NSSL and SPC to use my data for a couple of years to see if it works. On numerous occasions the SPC references my data and it's accuracy. Now I've established legitimacy for the product. The next step I take is to withdraw its "free" use and market the data only to those that pay for it. Smart move on part to let the best in the business give it their stamp of approval before I go on the market huh? To bad some poor town gets wiped off the map cause the data was no longer available. Oh well, that's business.
As for the claim that someone is a meteorologist I take that with a grain of salt in this forum. Those with that credential have proven it to the staff while many that make that claim have not.

[upupandaway]

Downdraft and wxman57,


Downdraft, I am not sure what you are referring to with this analogy. This company is apparently not wanting to withhold the information from the government; they indicated in the Ledger article that they are going to provide it to them. Yes, it will cost the government something. But, when you consider that the company owns the rights on the data, I don't know what the issue is. Now, if the company said, "We are not going to give the data to the government unless they pay us billions" then I think you'd have a case and that would be irresponsbile on their part. But, we have no idea what, if anything, NHC is going to have to pay. And, consider that FSU was already getting grant money to run the thing operationally anyway, and no one is whining about that. Furthermore, the government pays mucho dollars to run the GFS each year, and the Europeans pay mucho dollars to run their models each year, and the GFDL costs money...and on and on...you get my point. So, what is so wrong with a company selling data to the US government?

And another thing, I have read some articles on this company, and they already have a number of clients, both for tropical and "regular" weather forecasting. It's not like they were "cutting their teeth" with NHC. They had already been out there selling their stuff in the market for the past few years, according to some articles. (Remember that the Super Ensemble can be used on any forecasted field, too. Tropical fcstg is only one application.)

wxman57, it is one thing if they were to price the data in the millions for the US government, where the US taxpayers (who number in the hundreds of millions) would benefit immensely from the information. That seems justified, especially when you consider that the price of evacuating one mile of coastline costs nearly $1mil. If the Super Ensemble can lower the track errors by a few dozen miles each storm, isn't that worth it to the taxpayers!? I am a taxpayer and that sounds like a good deal to me. Of course, if investment groups or others want to pay millions for the info, too, then why wouldn't they sell it for that amount to them? If the company didn't want to dilute the value of the info, then they'd probably only sell it to a few clients anyway, but who knows.

Now, you have no right to complain that everyone can't afford the data in the marketplace. Heck, I want a new Boeing 747 for my own to fly around the world, but I can't afford one, so I drive an old Honda. But, Uncle Sam can afford a 747, so George Bush flies around in one. It's tough luck for me, but I feel pretty good knowing the President is flying around in a safe, fancy plane like that and don't mind footing the tax bill for that. So, if this forecast model is better than anything else out there, only those that can afford it should get, especially when the gov't, who is responsible for public safety, is clearly going to get it. Doesn't that make sense?

Sorry for my rambling. Interested to hear you guys' thoughts.

[wxman57]

Downdraft and wxman57,

wxman57, it is one thing if they were to price the data in the millions for the US government, where the US taxpayers (who number in the hundreds of millions) would benefit immensely from the information. That seems justified, especially when you consider that the price of evacuating one mile of coastline costs nearly $1mil. If the Super Ensemble can lower the track errors by a few dozen miles each storm, isn't that worth it to the taxpayers!? I am a taxpayer and that sounds like a good deal to me. Of course, if investment groups or others want to pay millions for the info, too, then why wouldn't they sell it for that amount to them? If the company didn't want to dilute the value of the info, then they'd probably only sell it to a few clients anyway, but who knows.

Now, you have no right to complain that everyone can't afford the data in the marketplace. Heck, I want a new Boeing 747 for my own to fly around the world, but I can't afford one, so I drive an old Honda. But, Uncle Sam can afford a 747, so George Bush flies around in one. It's tough luck for me, but I feel pretty good knowing the President is flying around in a safe, fancy plane like that and don't mind footing the tax bill for that. So, if this forecast model is better than anything else out there, only those that can afford it should get, especially when the gov't, who is responsible for public safety, is clearly going to get it. Doesn't that make sense?

Sorry for my rambling. Interested to hear you guys' thoughts.

My point was that if they plan on selling it for a lot of money (millions), then their customers would be extremely limited, possibly to only one (US Government). Nobody else would buy it. Or they could sell it to many people/groups for a lot less.

[Tropigal]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/ ... -headlines

[Stratusxpeye]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-smodel06jun06,0,3802596.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

Good article.

This is how sponsored research is done, she said. "If one of our researchers develops a formula for a drug, we don't manufacture the pills and hand them out.

Hard to argue with a comparison like that. Just as some others have posted like sitations already in this thread.

[x-y-no]

The FSU Superensemble wouldn't exist without the NOAA funding they received to develop it. Morally, if not legally, NOAA has a right to the product of that funding.

Seems to me NOAA has a simple answer. Cancel all grants to any researcher at FSU. That's got to run into the multi-millions every year. And put Weather Predict on the blacklist for receiving any government contracts. No reason they should be the only ones playing hardball.

I'd say that would get them to reconsider their attitude real fast.

[Jaggy]

In browsing the website of the FSU Meteorology department, I found something quite curious. It seems as part of the department, they have a section of the website devoted to the tropics. On this page, there is mention not only of the Superensemble but the descriptor "(restricted experimental model not available at this time)". Futhermore a blinking icon stating "restored" is placed next to the link to the MM5 model runs.

Perhaps this is just me reading into something nonexistent, but if legal maneuvers are currently occuring between the government, NOAA, FSU, the private company, etc, I wouldn't have expected the superensemble to even be mentioned on the page.

EDIT: I forgot to include the link ... http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/tropical.html