nasa releases their code skeptics are

NASA Releases Their Code:

Skeptics Are Still Upset

NASA has always been reluctant to release it's computer code. The

reasoning behind this is as follows:

We publish hundreds of papers a year from GISS alone. We have more

data, code and model output online than any comparable institution,

we have a number of public scientists who comment on the science

and the problems to most people and institutions who care to ask.

And yet, the demand is always for more transparency. This is not a

demand that will ever be satisfied since there will always be more

done by the scientists than ever makes it into papers or products.

My comments above stand - independent replication from published

descriptions - the algorithms in English, rather than code - are

more valuable to everyone concerned than dumps of impenetrable and

undocumented code. - gavin

The English version of the code has always been available in what

gavin calls "excruciating detail" in the relevant papers. After the

miscommunication between NOAA and NASA about the content of NOAA's

changing real time data streams the pressure from to release

temperature code has changed NASA's tune. It is now available online

here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/

Hansen also produced a public statement detailing the release in which

Hansen made the following comment:

Because the programs include a variety of languages and computer

unique functions, Reto would have preferred to have a week or two

to combine these into a simpler more transparent structure, but

because of a recent flood of demands for the programs, they are

being made available as is. People interested in science may

want to wait a week or two for a simplified version.

And if you either read Gavin's previous comment or have done any

programing yourself you would know that reading undocumented computer

code can be extremely difficult. And in the comments of the skeptic

site ClimateAudit.org we have the following comment:

As a general rule I'm not fond of heavily documented code because

it introduces an additional point of failure. As code is edited, it

begins to no longer resemble the comments unless the extra work to

maintain the comments is done as well. And in my experience, this

is almost never done. So I'd tend to cut Hansen some slack here on

the source code.

Which defends NASA's practice of undocumented code. Despite getting

what he wanted McIntyre is not happy:

In my first post on the matter, I suggested that Hansen's most

appropriate response was to make his code available promptly and

cordially. Since a somewhat embarrassing error had already been

identified, I thought that it would be difficult for NASA to

completely stonewall the matter regardless of Hansen's own wishes

in the matter. [snip] Had Hansen done so, if he wished, he could

then have included an expression of confidence that the rest of the

code did not include material defects. Now he's had to disclose the

code anyway and has done so in a rather graceless way.

And he is apparently digging through reams of red tape to see what he

can throw at Hansen:

NASA has very specific standards applicable to software described

here . [snip] As I understand it, GISS is part of the Goddard Space

Flight Center and is subject to these guidelines. It looks like

they apply even to Hansen

Now I personally agree with McIntyre that the code should have been

released right away even if it was so unreadable it would have been

useless. However, given that GISS research science is operating on a

"going-out-of-business budget" I'm starting to wonder if all of this

ruckus is just a tactic to prevent any meaningful research from being

done. Those standards are for billion dollar rockets and not

scientific experiments that can be independently verified by other

research teams like the CRU. Hansen has barely enough money to support

a skeleton staff and to make sure his lawns are mowed yet McIntyre

expects him to jump through more and more hoops? The code is released,

the papers were always public and the data is public yet McIntyre