Paper detail

Interview with Warren Wiscombe on scientific programing and his contributions to atmospheric science tool making

On March 11, 2013 I talked with Warren Wiscombe about his contributions to scientific computer programming, atmospheric science and radiative transfer. Our conversation is divided into three parts related to light scattering, radiative transfer and his general thoughts about scientific programming. There are some reflections on how radiative transfer parameterizations gradually sneaked in to modern climate and atmospheric Global Circulation Models. Why some software programs such as light scattering code MIEV and DISORT are very successful and why some of them fizzle. We talked about the role of tools in modern science, open source movement, repeatability of scientific results, computer languages, computer programs as objects of arts, and even if programs can be revolutionary.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.