The conversation turns to why NASA shares the Black Marble methodology openly rather than treating it as a black box. The underlying point is that convincing the public that scientific findings are not made up matters as much as communicating the findings themselves, and that showing the assumptions behind a physics-based model builds credibility in a way a hidden algorithm or neural network cannot. The approach is described as applied radiative transfer physics with visible, checkable assumptions, built on techniques inherited from earth observation scientists going back to the 1970s and 1980s.
570 words · auto-generated from the episode video
44:50>> Yeah. Well, we're we are huge fans of NASA at the podcast and I think all of our viewers are huge fans. So, I think you're doing you're doing a great service for doing this kind of work and triple and the Golden Goose Awards are just such a great way to recognize something like this. I hope you know we continue funding this kind of stuff. We continue doing this kind of stuff. It's it's an incredible privilege to talk to you. Congratulations on the award to not just you but also uh your co-reients. Um, yeah, this was this was really fun. I I learned a lot. Um, I hope you don't mind the technical questions, but I don't think you did. I think you're an engineer at heart. >> You've enthused me. I that's for sure.
45:30>> All right. Well, um, yeah, I'll be seeing you later today. It's going to be a fun time. >> Thank you. Thank you again. Thank you for all the work you do. I mean, it means a lot to us to share how we do our work with integrity because it takes years. >> Yeah. And I think >> and and for you to deep dive on the algorithm, it it means a lot because it shows that you're doing the due diligence that's required to build that credibility with your audience. >> Yeah, um a lot of the time folks, most of the folks tell me no one's going to read that. It's like people read it. >> No, I mean you'll be surprised. You'll be surprised at how many people resonate
46:12to the methods of how you get the data, you know, because as scientists, I think, yeah, I'm just going to go on a little tired, but like as scientists, um, convincing the public that what we're saying is not made up is, I think, as important as communicating what it is that we found. >> I think that's that's a very important point because you're giving us the opportunity to show that we're not using a black box. >> Yeah, I know. Yeah, it's not we're it's it's not made up, right? This is this is not just word that somehow it works. Like this is actual >> physics. Yeah. This is Yeah. This is just physics being applied in a very reasonable way. There's assumptions that are like open. that you can see what the
46:52assumptions are >> and most of I mean we it it's almost destiny but a lot of the physical processes and principles that the team we learn as grad students we learn from the real pioneers of earth observations that build those legacy systems that are now being retired and so that legacy I mean we couldn't take no know we couldn't take full credit if it weren't for those who you know were standing standing on the shoulders wrong. People going back to the 80s, the 70s were build the first radiator transfer model. Like I mean the science is just if you really want to start, you need to go all the way to powers, you know, like freaking way.
47:33>> Well, maybe we'll have you on the podcast for a much more lengthy conversation and we can start with at least radiative transfer. Um, but it was a pleasure talking to you. Um, and congratulations again.
Remote SensingEarth ObservationEnergy AccessOpen Data