From The Earth Institute at Columbia University.
No, not a cult. No. no. no.~cr
They are at home coring trees in the backcountry of Mongolia, flying airborne missions over polar ice caps, or drilling sediments while dodging icebergs off the coast of Antarctica. They are leaders in their fields and always know exactly what to wear on these expeditions. However, when confronted with the prospect of dressing for a unique formal event, they weren’t willing to settle for commercially available designer dresses. They wanted outfits that truly reflect who they are as women scientists with profound connections to the planet.
While dressing for an awards banquet hosted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU), four scientists from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory decided to boldly go where few science-minded fashionistas have gone before: into the world of custom design.
“We wanted science-inspired dresses that represent us as powerful women in science, giving a subtle—or maybe not so subtle—nod to the warrior in each of us that allowed our rise in the ranks of a field dominated by men,” said Lamont tree ring scientist Nicole Davi.
Davi, along with Lamont polar pioneer and AGU president Robin Bell, celebrated paleoclimatologist Maureen Raymo, and Lamont research professor Rosanne D’Arrigo showed off their custom-designed, science-themed outfits at the AGU Honors Banquet on December 11, 2019, in San Francisco. The AGU is the largest professional Earth science organization in the United States, with over 65,000 members and an annual conference with 30,000 scientists in attendance.
Read the full article here but this line below sums it up well.
To Davi, the tree ring print gave her gown a sense of style that resonated with who she is and what she wanted her clothes to say— especially that night.
“It was thrilling. Not only because the dress was beautiful and it represented my science, but because I was wearing it for an event where amazing women were being recognized for their scientific contributions,” said Davi.
Wow! Nothing like a Girls Night Out in San Francisco! All of the other comments about women moving into science are sexist, but if that’ the standard, here is my comment: For the record, the highest IQ person I ever worked with was a young Lady, from Canada. who had her first college degree and was teaching English to students in Japan by the age of 19.
Could have got better schmutter in Marks and Sparks….
They could make a Chanel or Dior outfit look like it came from Primark.
Well at the very least, looking at the pictures in the original article, the black/mottled mid-brown motif of that gown should look right at home on San Francisco streets – and neatly camouflage any accidental splash…
These are surely the same goofballs that are so grief stricken by their science, they are driven to write scholarly papers and even books about their grief. Here are a few of them.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/10/19/emotion/
I’m sorry to say that these 4 women have … faces built for bookwork. Please hold the books up, and close to your faces. Yeah, yeah … that’s “mean”. Sorry, but TRUTH doesn’t care about your emotionalizing. And in my experience, people (especially women) who are hit by the ugly stick usually exhibit deep seated hostility toward “society”, and men, and most every convention. At the end of the day, these women are using science as a weapon to be wielded at … “every glove that laid them down, or cut them, till they cried out in their anger and their shame” … they will trash it, they will trash it … the society that treated them so rudely. Apologies to Paul Simon, who wrote about human struggle quite eloquently. These women are Boxers, by their Trade … punching at everything they hate.
You simply cannot separate science from human nature … personality … or bias.
That’s a pretty shallow response.
No Jeff, it has been observed by sociologists and investigated by philosophers for centuries that there are no generic ‘scientists’ but only ‘mere humans’ who do science to various degrees of success. AND this observation is the basis of Feminist critique since the 1960s at least – that ‘scientists’ are embodied (not ‘minds’ floating in an ‘objective’ vacuum) and subject to human biases, male or female.
So ‘You simply cannot separate science from human nature’ is a serious and well-founded observation. If you disagree, take it up with feminists for a start!
I’m talking about critiquing their looks. That’s the definition of ad hominem.
its not a very deep topic
I think the designer was taking the piss with Davi’s tree ring dress. Look on the link.
I must discipline my eye/brain interface. I misread “paleoclimatologist” as “proctoclimatologist” (with no intended disrespect to the lady concerned).
The tree ring dress is extremely, and probably purposely, phallic.
That is so sad…
Rosanne could have looked lovely in a print pattern featuring cherry pies.
With the pups taken out, of course.
(In joke) Geoff S
Baked in a solar oven.
bet the reworked threads ended up costing a motza!
recycling of course doesnt mean DIY for them I guess
and frankly for an item ON clothing a decent pic was expected
femme version of a wankfest really
Too bad those prints are on polyester.
Some hemp clothing is quite nice and comfortable, but expensive and bland. Though all natural fibers were transported with fossil fuels and likely planted and harvested with fossil powered equipment.
Are hessian underpants fun to wear?
Asking for a friend . . .
ja wohl.
an awards banquet hosted by the American Geophysical Union
It’s a pity they didn’t have Ricky Gervais as compere.
He did a superb job at the Golden Globes. If you missed it, have a great laugh at their expense…
A turning point? At least pricks like were forced to face reality for a moment or two.
Off topic , but a question to those more informed .
Does anybody know how much energy hits the Earth’s atmosphere daily , does it vary much , is it recorded by satellites or other instruments .
The sun is obviously our main source of exterior energy .
Yes, mostly no, yes to some extent.
Good answers
Willis knows
@ george1st;)
Oh, yes. Check out the many posts by Willis Eschenbach at this site for a start.
Earth gets a maximum 1.75×10E17 Joules per second of solar energy, you can calculate it … I did it for CommieBob a few days ago.
It is also listed in Orders of Magnitude link on wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)
>>> 1.7×10E17 Total energy from the Sun that strikes the face of the Earth each second <<<
For a day multiply it 60s x60minx24hrs = 86,400
Answer = 1.51E22 Joules per day
Yes it varies in a number of ways but you need to define where you are trying to measure it from.
Climate Science defines a rather arbitrary Top of Atmosphere (TOA) and different groups have used different TOA. In hard sciences it isn't a clean boundary. As an example last year they did an analysis of some old SOHO data
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/earth-atmosphere-extends-beyond-moon-hydrogen-gas-cloud-2019-2?
The detection works because that calculated energy is interacting with that hydrogen cloud spanning out to 400,000km. As the article correctly states "contrary to popular belief, Earth’s atmosphere has no clear or official boundary".
So I can't answer your question better unless you define the boundary for me.
LdB, it actually gets a bit more complicated than that as Earth’s atmosphere expands as it heats, and not uniformly. Solar and seasonal variations also account for changes as well as heating from below.
LEO orbital calculations are constantly bedeviled with these erratic variables.
Earth’s atmosphere is like an ocean of fog with currents and waves but no exact upper surface. Just one that gets asymptotically thinner. At about 100 km is the practical limit, but that varies and is just an easy number to use. True it can be measured out to a very great distance however that is in the atomic molecular level and not appreciable with much if any drag or substance.
LEO satellites carry fuel for reboosts when they skim the wave tops, but the supply is limited which is why ‘almost’ every thing that goes up must come down. Actually, in space you are always falling towards something.
All of which is true but has nothing to do with the question asked .. the question is about energy.
There is a lot of radiation and energy being absorbed by the exosphere, mesosphere and thermosphere and if you put the limit at the gravitational boundary in the lower mesosphere (roughly 100km) then all that energy is excluded (you have to view it as part of space).
The solar irradiance (total energy emitted by the sun, in the earth’s direction also called TSI) is shown as a graph (time vs calculated solar energy in watts/m^2) at this site.
https://www.climate4you.com/
You left out with the cross sectional area of Earth (127,400,000,000,000 square meters) that is what gives the area.
From the calc above it is simply the energy per seconds / area
1.7×10E17Joules per sec/ 1.274E14m2 = 1338 Watts/m2
All I can contribute is some generalities: The total solar output hitting the Earth (assuming the atmosphere is part of the planet Earth) is fairly stable over the last 40 years or so that we have had satellites. There are differences in the different bands that are pretty large – for example ultraviolet light is much more variable than visible light. Most of the Sun’s energy output (due to its temperature) is in visible light.
I remember seeing some calculated figures on the total energy absorbed by Earth, but do not remember where they are. The intensity is recorded both in space (using satellites) and at various levels in the atmosphere including the surface. NASA and NOAA sites might be a good place to start looking.
Thank you to all WUWT readers and contributors .
Education is important but understanding is even more so .
Climate ‘change’ is such a divisive issue in western societies atm , basically left vs right politics .
The media are educating the voters but they don’t understand .
ps. Willis Eschenbach should be on Trumps payroll as an advisor .
Looks like they went for basic black with a few avant-garde embellishments. To me that certainly did not seem to convey power. I prefer bright colors for drama. The safari animal print jumpsuits that my mom sewed for her granddaughters have more interesting science! It was interesting that one dress was ‘recycled’ by adding printing & embroidery. Of course seamstresses have been doing that for 1000’s of years – turn the garment, add a new collar, repair a tear with over stitching etc. Those ladies were powerful and creative women.
Do the ladies have partners? If so, poor sods. If no, why am I not surprised.
The article says Nicole Davi’s dress included a digitally printed tree ring pattern derived from a high-Rez scan of wood from the Pueblo Bonito ruins at Chaco Canyon
Oh-oh! Sounds like “cultural appropriation” to me
That’s an awful lot of trouble to go to just to get an authentic – and very specific – tree ring pattern that nobody in the World would recognize on sight.
Actually, that seems like a bit of geeky fun to me; a totally obscure reference that nobody gets. What’s not to like about that for any nerd?
Not really a whole lot of trouble at all, which is very cool to a textile nerd like myself. 🙂
Digital printing on a textile is expensive but not as much as actually weaving that print would have been.
I love the geeky aspect of it, I just wish the designers would have incorporated more of a flair than simply a print within a cutout design to showcase more of the statement the wearer wanted to convey…but that is my opinion entirely. I don’t know the time constraints involved nor the costs, but I would have gone a bit bolder in the statement. All the dresses were beautiful if a bit plain–but it doesn’t really matter what I think, the ladies presented looked happy with their choice and that is really all that matters.
@Scissor: Hemp as a textile is neither plain nor boring if it is spun, dyed and woven well and can be as soft and luxurious as linen it’s fellow bast type plant fiber. Unfortunately as hemp is inextricably linked to marijuana in our laws, the growth of the plant AND the use as a textile has caused the loss of any kind of innovation for a fiber that was known to be in use for tens of thousands of years….(researchers found the to date earliest example of dyed hemp in a cave in Russia a few years ago, dating back 32K years–it was pink by the way). And it can be rough, boring, and plain or beautiful, subtle, and silky soft depending upon how it was processed, spun, dyed, woven, and finished. Like any natural fiber is.
Hi Just J. – The pink color to that hemp fiber might probably have come from the Neurospora family of filamentous fungi. This is the pink seen lying around on the ground cast off maize cobs & the pink appearing at the base of burned sugar cane field stubble.
Actually they determined the fiber was dyed by cross section, unknown what the dye was and in the region of where it was found, maize did not grow at the time. I’m sure further testing would reveal the plant that produced the dye, but just to find color after so many years (albiet buried for thousands of years) is fascinating as time erodes color. The key finding through is that although it may be assumed the pink is a faded red, but the testing found it to be pink and not faded red. And they found teal. Not exactly an easy dye to get even in modern times..it’s a tricky color. Pink and teal, think about it…THE colors of the 80’s. I wonder if they spiked their hair and colored the spikes differently too….LOL. Well as the saying goes, fashion is a response, not an island and as such, it repeats.
Time robs many things of color and to find that our ancestors were using color is not as much of a shock when you realize that we’ve been using color for tens of thousands of years. We just tend to think everyone wore beige or white because that is what is left of the monuments we have from an ancient world (not all, but most). And if anything of a garment does survive, chances are the color is long gone.
Get any look you want with climate designer science. We take the raw data – and proxy data when we’re feeling especially naughty – and transform them into creations that will mesmerize your mind and translate you into an imaginary world! Call the experts today at Mann’s Hockey Stick Designs, Ltd and GUESSTEMP Climate Designs of Gavin. We only use the best looking models (all RCP10s btw!)
GUESSTEMP – Infilling (making stuff up) is our speciality!
When I was in graduate school in the 1970s, there were a very large number of women in the graduate geosciences there. I wish I had some statistics on the relative fraction, but this stance of “we are spectacular because we excel in a field dominated by men” is getting to be a really tired trope.
I am happy they were thrilled with the event and their attire.
In the USA, women out number men in universities and in employment.
I’ve not got a problem with interesting clothing.
The fun think here is the irony.
Women are the death of science…
I would say feminists instead of females. And those aren’t limited to the fairer sex.
Lise Meitner !?
Or Rosalyn Franklin
D’Arrigo is the one who said to an NAS panel that you had to pick cherries if you wanted to make cherry pie.
See here for a bunch of Climate Audit posts.
I suggest pink themed camo waterfowl chest wadders tl dramatize how the sky is falling and the water is rising. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-doomsday-glacier?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Very difficult decision what to wear. Surely the choice has to be something with the lowest environmental impact. Unbleached linen.
“ nod to the warrior in each of us that allowed our rise in the ranks of a field dominated by men,”
Warrior? I don’t think that word means what she thinks it means.
It is especially odd word to use in a nation where for several decades advancing women in science has been a priority for grade schools, universities, and science institutions.
Slow news day…..
Shoulda been sackcloth and ashes. The correct attitude of doom and despair demands no less.
They prefer red for blood and white face for death.
How-to guide for dressing like an XR death cult ghoul.
Fashion is a form of communication. This shows insight and creativity to get their message across. There is nothing wrong with the fashion.
Now the science…
I’d prefer if they used a line from “the Treasure of Sierra Madre”:
“Dresses? We don’t need no stinkin” dresses”
If they want to appear more powerful than men wearing monkey suits, they should wear gorilla suits.
What’s a Climate Scientist to Wear During Awards Season?
Sack cloth and ashes?
A statement that in itself centers on men and diminishes their statement.
Apparently their idea of clothes representing them as powerful women are based and modeled on dark gothic clothes. Such as the robes worn by Tolkien characters Sauron or Melkor/Morgoth.
It’s shame that their AGU presence was all about trumpeting who they are by wearing fossil fuel derived clothing rather than their expertise.
“Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.” – Margaret Thatcher
I am probably the last person who should comment on anything to do with fashion, but perhaps they could have chosen from these STEM-themed dresses:
https://shenovafashion.com/collections/dresses
😉
If you have to pat yourself on the back for getting somewhere because you are a ________ (Fill in: Woman, man, homosexual, transgender, black, white, purple, etc) then you are obviously insecure about how you got there.
I am glad they like fashion…what that has to do with ANYTHING is completely beyond me.
I really can’t find words to describe those women.
“Hyper-self-involved”? … “Femi-megalomaniac”? … “Toxic-self-aggrandizing”?
I’m having to make up new words for this level of ………………… (?) whatever.
Narcissistic, social-justice, hand-waving, performance art
I’m getting closer.
What should a Climate Scientologist wear to an awards ceremony? Two words: hair shirt.
Pot plant on the head should do it.
No mention that kind of climate science warriors will spend their climate design fashion outfit to women in the underdeveloped world.
As second hand gift after one time wearing.