ClimateBook
climatebook.bsky.social
ClimateBook
@climatebook.bsky.social
This is the BlueSky feed of Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, Professor of Planetary Physics at the University of Oxford. Tune in for news about Principles of Planetary Climate, and diverse science and political commentary. (Also folk music news)
my take on these articles.
November 25, 2025 at 6:43 PM
out of a profit motive. Other (also alarming) research on solar geoengineering is at least being done in an academic setting and not being driven by profit. There have been three solargeo pieces in the media recently (New Yorker, Politico, Atlantic) and I'll offer a thread soon with
November 25, 2025 at 6:43 PM
largely exists. What Stardust is doing is trying to develop a (secret) kind of particle that somehow is supposed to reflect light more effectively, though note that doesn't solve any of the serious problems with solar geoengineering, The real lede on Stardust is that they are doing this purely
November 25, 2025 at 6:43 PM
Stardust is an alarming development, because of the venture capital involvement, but it's wrong to imply they are "developing the technology" that would make this possible. The alarming thing is that the technology for doing this via SO2 injection, with likely catastrophic consequences, already
November 25, 2025 at 6:43 PM
Reposted by ClimateBook
In this video I explain how @stellarplanet.bsky.social and @climatebook.bsky.social research into these classes of planets inspired and informed some of the music.

The concert premiere of "Exoplanets" is at 7.30pm on Saturday 29th November at the Royal Festival Hall in London - tickets here:
Sheku Kanneh-Mason Plays Bloch | Southbank Centre
www.southbankcentre.co.uk
November 25, 2025 at 11:19 AM
Why does the WaPo insist on calling these "drug boats"? There is no proof whatsoever that they were involved in drug running, and certainly nothing that would pass judicial muster. They are just "boats," which Trump decided to blow up.
November 22, 2025 at 6:42 PM
"straightforward"? I dunno, but I'll try out the argument next time I'm sitting next to a stranger on a transatlantic flight, leading with "Did you know that Scientific American says nobody knows why this plane stays in the air?"
November 22, 2025 at 11:18 AM
But your statement at the top of the post is interesting: What is "straightforward?" Fluid dynamicists would consider the circulation and shed vorticity argument "straightforward" and have done for the better part of a century. But can anything that involves "vorticity" be considered
November 22, 2025 at 11:18 AM
of airfoils, aided by a bit of cutting-and-trying in wind tunnels. But nothing in 3D turbulent fluid dynamics is ever really "straightforward," and there is always some new angle to explore. That absolutely does not me that "nobody understands why planes stay in the air."
November 22, 2025 at 11:18 AM
we know where lift comes from and have for nearly a century. To reiterate:(1) Lift requires circulation around an airfoil. (2) That circulation is generated by shedding vorticity into the wake, (3) For decades, the Kutta condition gave a good enough prediction of circulation to allow design
November 22, 2025 at 11:18 AM
The "stupid" referred to the article, and specifically the headline, not the post itself. Far be it from me to criticize someone just for flagging an article they found interesting. The headline on the article is just clickbait, toying with the meaning of "explain." The plain fact is that
November 22, 2025 at 11:18 AM
And we are so happy to have Breakthrough Listen based at Oxford now, so we can be part of that excitement!
November 21, 2025 at 11:29 PM
my thesis advisor Sheila Widnall eventually became secretary of the air force.
November 21, 2025 at 10:09 PM
and by Kelvin's Circulation theorem the vortex tube that generates lift can't just terminate -- it has to go somewhere, and where it goes is into the wake.

Though I've worked on Earth and planetary sciences for almost all of my career, my PhD is actually from MIT Aero/Astro, and
November 21, 2025 at 10:09 PM
predictable amount of circulation was to use the Kutta condition for non-singularity at a sharp trailing edge. Now, with numerical methods, more general wing shapes can be treated, and also 3D effects. Those contrails you see are wingtip vortices shed because the wings are of finite length
November 21, 2025 at 10:09 PM
Oh boy this is really stupid. It's been known since the early 20th century that lift is generated when there is circulation around a wing. Circulation is generated by shedding opposite-signed vorticity into the wake by boundary layer detachment. In the old days, the only way to design a wing with a
November 21, 2025 at 10:09 PM
Without restrictions on CO2 emissions. increasing parts of the globe will cross that threshold, and heat deaths will soar. Even short of the threshold, morbidity -- lethargy, reduced performance, kidney failure -- sets in. Plus, this affects livestock as well. Will we have to air condition cows?
November 21, 2025 at 9:54 PM
This is a good article. But note that regardless of the present balance of deaths from cold vs. heat, irrefutable thermodynamics says that when wet bulb temperature exceeds about 40C, mammals die outdoors within hours, because they can't lose heat.
November 21, 2025 at 9:54 PM
McCarthyism ended with the accusation "Sir, have you no shame?" Sadly, nobody has the courage to speak those words to power anymore.
November 21, 2025 at 8:43 PM
petrostate countries suffer killer heat waves if they are too stupid to help the essential project of decarbonization.
November 21, 2025 at 8:36 PM
I think it's time to abandon the idea that all countries should be part of COP. History shows that the petrostates contribute nothing but obstruction. They aren't going to do anything to decarbonize, so let's just kick them out and get on with the work of the willing countries. Let the hot
November 21, 2025 at 8:36 PM
"Splitternya" what a wonderful word. I don't think English has a word for a shiny brand new think that is nearly so evocative.
November 21, 2025 at 8:32 PM
British slang likes to truncate, but have an "s" at the end. For example, obviously becomes "obvs," not that I'd say that myself.
November 21, 2025 at 8:29 PM