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)
Durbin has been spineless for a long time. He's a lame duck, having announced his retirement for 2026, so he will be replaced. Time to replace him with a real progressive who will fight the rising tide of american authoritarianism.
November 10, 2025 at 9:50 AM
Durbin has been spineless for a long time. He's a lame duck, having announced his retirement for 2026, so he will be replaced. Time to replace him with a real progressive who will fight the rising tide of american authoritarianism.
Labour is spineless. They should have been defending BBC against the far-right, and should have rooted out its timidity in calling out the right wing. But they didn't. This is why I don't watch BBC, and won't buy a TV license.
November 9, 2025 at 8:52 PM
Labour is spineless. They should have been defending BBC against the far-right, and should have rooted out its timidity in calling out the right wing. But they didn't. This is why I don't watch BBC, and won't buy a TV license.
By contrast, the land-use intensity of wind energy is only 170 hectares per terawatt-hour per year when looking at the direct footprint of wind or 15,000 hectares per terawatt-hour per year when including space between turbines (Lovering et al. 2022)." skepticalscience.com/how-much-lan...
How much land is used for wind turbines?
<p>The wind turbines require less land per kilowatt-hour generated than fossil fuels and the land required for net-zezro emissions will have a notably smaller footprint than the 4.4 million acres curr...
skepticalscience.com
November 9, 2025 at 11:06 AM
By contrast, the land-use intensity of wind energy is only 170 hectares per terawatt-hour per year when looking at the direct footprint of wind or 15,000 hectares per terawatt-hour per year when including space between turbines (Lovering et al. 2022)." skepticalscience.com/how-much-lan...
Likewise, wind energy is a far more efficient use of land than biomass (and can also be deployed offshore). From the Skeptical Science Summary:"Wind energy also uses far less land than biomass. Dedicated biomass consumes an average of 160,000 hectares of land per terawatt-hour per year.
November 9, 2025 at 11:06 AM
Likewise, wind energy is a far more efficient use of land than biomass (and can also be deployed offshore). From the Skeptical Science Summary:"Wind energy also uses far less land than biomass. Dedicated biomass consumes an average of 160,000 hectares of land per terawatt-hour per year.
Time to remember Bill McKibben's advice "Just Burn Nothing" Solar farms are far more efficient than photosynthesis, use less land, and are compatible with biodiversity goals (with plenty of non-forested land available for them.)
November 9, 2025 at 10:57 AM
Time to remember Bill McKibben's advice "Just Burn Nothing" Solar farms are far more efficient than photosynthesis, use less land, and are compatible with biodiversity goals (with plenty of non-forested land available for them.)
Me too, and probably you do traditional Nordic alternate stride skiing, rather than the skate-skiing that needs a packed, broad groomed track.
November 7, 2025 at 8:53 PM
Me too, and probably you do traditional Nordic alternate stride skiing, rather than the skate-skiing that needs a packed, broad groomed track.
Yes, the "net" in net-zero is mostly a mirage. Forestry storage of carbon is insecure (think forest fires), and technological carbon capture is presently only about 1 millionth of CO2 emissions. What we need is zero CO2 emissions, plain and simple.
November 7, 2025 at 8:32 PM
Yes, the "net" in net-zero is mostly a mirage. Forestry storage of carbon is insecure (think forest fires), and technological carbon capture is presently only about 1 millionth of CO2 emissions. What we need is zero CO2 emissions, plain and simple.
want to live there, the way so many want to live in NYC and so forth.
November 7, 2025 at 8:30 PM
want to live there, the way so many want to live in NYC and so forth.
Yes, there's a reason property prices are high in cities like New York, Boston, Chicago, SF -- people want to live there and will pay a high price for it. That is what is driving the affordability problem. Part of the answer is to have more cities, and given them the amenities that make people
November 7, 2025 at 8:30 PM
Yes, there's a reason property prices are high in cities like New York, Boston, Chicago, SF -- people want to live there and will pay a high price for it. That is what is driving the affordability problem. Part of the answer is to have more cities, and given them the amenities that make people
Paying blackmailers never ends well. This won't be the end of Trump's demands on Cornell. Cornell will live to regret this shortsighted cave-in.
November 7, 2025 at 8:25 PM
Paying blackmailers never ends well. This won't be the end of Trump's demands on Cornell. Cornell will live to regret this shortsighted cave-in.
plain and simple.
November 7, 2025 at 8:14 PM
plain and simple.
we are still far from net zero at 2100, and a great deal of additional warming will occur in the unknown amount of time it takes tor each net zero. (And as the Guardian adroitly pointed out, the "net" in net zero is a fraud. we are actually going to have to get down to zero emissions of CO2,
November 7, 2025 at 8:14 PM
we are still far from net zero at 2100, and a great deal of additional warming will occur in the unknown amount of time it takes tor each net zero. (And as the Guardian adroitly pointed out, the "net" in net zero is a fraud. we are actually going to have to get down to zero emissions of CO2,
This is a sign of improvement, but we're far from out of the woods. Note that this is a graph of emissions. The good news is that emissions are basically flat out to 2100. But that means CO2 will keep accumulating in the atmosphere, leading to growing warming. Worse,
November 7, 2025 at 8:14 PM
This is a sign of improvement, but we're far from out of the woods. Note that this is a graph of emissions. The good news is that emissions are basically flat out to 2100. But that means CO2 will keep accumulating in the atmosphere, leading to growing warming. Worse,
A real pity. I hope this can be revived next year.
November 6, 2025 at 8:17 PM
A real pity. I hope this can be revived next year.
"renewal" or diversity. The main problem is the increasing casualisation of academic positions, and the paucity of long term tenure-track equivalent positions. Discriminatory retirement policies do essentially nothing to address this problem.
November 6, 2025 at 8:09 PM
"renewal" or diversity. The main problem is the increasing casualisation of academic positions, and the paucity of long term tenure-track equivalent positions. Discriminatory retirement policies do essentially nothing to address this problem.
and in my experience most academics want to be useful to their departments, and will bow out gracefully when they are no longer able to make a contribution., In the UK, only Oxford, Cambridge and St. Andrews cling to an age-discriminatory mandatory retirement age. It has done nothing to help
November 6, 2025 at 8:09 PM
and in my experience most academics want to be useful to their departments, and will bow out gracefully when they are no longer able to make a contribution., In the UK, only Oxford, Cambridge and St. Andrews cling to an age-discriminatory mandatory retirement age. It has done nothing to help
Mandatory retirement is age discrimination, pure and simple. It should not be tolerated. I know plenty of academics who are washed out in their forties, plenty who are still going strong into their 80's. There will always be some dead wood in academics, but that's the price of academic freedom,
November 6, 2025 at 8:09 PM
Mandatory retirement is age discrimination, pure and simple. It should not be tolerated. I know plenty of academics who are washed out in their forties, plenty who are still going strong into their 80's. There will always be some dead wood in academics, but that's the price of academic freedom,
Or give your money to The Guardian. But NYT does still have some good content. The main target should be WaPo, and the vehicle for that resistance should be scrubbing Amazon out of your life.
November 6, 2025 at 7:59 PM
Or give your money to The Guardian. But NYT does still have some good content. The main target should be WaPo, and the vehicle for that resistance should be scrubbing Amazon out of your life.
if you aren't enrolled in the workshop. The Friday session is always jolly, The Plough is a great pub, and you will probably never see so many melodeons in one place anywhere else you'll go (even the Shetland Accordion and Fiddle festival tended to tilt more towards chromatics).
November 6, 2025 at 12:05 PM
if you aren't enrolled in the workshop. The Friday session is always jolly, The Plough is a great pub, and you will probably never see so many melodeons in one place anywhere else you'll go (even the Shetland Accordion and Fiddle festival tended to tilt more towards chromatics).
"A coin in nine hands," by Marguerite Yourcenar. Look it up. It's worth a read, and very thought provoking.
November 6, 2025 at 10:25 AM
"A coin in nine hands," by Marguerite Yourcenar. Look it up. It's worth a read, and very thought provoking.
which is engaged by such things as the Schwartzman donation as well. The general attitude seems to be that if the money was gotten by legal means, it's OK, but it's something that leaves a lot of us feeling unsettled. A good parable for thinking about the moral status of money is
November 6, 2025 at 10:25 AM
which is engaged by such things as the Schwartzman donation as well. The general attitude seems to be that if the money was gotten by legal means, it's OK, but it's something that leaves a lot of us feeling unsettled. A good parable for thinking about the moral status of money is
And another from The Guardian: www.theguardian.com/commentisfre... . To be sure, countering microbial resistance is a worthy goal, and probably this money will help. But it is dirty money. As far as a University is concerned, is there any such thing as dirty money, though? It's a moral dilemma,
Just what was it exactly that Oxford University saw in the billionaire boss of Ineos? | Catherine Bennett
Jim Ratcliffe is hailed for funding a new institute, yet he’s another in a line of questionable donors
www.theguardian.com
November 6, 2025 at 10:25 AM
And another from The Guardian: www.theguardian.com/commentisfre... . To be sure, countering microbial resistance is a worthy goal, and probably this money will help. But it is dirty money. As far as a University is concerned, is there any such thing as dirty money, though? It's a moral dilemma,