Official Comment Count: 1,031,328

Stoat

Taking science by the throat...

Search this blog

Profile

Me I am a Dragon. I emerge from my Egg. More...

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Other Information

Co-moderator of globalchange mailing list Subscribe to globalchange
Email:
Browse at groups.google.com
I've been using Google Reader recently, following the lamented death of Planet Fleck, and I suppose I have to admit its better. Here are some "shared items" if, for some reason, you want to read what I read.

Subscribe via Email

Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.

Sign me up!

« Tank Man | Main | The boring truth »

Osmosis

Category: climate fuels
Posted on: October 9, 2007 5:01 PM, by William M. Connolley

Via GBM I find Statkrafts plans for osmosis power plants. An interesting idea and entirely new to me.

Statkraft are a bit coy about the costs. This chap says its too expensive now (I don't know if thats true, its only there for balance).

TrackBacks

(TrackBack URL for this entry: )

Comments

Meanwhile,

the concentration of greenhouse gases has probably crossed 450 ppm CO2 eqv.:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ji18lPpTcmkbLlayqCSS3kygCvrwD8S5K5NG0

Posted by: Alexander Ac | October 9, 2007 7:39 PM

Dear William,

I one comment to Tamino's blog you wrote that one should not attribute this year's (whole) decrease in the arctic floating ice, because climate models do not predict so. I fully agree. But let me give an example.

We have an exceptionaly dry year in e.g. Siberia, partly contributed by clim. change. Huge amount of soot will be blown to Greenland ice sheet. The ice will get darker and the melting can be dramatically speeded up (I think this already happened in the past). One can say that this is not what climate models predicted, so this should not be attributed to climate change. Right?

But I guess, these kind of "unexpected" events (or non-linearities) could (should?) become more probable with further warming. Some peole say, that high uncertainty (or high variability of weather/climate in the past) should be reason for inaction. I think just the opposite. If we don't (exactly) know, it is a reason for caution...

Best,

Posted by: Alexander Ac | October 10, 2007 8:05 AM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. Thanks for waiting.)





Having problems commenting?

Search All Blogs

Blogs in the Network

Top Five: Most Active

  1. This poll cannot stand 10.10.2008 · PZ Myers
  2. Dignity denied 10.10.2008 · PZ Myers
  3. The Worldnutdaily's Latest Faux Outrage 10.10.2008 · Ed Brayton
  4. MRFF Reveals Anti-Semitic Assault at Ft. Benning 10.10.2008 · Ed Brayton
  5. He's Got a Point 10.09.2008 · Ed Brayton