Now on ScienceBlogs: Q: How do you sex a Smilodon? (A: Very carefully)

Seed Media Group

Stoat

Taking science by the throat...

Profile

Me My family and me. More...

Make sure you're familiar with the Comment Policy

Search

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.

« 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).

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/52609

Comments

1

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

2

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. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM