biffvernon

Brilliant. And if you need convincing about Peak Oil perhaps some of the PO related stuff at www.kriscan.com will do it for you. Edit: Curiously, posting the whole url to Kriscan's site got this error message: You have entered a link to a website that the administrator does not allow links to Perhaps Admin does not like this kind of Peak Oil message - you have been warned!

(Useless fact edit: I think it was World War I, not II, that made poppies famous, Flanders Fields and all that.) It's great to see the resurgence of interest in veg growing. We're going to need all the growing skills we can muster as we head for the transition to a post peak oil future. At the last count I think we have about 60 varieties of edible stuff growing (not counting about 30 different varieties of apples and other top fruit).

That used to be the case but now that the technology of sideways drilling has advanced beyond mere mortal imagination, they are able drill into a vast area from a very small surface footprint.

A little what from volcanos?

As someone who lives quite close to a well in Lincolnshire, I can't quite see what the fuss is about, beyond fear of the unknown. The site is compact, about an acre, they've planted lots of trees round it and you'd hardly know it was there. Better for wildlife than the barley field that it occupied.

Stick to the facts. The Oil Drum is a good source to start with.

Ah, but you'll know why Ian Anderson chose the name then?

Ah, so that's why you're called Jethro. Four course rotations, seed drills and all that.

We debate the concrete question endlessly on the Green Building Forum and on Peroid Property Forum where Ordinary Portland Cement is, of course, a complete no-no. Remember that most of our most cherished buildings were built before the 20th century and OPC was not used. London was largely mortared with hydrated lime which was very weakly hydraulic, maybe NHL 1. If lime, or even earth, is the principle mortar there is no need for concrete foundations as the flexibility of the mortar allows the movements of a non-rigid structure. Concrete foundations were introduced as a remedy to the problem of cracking in cement mortared masonry. So the answer to your question is easy - just don't use OPC anywhere in the buidling. Now go and explain that to your nearest and dearest BCO. Spot on about the deep beds and no digging. Good to find stuff we can agree about

Skating on thin ice, you mean.

Not on my own, I need your help (and some other folk too). But even as an individual there is a lot one can do. I gave up my job that involved commuting and now work at home. My job involves converting trees into long lasting building components, sequestering the carbon for centuries, with the help of wind generated electricity, and improving the sustainable use of our built environment. I have planted a great many trees and grow much of my own food, organically, gradually increasing the carbon content of the soil on my land. I spend much of my spare time learning more about Earth systems science and energy futures, and sharing my understanding with others. I am acting locally in developing a Transition Initiative in my town and globally by posting comments in places like this. Why not join in the fun? You might just help save the species.

You're right to say that the IPCC didn't take into account the lack of oil, but it wasn't their call. They just had to go along with the (wrong) IEA figures. Peak Oil is a more immediate threat to the global economy but AGW is a bigger, if slower, threat. We may have already put too much CO2 into the air to avert disaster without a rapid sequestration programme. For sure, the existing fossil fuels will not be enough to produce some of the scenarios that have been proposed but there is still far too much. I'm taking the precautionary principle and going with Hansen's call to reduce CO2 to 350ppm pretty damn quick.

Seriously BFTP, do you actually believe a single word of that piece? Stick to The Oil Drum.

It would be heartening if it were true, but I'm afraid the real reason has more to do with cost. Nuclear only advances with government subsidy.

Good to know you have a sense of humour, even though you don't understand how one can make predictions in chaotic dynamic systems. I have no idea whether next Friday will be warmer than today but I am absolutely certain the average temperature in July will be greater than in next January. Isn't it funny how we scientists are so clever that based on teeny weeny changes in CO2 we can make really reliable predictions about the climate next century. So reliable that it becomes worthwhile for governments to completely alter their long term economic policies. Good job they trust us. Funny ol' world.

OK Bluecon, I will spell it out for you. Roo wrote a post #734. I followed it with Post #735 "Good to find the occasional voice of sanity round here." How you can construe that I was referring to you is as strange as much of what you write.

Here's a report From David Shukman of the BBC from the Arctic with some video of new cracks in ancient ice shelf off northern Canada. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7417123.stm Makes you go Wow! And again from the BBC we have a report by Richard Black on the recent arctic methane data: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7408808.stm Not exactly encouraging.

Obviously not.

or did I say that before?

Good to find the occasional voice of sanity round here.

No bias?

'Rain forest' doesn't mean just any old forest on a wet day. The last rain forest round here was back in the Miocene.

No, we are now in a much worse position. 30 years ago I thought there was still some hope of avoiding catastrophe.

Don't worry, John, it wasn't directed at you personally, just using some of your words. You might like to check the views of climate scientists in the 70s and 80s. Cooling certainly hit the media headlines, as I recall, but I think if you search through the published scientific literature of those decades you will find that the 'coolers' were a minority. I know some folk hate any recourse to the flat Earth analogy, but it can be illustrative. What we really have now is a debate on government and inter-government policy. Do we accept that science has presented a strong enough case for intervention in the way the global economy works or not? If we take the extreme endpoints: (1) business as usual will lead to runaway global warming and the end of life as we know it (2) business as usual will lead to no significant change in global climate what probability value should we ascribe to (1) being true before we support government intervention? 1%, 10%, 40%, 60%, 90%, 99%? I'd vote for 1%, after all, I wouldn't get into a plane that I thought had a 1% probability of crashing on the next trip. Which means that I'd vote for a programme of fossil fuel use reduction and carbon sequestration to get CO2 levels below 350 ppm, as Jim Hansen et al called for a few weeks ago. Of course that rules out business as usual, but that's the price we have to pay.

Would you come to the same conclusion if the conversation went: "The Earth is flat." "No, the earth is round." "This article shows why the Earth is flat." "Science informs us that the Earth is round." "But scientists sometimes get it wrong so the Earth could be flat." "Science is good - the Earth is flat." "Look, new evidence from Colorado - the Earth really is flat." Moderator "Always two sides, no right no wrong, grey not black and white, the Earth is kinda bumpy in a flatish roundish sorta way. Now stop squabbling, you naughty children and eat your greens."