The scientific status of the peak oil theory

[Ludi]

If you're going to bitch about the "scientific status of the peak oil theory" bub, at least be clear on what you're bitching about.

[bubmachine]

2) That US peaked in 71 does not have any significant input/impact into PO theory except that
A) Hubbert predicted the peak with pretty good accuracy and his theory for world peak therefore should be taken seriously and
B) It gives an example of a nation that has peaked and gives evidence that this happens. If oil is abiotic and wells refill themselves, they do so with such a low speed that it will not have any impact in a foreseeable future.

The prediction of the US peak means everything in terms of peak oil being a scientific theory. A scientific theory that does not make (or cannot make) predictions is very silly.

[bubmachine]

I think I mainly oppose Heinberg's doomsday predictions. Talking about "die-offs" and moving to an agricultural lifestyle is perfectly useless, because it is based on an unscientific prophecy.

Wrong. It's based on principles of ecology and biology that can easily be replicated in a lab or observed in nature.

You can oppose this reality all you want, but it doesn't make it any less real.

Making doomsday predictions is not science. Sorry.

And Heinberg dislikes coal because it is dirty and nuclear because it is dangerous. This is silly, and it shows a basic ignorance of psychology or sociology.

Most people do not care if coal is dirty or if nuclear is dangerous. The most rational thing to do is to make coal less dirty and nuclear less dangerous.

If Heinberg wants to live in a tent by a field with only a dog on a string and an acoustic guitar, that is up to him. but I don't think the rest of us would be happy with that.

[bubmachine]

If you're going to bitch about the "scientific status of the peak oil theory" bub, at least be clear on what you're bitching about.

Confused? Haha, others don't seem to have a problem with the view that the theory cannot predict the peak date.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

The main thing I am referring to is Hubbard's original (failed) prediction of a 2000 peak. From a scientific point of view, the theory is "falsified" because the theory cannot expect to predict political occurances. (The 1973 oil crisis).

Or economic consequences, the likes of which drove the worldwide drop in demand late-70's.

Yes, the varying times of the prediction, for me, points to the view that it is simply beyond science to predict it.

Because economics doesn't qualify as a particularly rigorous "science" ( or any science at all ), and the consequences of Peak will be dictated in the world of "economics", so science isn't really involved in the answer much.

I think there are many reasons to be efficient in oil use, and to diversify our energy sources. Peak oil is one of them!

No it isn't. Economics is. Critical difference. Think of it this way. Peak oil can come and go and no one will notice, as long as demand always stays less than supply. Doesn't matter really by how much, but as long as supply is more, the regular world won't ever notice. And this supply>demand scenario functions quite well pre-Peak, at Peak, post-peak, it really doesn't matter.

Now, the standard Doomers stunt is to instantly configure demand<supply and conjure up the end of the world ( pick your silly scenario ) with no regards for the consequences ( economic ) and changes such a scenario generates all by itself. Such as demand destruction, people buying first HEV's, then PHEV's, and finally EV's, as just a single mitigating item, with current technology, which addresses some of the huge waste in the system. Again, an economic effect to a specific cause which itself drives down consumption. Go look at the supply graph from the early 80's again. Cause and effect.

I think I mainly oppose Heinberg's doomsday predictions. Talking about "die-offs" and moving to an agricultural lifestyle is perfectly useless, because it is based on an unscientific prophecy.

But Kuntsler and Ruppert and Heinberg all make money selling the concept to people who need to see Doom around the corner for some psychological reason or another. None of them have anything to do with science and in specific items are factually incorrect a decent percentage of the time. You would think they would at least pay attention to the details prior to leaping off into dieoff mode.

Heinberg has nothing to do with "science", at least not if you use his name in the same breath as Hubberts.

I think the following types of things would be useful:

2) Stop the main religion of today, the worship of cars.

This one alone puts such a dent in the issue that the KIDS of Doomers will have to be of college age before we go through all this claptrap again ( for those of us who were alive during the LAST time we were running out of oil...and natural gas...and our politicians were dumb enough to confuse geologic scarcity with the economics of oil and gas production.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

If you're going to bitch about the "scientific status of the peak oil theory" bub, at least be clear on what you're bitching about.

Confused? Haha, others don't seem to have a problem with the view that the theory cannot predict the peak date.

Hubbert had a good concept, and got lucky. His luck had mostly to do with picking a stable political/economic environment regulated by the Texas RR commission. He was modelling the economic behavior of oil and gas developement in a mature basin/area more than anything else.

[seldom_seen]

If Heinberg wants to live in a tent by a field with only a dog on a string and an acoustic guitar, that is up to him. but I don't think the rest of us would be happy with that.

It doesn't matter what you think or what makes you happy. Millions of people would be happy if they didn't get cancer, yet they still do.

You seem to have educated yourself on PO, become quite unhappy with the conclusions and decided to attack the messengers, and focus on inconsequential data like the precise moment of the technical peak in production.

It's been pointed out over and over that the world peak in production can only be confirmed in the rear view mirror. Such was the case with the US peak in the seventies, such is the case with the world peak. It has either already happened (so far nothing indicates it hasn't) or will in the near future.

The inability to predetermine this moment does not make it any less real or imminent.

[NEOPO]

I call it Neoscience and I think I like it

Spurious indeed!!!
Coincidence? I think NOT!!

[JustinFrankl]

I think I mainly oppose Heinberg's doomsday predictions. Talking about "die-offs" and moving to an agricultural lifestyle is perfectly useless, because it is based on an unscientific prophecy.

Wrong. It's based on principles of ecology and biology that can easily be replicated in a lab or observed in nature.

You can oppose this reality all you want, but it doesn't make it any less real.

Making doomsday predictions is not science. Sorry.

If a prediction is made based on scientific principles, it may happen to fall into your category of "doom", but that doesn't make the prediction any less valid.

The concepts of overshoot and die-off are well-known in biology and ecology. This thread [peakoil.com] discusses it at length.

And Heinberg dislikes coal because it is dirty and nuclear because it is dangerous. This is silly, and it shows a basic ignorance of psychology or sociology.

Nuclear waste remains radioactive and toxic to the environment for millions of years. Coal is a dirty fuel to burn, and the global warming and climate change scientists point to coal as one of the largest contributors of pollution and greenhouse gases.

The only thing this has to do with the human psyche is the psychological and sociological effects of prolonged suffering.

Most people do not care if coal is dirty or if nuclear is dangerous. The most rational thing to do is to make coal less dirty and nuclear less dangerous.

Thereby decreasing the EROEI for both. If you could get everyone to want to do it. If the technology were deployable worldwide. If everyone could afford it.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying that the degree to which all the players need to be on the same page is unprecedented in human history.

[chris-h]

peak oil is not a theory.It is a fact.
All things have a start and an end. So does the age of cheap energy.

[JustinFrankl]

If you're going to bitch about the "scientific status of the peak oil theory" bub, at least be clear on what you're bitching about.

Confused? Haha, others don't seem to have a problem with the view that the theory cannot predict the peak date.

Fred, 42, married, one child, is the CIO of a Fortune 1000 firm. He exercises regularly, eats healthy, but smokes. His grandparents all died of cancer or heart attack by 67. Both his parents are still alive at 64 and 66. Fred has a life insurance poilcy ... but with all this information, no set of actuarial tables or analyses can tell you exactly when Fred will kick the bucket. It is ludicrous to suggest, since you can't predict exactly when it will happen, that a claim will never be made on his policy.

Similarly, failure to predict the peak date to a given level of precision does not in any way denounce the theory. Global oil production will peak and thereafter decline. When? Decline at what rate? These questions are like asking when a claim will be made on Fred's policy, and what the reason for the claim will be.

While somewhat outside the realm of this thread, chaos theory shows that long-term predictions of arbitrary accuracy are next to impossible. The world itself is decidedly nonlinear, yet most of our analytical tools are linear. This is not surprising because nonlinear tools, like differential equations, are a bitch to use.

[jeezlouise]

What is this obsession with the exact date of the peak? If it hasn't already occured, then even the most optimistic assessments (the serious ones) say that it is bound to happen within the lifetime of anyone who is presently under the age of fifty-five or so. I'm afraid that pure empirical science cannot give you such precise information, bub. This issue reaches over many different disciplines: economics, sociology, psychology, to name a few, and at least two of those three are considered by many to be themselves pseudoscience. As such, predicting the exact future we face is plainly impossible, and anyone who tells you different is trying to sell you something.

That said, basic risk management strategy tells us to first deal with the problems that are both most likely and involve the greatest amount of loss. What this means will be different for everybody. But I personally just can't understand why we keep having this debate over the "when" and "how" of peak oil. Anyone who has come to the conclusion that world oil supply will begin diminshing in their lifetime will have to decide what they want to do about that. If the answer is "nothing", that's fine, but I think I'd rather be wrong about what some might call "DOOM" than wrong about everything remaining hunky-dory, seeing as how if the worst never comes to pass, then... so what? I've still gotten out of debt, gotten into shape, saved some money, gotten more fresh air, and gotten perspective on my needs versus my wants.

Or, we could just keep beating our heads against this wall, waiting on a sign, trying to predict the exact mechanics of the future down to the day. Either accept that peak oil will affect you, and do what you think you should, or reject that notion and move on. There's no need to justify either position.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

peak oil is not a theory.It is a fact.

A maximum production rate at some point in time during the life of a resource is a given....the consequences of what happens on the far side of that "given" is where the Peak Oil hysteria begins, and is by no means settled.

{troll tactics deleted by MQ}

[Kingcoal]

World peak has nothing to do with scarcity - oil is not scarce. It has nothing to do with the US Peak (why would it?). And - the timing of global peak is not made "sooner" because of lack of discovery.

If you say so. Haha! Perhaps you need to find out what science is then.

Er ah, so what exactly is this mysterious and wondrous thing called science, Mr. Professor bubmachine? I've read all the posts in this thread and I've noticed that most everyone here is talking over your head, so I decided to help you out.

You have a theory, you explain your theory, your data, etc, and it gets peer reviewed - that's science. Peak Oil theory is based on the fact that crude oil is of biological origin and is manufactured naturally over millions of years. The fact that the resource is finite is self evident and not worth discussion. The exact date when peak production is passed generally can't be determined accurately until years later. For that reason, predictions come in two flavors; future peaks and past peaks. For example, many declare that world peak production occurred in December 2005. Time will tell if that prediction is accurate.

Then there are predictions of future dates, which is the kind of predictions that Hubbert made. He used data about reservoir size and production rates. How is that not scientific? I don't see any dependence on supreme beings, UFOs or bigfoot. Science allows estimates as long as all the evidence is empirical.

[waegari]

Making doomsday predictions is not science. Sorry.

So anyone who predicted WW II wasn't being scientific?

And Heinberg dislikes coal because it is dirty and nuclear because it is dangerous. This is silly, and it shows a basic ignorance of psychology or sociology.

You yourself show a basic ignorance of Heinberg's tenets. His main argument against coal as a viable alternative to oil is coal's low energy density. (The Party's Over, p. 131)
The danger argument is only one in a row from Heinberg's points of opposition to nuclear as a viable alternative: the question of abundance and depletion being one of them. Not to mention the fact that you need many barrels of oil to extract uranium at all.

It seems quite unscientific to accuse anyone of basic ignorance in such and such field, while having no sound knowledge of his positions yourself.

[skyemoor]

The main thing I am referring to is Hubbard's original (failed) prediction of a 2000 peak. From a scientific point of view, the theory is "falsified" because the theory cannot expect to predict political occurances. (The 1973 oil crisis).

The projection was caveated by the stated assumption: "if present trends continue"

Clearly, the upward growth in oil consumption was impacted by changes in consumption rates as you can see in the ASPO chart below, so the projection became academic at that point.

[skyemoor]

And Heinberg dislikes coal because it is dirty and nuclear because it is dangerous. This is silly, and it shows a basic ignorance of psychology or sociology.

Most people do not care if coal is dirty or if nuclear is dangerous. The most rational thing to do is to make coal less dirty and nuclear less dangerous.

Now you've moved away from the science of peak oil to the policies concerning electrical generation capacity. Now we will have to ask you what you base your rational policies on.

If Heinberg wants to live in a tent by a field with only a dog on a string and an acoustic guitar, that is up to him. but I don't think the rest of us would be happy with that.

You are suggesting that any other position than yours would result in the above. We can have a discussion in logical fallacies at some point, but suffice it to say that your presumption is unfounded. I generate almost all of my electricity with my solar array, heat primarily with passive solar (wood backup), bike to my vanpool location, tend a large productive garden, and a host of other simple measures. Our house is 2400 sf, we have two hybrids when we feel the need to drive, and in all other aspects have the lifestyle of a typical American family (I coach youth soccer for my childrens' teams, they attend the local school, we attend a local church, have neighborhood cookouts, etc, etc). I do, however, have both an electric guitar and an acoustic guitar (used to play in club bands), and we have a sheepdog for our sheep.

[TonyPrep]

If Heinberg wants to live in a tent by a field with only a dog on a string and an acoustic guitar, that is up to him. but I don't think the rest of us would be happy with that.

Heinberg doesn't want to do that. Why make up stuff like that? It just weakens your argument. However, your made up idea of what Heinberg wants and what the rest of the world illustrates a point that many don't seem to get. It doesn't really matter what you want if it is unachievable. I'm sure that most people in the developed world want life to more or less go on as it is now. If you believe that is likely, I don't think you've thought much about it.

When peak occurs is not terribly important, unless we can pin it down precisely. If you really think peak will occur a hundred years from now, then you may not be worried about it. However, it could occur tomorrow. Ask yourself if it's better to act like it will occur tomorrow or better to act like it is in a hundred years, if either is possible.

Some believe that other technologies will come to the rescue but that presupposes that human ingenuity is infinite (i.e. able to solve any problem). If you really believe that, then don't worry about peak.

Some believe that a lowering of demand, perhaps coupled with new technology, will allow a smooth landing or even no substantial problem. If you believe that, then there is no need to worry.

I think Deffeyes was referring to conventional oil, when calculating the peak.

Hubbert's name is Hubbert, not Hubbard. I think this is a common mistake for those who've restricted their consideration of the issue to the most optimistic views (since I've seen many optimistic articles that also get his name wrong).

Evolution is a theory that has made prediction (for example, about mutation rates), which have checked out. It is, so far, not dubious at all.

[bubmachine]

It's been pointed out over and over that the world peak in production can only be confirmed in the rear view mirror....
The inability to predetermine this moment does not make it any less real or imminent.

If it can only be confirmed in the "rear view mirror", then you cannot say that it is imminent. ?

[bubmachine]

And Heinberg dislikes coal because it is dirty and nuclear because it is dangerous. This is silly, and it shows a basic ignorance of psychology or sociology.

Nuclear waste remains radioactive and toxic to the environment for millions of years. Coal is a dirty fuel to burn, and the global warming and climate change scientists point to coal as one of the largest contributors of pollution and greenhouse gases.

The only thing this has to do with the human psyche is the psychological and sociological effects of prolonged suffering.

Well, in the debates that I have heard, Heinberg doesn't think coal or nuclear is a viable option, because he doesn't like them.

I think people would prefer to have energy and try to deal with the problems of that energy production. Whinging environmentalists are not going to stop nuclear power. Sorry.