Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The scientific status of the peak oil theory

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby ReserveGrowthRulz » Fri 12 Jan 2007, 21:47:40

bubmachine wrote:
Ludi wrote: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.
So....heading into our 3rd year post peak and I'm still getting caught in traffic jams!! DieOff already!
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri 30 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby seldom_seen » Fri 12 Jan 2007, 21:58:42

bubmachine wrote: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.
seldom_seen
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue 12 Apr 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby NEOPO » Fri 12 Jan 2007, 22:16:14

Image
I call it Neoscience and I think I like it 8)
Image
Spurious indeed!!!
Coincidence? I think NOT!! :lol:
It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.
User avatar
NEOPO
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Sun 15 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: THE MATRIX

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby JustinFrankl » Fri 12 Jan 2007, 22:32:12

bubmachine wrote:
seldom_seen wrote:
bubmachine wrote: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.
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- Walt Kelly
JustinFrankl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon 22 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby chris-h » Fri 12 Jan 2007, 22:39:42

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.
88822-88822=0
chris-h
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Mon 11 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby JustinFrankl » Fri 12 Jan 2007, 23:33:07

bubmachine wrote:
Ludi wrote: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.
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- Walt Kelly
JustinFrankl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon 22 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby jeezlouise » Fri 12 Jan 2007, 23:44:42

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.
User avatar
jeezlouise
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2006, 04:00:00

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby ReserveGrowthRulz » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 01:36:57

chris-h wrote: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}
So....heading into our 3rd year post peak and I'm still getting caught in traffic jams!! DieOff already!
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri 30 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby Kingcoal » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 01:42:31

bubmachine wrote:
Gideon wrote: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.
"That's the problem with mercy, kid... It just ain't professional" - Fast Eddie, The Color of Money
User avatar
Kingcoal
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed 29 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby waegari » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 07:23:59

bubmachine wrote:
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.
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.

Al Bartlett
waegari
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue 28 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby skyemoor » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 08:09:31

bubmachine wrote:
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.

Image
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby skyemoor » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 08:24:18

bubmachine wrote: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.
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 08:40:54

bubmachine wrote: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.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby bubmachine » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 12:57:39

seldom_seen wrote: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. ?
User avatar
bubmachine
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu 11 Jan 2007, 04:00:00

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby bubmachine » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 13:00:25

JustinFrankl wrote:
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.
User avatar
bubmachine
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu 11 Jan 2007, 04:00:00

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby Ludi » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 13:01:45

I thought this was going to be a scientific discussion, not a political or ideological one.

Get back on topic, bubmachine.
Ludi
 

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby bubmachine » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 13:04:48

chris-h wrote:peak oil is not a theory.It is a fact.


It is a problem of the philosophy of science. There are people who think natural laws can be shown to be true (the empiricists), and others that think that you can only show them to be false (the falsificationists). And there are the Kuhnians and the postmodernists.

Bit more complex than shouting "it is a fact! Accept it!"
User avatar
bubmachine
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu 11 Jan 2007, 04:00:00

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby skyemoor » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 13:09:14

bubmachine wrote: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.


There's more to it than that, but it seems you already have the answer you are trying to get across.

bubmachine wrote: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.


Well, you've shown your true colors here, and have shown that you really weren't interested in learning anything, just dropping by to opinion dump. You need to realize that you have actually weakened the position that you were trying to bolster. Sorry.
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby bubmachine » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 13:12:46

TonyPrep wrote: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).


Well, I am neither a Heinberg-doomer or a free-market-techno-optimist. I tend to be a realist about these kinda things.

TonyPrep wrote: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.


The reason that modern Darwinism is problematic, is that many of the theorists use the view that opponents are either communists or theists. Steven Jay Gould is seen as a Marxist who refuses to see the truth of sociobiologism.

If criticisms are dismissed in this manner, instead of using data to show what is sound or unsound, is a sign of pseudoscience.

My position is quite simple. No-one can predict the oil peak, but world peak must happen sometime. So we must do something about it. I agree that some sort of action is needed.
User avatar
bubmachine
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu 11 Jan 2007, 04:00:00

Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory

Unread postby bubmachine » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 13:16:45

skyemoor wrote:
bubmachine wrote: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.


There's more to it than that, but it seems you already have the answer you are trying to get across.

bubmachine wrote: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.


Well, you've shown your true colors here, and have shown that you really weren't interested in learning anything, just dropping by to opinion dump. You need to realize that you have actually weakened the position that you were trying to bolster. Sorry.


OK, that is fair enough. I think I need to find some quotes then, because I am not convinced by Heinberg's doomism.
User avatar
bubmachine
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu 11 Jan 2007, 04:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 92 guests