Think the Earth is finite? Think again

[Carlhole]

In the meantime, your denial is probably healthy for your sanity as I don't think that you are capable of handling the truth.

That's bullshit. I read all kinds of stuff on peak oil. I have for years. I used to take the whole Hubbertian analysis seriously until I started digging in to the details.

This has happened to others too. For example, we used to have a very conscientious member here by the name of FatherOfTwo who used to read and read and ask lots of questions and he dug in and really got into the weeds of peak oil. This was his last post:

Honestly I don't follow peakoil.com that much anymore (although I do pop in every now and then to the economic forum to read MrBill's very, very insightful posts) Here's why I don't follow it too much anymore, and why I would suggest doing a lot more reading before taking the "doomer's prep stage":

I started reading and researching peak oil in 2004 (as you can see by my join date and number of posts) It rattled me extensively as I was seriously uneducated about the topic at the time. I became a frequent visitor to this site and my appetite for energy related news and information became ravenous. I also became pretty depressed about the whole thing.

Over the years I have done a tremendous amount more reading and I've also attended the UofC's IEEE speaker sessions too. (I highly recommend those) With much more info under my belt and 4 years of reflection, I have a very different point of view now - and that is that we are headed for a gut wrenching adjustment, but doom due to peak oil is not on the horizon. This thread is not the place for me to extrapolate on my position.

In general I think blukatzen has good recommendations: living locally and sustainably is good regardless of what happens with Peak Oil. But as someone who has 4 years of this topic under his belt, I'd caution you to do more research before "prepping". peakoil.com is slanted hard towards the doomer side of things, and as with any topic it's best to get all the facts and a full sampling of viewpoints before betting the ranch on any one outcome.

I'm willing to discuss things further via PM but this thread isn't the place to continue any discussions on this matter.

Cheers and best of luck,

FoT

...and that's the thing with PeakOil.com; the people who dig in and read and discover that the Hubbertian analysis doesn't quite stand up -- they leave! And they don't come back! So the only people who stick around here are those that buy into the doom prophecy like the Second Coming or something.

And look, we always see the same paltry few posters submitting threads here. Compared to the supposed dire global seriousness of peak oil, the site sure isn't attracting very many new people... I mean, just look at this thread -- honestly, it's just the familiar few dozen names of the choir preaching to same.

I posted an excellent thread on a new book, "Oil Panic and the Global Collapse" by Stanford Earth Scientist Stephen Gorelick (which you can torrent for free). After reading that book, you'll see what FatherOfTwo (and people like me) mean when they say that there just isn't any sign of cataclysm on the horizon. Peak oil is a problem, sure. But the doomer perspective here is just way, way over the top.

[Lore]

With much more info under my belt and 4 years of reflection, I have a very different point of view now - and that is that we are headed for a gut wrenching adjustment, but doom due to peak oil is not on the horizon. This thread is not the place for me to extrapolate on my position.

Really depends on how long your horizon is.

At a point you just reach a conclusion and an acceptance, rightly or wrongly. People then get bored and go away. It's a bit like laying in a fox hole waiting for an attack, 98% boredom, 2% abject terror.

[Carlhole]

With much more info under my belt and 4 years of reflection, I have a very different point of view now - and that is that we are headed for a gut wrenching adjustment, but doom due to peak oil is not on the horizon. This thread is not the place for me to extrapolate on my position.

Really depends on how long your horizon is.

At a point you just reach a conclusion and an acceptance, rightly or wrongly. People then get bored and go away. It's a bit like laying in a fox hole waiting for an attack, 98% boredom, 2% abject terror.

Throughout history, predictions about the future have turned out to be totally laughable. Neverthless, everyone around here thinks it's no big deal to be dead certain about future outcomes. It's just another "The End Is Near!" crowd - at least it used to be ... now it's more like, "The End Is Further Out!"

Fact is, fossil fuels are going to be with us for a very long time, carrying the brunt of our requirements. Meanwhile, a variety of nuclear designs are fast being implemented in China and India, technologies like Joule Unlimited's photosynthetic microbes and all the rest of the energy alternatives are being developed in earnest. It's all very interesting.

It quite a stretch to believe in peak oil doom. That's why we only ever see the same old few dozen names posting around here. It's just not catching on, even though the concepts involved (Hubbert's peak) are easily grasped. No believes this shit out there in the real world.

A good fraction of the population believe that fossil fuels are a problem, but hardly anyone (percentage-wise) takes peak oil doom very seriously.

[vision-master]

Fear of a Blank Planet, eh?

[Lore]

Throughout history, predictions about the future have turned out to be totally laughable. Neverthless, everyone around here thinks it's no big deal to be dead certain about future outcomes. It's just another "The End Is Near!" crowd - at least it used to be ... now it's more like, "The End Is Further Out!"

Then again a great many predictions have come true. Just because it hasn't happened yet does not falsify the prediction. I've argued that Peak Oil and Climate Change are processes that will take place over many years, not in a single defining event. The end is not near, but it is also inevitable.

Fact is, fossil fuels are going to be with us for a very long time, carrying the brunt of our requirements. Meanwhile, a variety of nuclear designs are fast being implemented in China and India, technologies like Joule Unlimited's photosynthetic microbes and all the rest of the energy alternatives are being developed in earnest. It's all very interesting.

This a falicious argument to the future, arguing that evidence will someday be discovered which will (then) support your point.

It quite a stretch to believe in peak oil doom. That's why we only ever see the same old few dozen names posting around here. It's just not catching on, even though the concepts involved (Hubbert's peak) are easily grasped. No believes this shit out there in the real world.

Not a stretch at all. Everyone from the IEA on down believes in it. It's just an argument over when the affects will be felt.

A good fraction of the population believe that fossil fuels are a problem, but hardly anyone (percentage-wise) takes peak oil doom very seriously.

Most people don't take their own mortality seriously why should Peak Oil affect their BAU lives anymore then that?

[Carlhole]

Everyone from the IEA on down believes in it.

That's a lie. Show me where IEA has predicted peak oil doom.

[Lore]

Everyone from the IEA on down believes in it.

That's a lie. Show me where IEA has predicted peak oil doom.

The IEA is not in the business of predicting doom, just the forcast for energy.

Has the World Already Passed “Peak Oil”?
New analysis pegs 2006 as highpoint of conventional crude production.

The year 2006 may be remembered for civil strife in Iraq, the nuclear weapon testing threat by North Korea, and the genocide in Darfur, but now it appears that another world event was occurring at the same time—without headlines, but with far-reaching consequence for all nations.

That’s the year that the world’s conventional oil production likely reached its peak, the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Vienna, Austria, said Tuesday.

According to the 25-year forecast in the IEA's latest annual World Energy Outlook, the most likely scenario is for crude oil production to stay on a plateau at about 68 to 69 million barrels per day.

In this scenario, crude oil production "never regains its all-time peak of 70 million barrels per day reached in 2006," said IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2010.

In previous years, the IEA had predicted that crude oil production would continue to rise for at least another couple of decades.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... y-outlook/

[Carlhole]

We are talking about the fact the hardly anyone believes in peak oil DOOM. Only a few doom cultists believe in that. The world at large certainly does not. The IEA has never mentioned anything of the sort.

No one disputes that fossil fuels are finite. The IEA has acknowledged that a peak to be followed by an undulating plateau that lasts for a few decades.

[dsula]

It quite a stretch to believe in peak oil doom.

That of course depends on what doom means. If doom means the end of all mankind, then yes it's a stretch. If dooom means the end of western civilization, then it's not much of a stretch. If doom means greatly reduced standard of living for everybody (and mostly the west) then it's a sure thing.

[eXpat]

We are talking about the fact the hardly anyone believes in peak oil DOOM. Only a few doom cultists believe in that. The world at large certainly does not. The IEA has never mentioned anything of the sort.

No one disputes that fossil fuels are finite. The IEA has acknowledged that a peak to be followed by an undulating plateau that lasts for a few decades.

You are just playing with words there. We are past the peak of production, and there are not alternatives, Where is the energy and resources to keep BAU?
And what does it matter that J6P doesn´t believe it? J6P sits down to watch American Idol or Big Brother, J6P can hardly emit an authoritative opinion about anyting that is not superficial, shiny and mainstream.

[Carlhole]

We are talking about the fact the hardly anyone believes in peak oil DOOM. Only a few doom cultists believe in that. The world at large certainly does not. The IEA has never mentioned anything of the sort.

No one disputes that fossil fuels are finite. The IEA has acknowledged that a peak to be followed by an undulating plateau that lasts for a few decades.

You are just playing with words there. We are past the peak of production, and there are not alternatives, Where is the energy and resources to keep BAU?
And what does it matter that J6P doesn´t believe it? J6P sits down to watch American Idol or Big Brother, J6P can hardly emit an authoritative opinion about anyting that is not superficial, shiny and mainstream.

There is no significant evidence that bell-shaped curves accurately describe extraction rates. The long thread years ago with "Spike" (Michael Lynch) got into all of this - of which a large part has to do with economics and human action, not just supply itself. Hubbert's mathematical method SUCKED, and still does, to be blunt. It simply does not predict the future in any useful statistically significant way. No wonder -- it's the future! And economics is so subject to chaos; it's completely unpredictable. That should be a salient fact in any rational mind; I guess it's not around here, though.

Really, everyone should read OIl Panic and the Global Collapse: Predictions & Myths by Stephen Gorelick [/i]. Later, you'll thank me and pat me on the back for helping you.

[dsula]

There is no significant evidence that bell-shaped curves accurately describe extraction rates.

Yes there is. It is VERY VERY likely going to be a bell-shaped curve. It is very very unlikely that it is going to be anyhting else, e.g some boxcar curve from 100MB/day to zero in an instant, or an ever increasing curve to infinity. And it has nothing to do with Hubbert. It has something to do with how systems work. I recommend you take a few engineering courses (you're liberal art background just doesn't cut it).
In the end it doesn't matter how the depletion curve looks like. It matters that it eventually will go to zero. That says it all.

[Carlhole]

There is no significant evidence that bell-shaped curves accurately describe extraction rates.

Yes there is. It is VERY VERY likely going to be a bell-shaped curve. It is very very unlikely that it is going to be anyhting else, e.g some boxcar curve from 100MB/day to zero in an instant, or an ever increasing curve to infinity. And it has nothing to do with Hubbert. It has something to do with how systems work. I recommend you take a few engineering courses (you're liberal art background just doesn't cut it).
In the end it doesn't matter how the depletion curve looks like. It matters that it eventually will go to zero. That says it all.

I don't HAVE to have any engineering courses myself because Stephen Gorelick appears to be a well-credentialed Earth scientist specialing in Hydrology, just as M. King Hubbert also was. And he merely presents both sides of a most interesting debate. Sorry you're threatened by that. But, really, it's a good read.

I'm not lying... Colin Campbell like to use the metaphor of a pint - full at first and emptying to nothing. But thats not how fossil fuel economics works practically. But fossil fuels probably will indeed reach a peak and then decline; but it will be a DEMAND peak. Read about it. Be informed by the latest, I always say.

Colin Cambell will just stop wanting his beer and then the glass will just sit there.

[dsula]

but it will be a DEMAND peak.

Demand and supply will always match (absent price control). It is not possible to distinguish them. Therefore any peak in production is a hand-in-hand peak of both demand and supply.
I summarize:

1. You confirm there is a peak oil production and it will eventually go to zero
2. You believe an alternative will be found to pick up the slack.

That is your position. That's fine. However if I had to bet, I'd bet we wont' find an alternative in time. I therefore also believe that the future will be a massive reduction in standard of living.

Whether that is in 1, 5, 10, or 50 or 200 years doesn't really matter much in the grand scheme of things.

[Serial_Worrier]

The poor and middle classes generally posses more practical skills. 10 peasants from different walks of life could rebuild civilization. But If I was lost in the woods with Bob Dole, Hillary Clinton,The pretender to the portuguese throne, and 7 Saudi princes, I doubt we would do anything but die miserably.

At least Bob Dole would be a great emergency food supply.

You obviously don't understand that division of labor among humans began almost from the beginning. Men hunted, created tools. Women gathered berries, nuts and medicinal herbs. Division of labor is practically in our DNA.

[americandream]

In the meantime, your denial is probably healthy for your sanity as I don't think that you are capable of handling the truth.

That's bullshit. I read all kinds of stuff on peak oil. I have for years. I used to take the whole Hubbertian analysis seriously until I started digging in to the details.

That right there is the problem with you. I talk about comprehensive RESOURCE alchemy, you talk about peak oil. Do you think that a relentlessly growing global production line of cornucopia depends on oil alone for the creation of the annually obsolescent junkheap that ends up in our landfills, water tables, rivers and oceans?

You need to, in a few sentences, convince those of us who BELIEVE otherwise, that capitalism is capable of:

1 Comprehensive resource alchemy which is a closed loop in terms of primary inputs, OR;

2 Viable space technology that not only overcomes the problems of proliferating space junk, but provides us with the means to economically mine and ferry commodities off planet. As it is, not only is NASA canning its shuttle carrier, it will be falling back on '60's Soyuz technology. There is a great deal of hope being placed on the private sector taking up the reigns as well but no one has yet fully answered the question, what do we do when space junk proliferates to the point that entering outwith orbital space proves to be more costly than the benefits that will arise, AND;

3 Effective and economic filtering technology to deeply filter the oceans of the deeply ingrained pollution that is now at the point of overwhelming marine systems at more complex levels. Anyone who believes that we can continue to run the consumer ponzi scheme which revolves around vast volumes of repeated waste to generate necessarily growing profits, WITHOUT addressing the rising menace of massive environmental decay, is beyond blind for failing to give their cornucopianism sufficient thought, and is in fact a menace in terms of the nuances of this debate.

[Xenophobe]

We are past the peak of production, and there are not alternatives, Where is the energy and resources to keep BAU?

Not so fast on that peaking thing. We may have yet another in the works! Go Stuart! Go team! Bring on some more peaks!

http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2010/12/p ... crude.html

This is a great thing for peakers, man, we can start up all the Hubbert curve talk again, start pretending that the next peak in the future will cause all sorts of dieoff, gold guns and ammo, MRE's, where to buy land, the real meat and potatoes of peak sites. When the peak was years in the past it was all so darn depressing, what with no one noticing and all.

[Xenophobe]

There is no significant evidence that bell-shaped curves accurately describe extraction rates.

Yes there is. It is VERY VERY likely going to be a bell-shaped curve.

Perhaps you didn't read the part about statititical significance? Review the appropriate science please, Carlhole is right and it was shown 6 years ago now why.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q363778431537157/

Come on people! There are more peaks coming...its time to up our game!

I recommend you take a few engineering courses (you're liberal art background just doesn't cut it).
In the end it doesn't matter how the depletion curve looks like. It matters that it eventually will go to zero. That says it all.

Insult Cavallo why don't you. He agree's with Carlholes analysis, and no one except those assembling strawmen use the old "it goes to zero!" trick anymore, that one is so OBVIOUS.

[rangerone314]

What's peak oil?

My Jetson's flying car is now 10 years old, time to get a new one. Yup, ain't the future great, unlimited energy.

If only they could harness the energy of fools.

[Xenophobe]

What's peak oil?

Apparently something which has been either happening intermittently, or is always being claimed to be happening in the near future, for like a CENTURY now. The more of them we have, the more confusing it all becomes.

Yup, ain't the future great, unlimited energy.

Well, unlimited in the human context anyway. Unless someone wants to pretend that yet another peak oil is going to shut down the sun?

If only they could harness the energy of fools.

True. What do you think, how hard would it be to get all those peak oilers on a single treadmill, get some of electrical output out of them?