Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

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

Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 30 Oct 2017, 23:07:52

shortonoil wrote:In 2000 the USGS put their P95 resource at 3,400 Gb. There is a 5% chance that it is there. As Colin Campbell said, "there's a five percent chance that I'm a frog".


Sounds like Colin doesn't understand basic probability any better than you do. Because Colin isn't a frog. Therefore there is 0% chance of him being a frog. Same probability of you showing up where modelers hang out I suppose.


shortonoil wrote:We have extracted from 1859 until now about 1,500 Gb. 40% of all the liquid hydrocarbons on the planet have already been removed.


No. We haven't. But you DESIGNED your resource estimate to be able to say that, which is why we can safely say your model suffers from GIGO. When you can't be bothered to get the fundamental issues of available resources right, there is no value in continuing on from there. Did the Royal Academy laugh the paper out of the building, or the entire country?
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 5

Unread postby asg70 » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 00:21:00

onlooker wrote:http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-30/worlds-five-largest-bond-markets-are-syncing-disaster
Well it looks like the long anticipated inflation is finally coming from this prolonged liquidity easy money bonanza if the Bond Market behavior is any guide
worlds-five-largest-bond-markets-are-syncing-disaster
And threatening systemic worldwide failure as large potent countries go broke.


Zerohedge again.

Earlier in the thread it was "The fed can't make inflation! They've run out of bullets! Go rush to the bunker!"

Now it's "Inflation is coming! Go rush to the bunker!'

Which is it?

Of course, I know the answer. It's always lose-lose with doomers.
Last edited by asg70 on Tue 31 Oct 2017, 00:25:17, edited 1 time in total.
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 5

Unread postby asg70 » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 00:23:29

shortonoil wrote:Once that stops the demand for oil is going through the floor


Well gee, maybe it will both keep oil prices low (good) AND lower CO2 emissions that have been going through the roof (good).

Only an ETPer would see these as bad things.
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 5

Unread postby shortonoil » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 07:54:38

Yoshua said on page 28

The Royal Society hasn't turned down The Model.


Not yet, anyway. This is about the 10th rewrite of the paper. The Academy has a very strict format that must be followed. Not many that are submitted ever get accepted, and it is very likely that we will have fallen into a major economic breakdown before this one gets that far.

Its interesting how the armchair geniuses, that probably couldn't even write a good postcard, are telling us how scientific reviews are conducted. They probably have to attempt trivializing everything because their own lives are so trivial. Getting attacked by a herd of nothing burgers is so devastating. Not!

At this point we are so far up the Total Production Energy curve that massive dislocations could occur at any time. The entire system seems to be defying the laws of gravity, and it appears to be held together with the financial equivelant of duck tape, and bailing twine. It goes to show how poor our economic models really are! Considering the amount of time and effort that has been put into their composition, they have never achieved an accurate predictive model. They are extremely weak compared to the physical sciences. Newtonian Physics can predict within inches were a projectile will strike miles away, while our economic models couldn't even predict the collapse of an entire empire. No one saw the fall of the old Soviet Union coming until after it had completely collapsed. If we rely on economists to predict what's in store we are mostly likely going to get very surprised!

To construct an equitable, and sustainable system we need new economic principles. The ones that were propagated by the old industrial barons of yesterday just haven't worked out very well! By using them we have managed to exterminate the water supply, the top soil, the petroleum, the climate, and even the fish. They have definitely not produced a success story.

We need an Albert Einstein in economics to realign, and straighten out a thousand conflicting, and self contradicting theories. Where we find such an individual is a little problematic. We could take a vote on it, but looking at the quality of posts here, we would probably come up with Paul Krugman. The break a few more windows guy! Democracy is not likely to produce a very good result in this instance. But, for the sake of future generations let's hope someone appears. Maybe I'll take a poke at it after breakfast?

http://www.thehillsgroup.org
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5083
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 5

Unread postby marmico » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 08:35:33

The Academy has a very strict format that must be followed. Not many that are submitted ever get accepted, and it is very likely that we will have fallen into a major economic breakdown before this one gets that far.


What a fookenstoopidretard clown.

The paper was rejected. You don't get multiple rewrites.

Revisions and resubmissions: Please note that it is the editorial policy of Proceedings A to offer authors one round of revision in which to address changes requested by referees. If the revisions are not considered satisfactory by the Editor, then the paper will be rejected, and not considered further for publication by the journal. In the event that the author chooses not to address a referee’s comments, and no scientific justification is included in their cover letter for this omission, it is at the discretion of the Editor whether to continue considering the manuscript. For some rejected manuscripts, the authors will be permitted to submit a revised version.


http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/for-reviewers
marmico
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 13:46:35

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 5

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 09:32:22

Not yet, anyway. This is about the 10th rewrite of the paper.


no such thing in any journal, anywhere. As I stated previously you have one shot at revisions after review, if the paper isn't accepted at that point it is rejected and you need to start all over from scratch with another journal.

Its interesting how the armchair geniuses, that probably couldn't even write a good postcard, are telling us how scientific reviews are conducted.


there is at least two of us who have published in various scientific journals as well as sat on editorial boards.

And it seems Marmico has highlighted the journal submission standards which reflects what Adam and I have said already.

Without anymore information I have to conclude either you are making this all up or your colleagues have been feeding you full of blitherskite.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5504
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 5

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 11:14:16

shortonoil wrote:Yoshua said on page 28

The Royal Society hasn't turned down The Model.


Not yet, anyway. This is about the 10th rewrite of the paper.


In my career, I've needed to do 3 paper rewrites a second time. Sounds like the hill group can't write any better than it can add up resource estimates readily available on the internet.

And the information provided by Kub, and this claim, are not consistent. Which makes them EXACTLY like the etp!! :lol:

shortonoil wrote:Its interesting how the armchair geniuses, that probably couldn't even write a good postcard, are telling us how scientific reviews are conducted.


Been at it for 20 years. Doesn't make me a genius though just experienced. But you sure sound like an absolute worm (oil field slang for a tinhorn, green horn, neophyte, don't know nuttin beginner).

shortonoil wrote:At this point we are so far up the Total Production Energy curve that massive dislocations could occur at any time.


But instead of that, as marmico has been pointing out, the prices have been breaking THE LAWS OF PHYSICS and going above your randomly generated LINE OF ETP DEATH!!!! OMG!!!! THE DOOM! AGAIN! I CAN FEEL IT!!!

[smilie=5grouphug.gif]


shortonoil wrote:The entire system seems to be defying the laws of gravity, and it appears to be held together with the financial equivelant of duck tape, and bailing twine.


It has no relation to physics, or gravity in the first place, so it defying all laws is completely expected. There is a reason why you won't wheel this thing out in public, are you really only now getting around to understanding why the hair stands up on the back of your neck every time you think about coming out from under that rock?

shortonoil wrote: It goes to show how poor our economic models really are!


No. It shows that random model generators aren't predictive. Nor are your regression equations. You knew this once, but conveniently forgot it after changing your mind on the topic in order to..well...YOU know.

Image

shortonoil wrote:We need an Albert Einstein in economics to realign, and straighten out a thousand conflicting, and self contradicting theories. Where we find such an individual is a little problematic. We could take a vote on it, but looking at the quality of posts here, we would probably come up with Paul Krugman. The break a few more windows guy! Democracy is not likely to produce a very good result in this instance. But, for the sake of future generations let's hope someone appears. Maybe I'll take a poke at it after breakfast?

Random Number Generator Documented Here


How about you learn to write first? And then, you can learn to count up oil and gas volumes around the globe. And then you can learn some modeling. And then you can write a book on how only your regression equations are predictive. And then you can get some real information, get a degree in statistics to learn how to use those oil and gas estimates, and then come up with a non-random number generating idea, and then come out from under your rock!

Of course, what follows next will be wildly entertaining. What fun would reviewing technical ideas be if newbies didn't venture forth to do battle on occasion!10 rewrites and 63 reviewers, this just keeps getting better by the post!
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 5

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 11:22:50

marmico wrote:
The Academy has a very strict format that must be followed. Not many that are submitted ever get accepted, and it is very likely that we will have fallen into a major economic breakdown before this one gets that far.


What a fookenstoopidretard clown.

The paper was rejected. You don't get multiple rewrites.


Well...you MIGHT. It depends on why it went wrong. If they noted even half the flaws in the documentation on the resource end, yep, they might punt it right back out the door without going much farther. But if it was ONLY that, it might be fixable, and offered at least one chance at a comeback. Maybe. Depends on the generosity of the reviewer or editorial policy. The higher up the quality scale you go, the less likely they are to be forgiving to anyone. Even less so of nobodies who can't write, have lousy graphical representations (way too much crazy color and old looking stuff, old looking like 2 decade old software old), lack real world understanding of the topic and mistake correlation with causation in as bold a manner as my emphasis.


marmico wrote:
For some rejected manuscripts, the authors will be permitted to submit a revised version.


http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/for-reviewers


Standard language, as I've described above. Note the caveat of course. FOR SOME....unlikely they will offer that up to those making newby errors that are about the hallmark written up in the random number generator documentation.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby asg70 » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 14:11:56

meanwhile, back in the real world....

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... since-2000
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby Observerbrb » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 14:28:01

asg70 wrote:meanwhile, back in the real world....

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... since-2000


The last breath of this current bull period. The only difference with the one that occurred 10 years ago is that the world economies are far more indebted and real growth is anemic or non-existent. Oh, and rates are so low and QEs are so high accross the whole world that there is no room for additional maneuvers.

Enjoy the bubble while it lasts!
Observerbrb
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon 08 Dec 2014, 14:24:48

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby shortonoil » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 17:13:36

Observerbrb said:

The last breath of this current bull period. The only difference with the one that occurred 10 years ago is that the world economies are far more indebted and real growth is anemic or non-existent.


The central banks get out of jail free card is no longer working. Ctrl-P is now just producing a grocery list. It now takes almost $7 in new debt to increase the GDP by $1. They have reached the point where the only thing new currency creation does is slow down the velocity of money. Growth in the economy has been less than a third of the service cost of existing debt for more than a decade. Service of existing debt has only been possible through the printing of excess currency. That day has come to its end. We can expect a world wide wave of defaults to be coming as the real economy continues to decline. Thermodynamics is about to eviscerate our pile of plastic tokens.
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5083
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby asg70 » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 17:36:28

Yes, enjoy the bubble while it lasts. How long it lasts is really anyone's guess, since I've been hearing economic end-is-nigh doomsaying since 2008.
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby shortonoil » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 20:49:54

The best economists that the CIA could buy couldn't tell them that the old Soviet Union was about to collapse. It was the largest nation on earth by land mass, and they didn't have a clue. Anyone expecting that this situation will be any different is doing shot guns of hopium from a double barreled pipe! The most likely scenario will be a failure of our badly flawed monetary system. There are also comets, big flying rocks, and really bad solar storms. With $250 trillion in completely unserviceable debt the monetary system is out in front in this horse race.
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5083
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 20:51:39

Observerbrb wrote:[
Enjoy the bubble while it lasts!


Absolutely. It is what bubbles are for. Do you know how much money was made after the 2008 bubble burst? Once in a generation type market gains for those who were piling in afterwards. I wouldn't mind another one of those before retirement.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 21:03:17

shortonoil wrote:The best economists that the CIA could buy couldn't tell them that the old Soviet Union was about to collapse.


As usual, you are incorrect. Some folks saw it coming, and predicted it. Ask him yourself if you'd like, it isn't a top secret story.

You really do need to get out more, you keep making these absolute claims of this or that happening that are just such a crock.

shortonoil wrote: It was the largest nation on earth by land mass, and they didn't have a clue.


Some had more than a clue. The ones that didn't, well sure you would be familiar with that type.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby Quinny » Wed 01 Nov 2017, 00:26:13

Anyone checked out the "Model" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Modeling_System that was being pushed by Adam as a "Real Model'

Interesting :roll:
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3335
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby pessimisticoptimist » Wed 01 Nov 2017, 08:44:32

why is it that every time I cross a bridge Adam is under it. Oh yes - he's a troll.
pessimisticoptimist
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri 03 Mar 2017, 22:19:48

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby asg70 » Wed 01 Nov 2017, 09:14:23

pessimisticoptimist wrote:why is it that every time I cross a bridge Adam is under it. Oh yes - he's a troll.


And you're little more than a sock-puppet.

post1351481.html#p1351481

You've got 32-posts here and I am not seeing much in the way of an original or useful thought added to the discussion. The only link you dropped was to a doom blogger who just happens to be saying what you want to hear.

post1369788.html#p1369788

You want to improve the discourse? Contribute something besides bobbleheading and insulting critics of ETP.

If you're not capable of doing that, then at the very least get off your damn high-horse with the troll namecalling and accept the fact you're just screwing around for shits and giggles.
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 01 Nov 2017, 10:18:45

asg70 wrote:
pessimisticoptimist wrote:why is it that every time I cross a bridge Adam is under it. Oh yes - he's a troll.


And you're little more than a sock-puppet.

post1351481.html#p1351481

You've got 32-posts here and I am not seeing much in the way of an original or useful thought added to the discussion. The only link you dropped was to a doom blogger who just happens to be saying what you want to hear.

post1369788.html#p1369788

You want to improve the discourse? Contribute something besides bobbleheading and insulting critics of ETP.

If you're not capable of doing that, then at the very least get off your damn high-horse with the troll namecalling and accept the fact you're just screwing around for shits and giggles.

Your extensive research of an incidental (by your own defintition) poster is evidence of your own excessive trolling. You have destroyed this site. Was that your intention?
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26304
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby asg70 » Wed 01 Nov 2017, 10:53:47

pstarr wrote:You have destroyed this site.


So that means you'll be leaving, then?
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Next

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pstarr and 25 guests