This isn't isolated to just the states, world per capita fossil fuel consumption, and as a consequence energy consumption, has also remained roughly flat over the same approximate time period. Regional real GDP/capita has risen, and naturally the ratio of energy/real GDP has fallen throughout the entire world, not just in the US.
It isn't just hard, it's impossible! If the trend of GDP and energy consumption rising in sync had continued then the activities that were supposedly offloaded onto another country would've shown up in the world totals, however since the ratio of energy to real GDP for the world has also fallen unless those activities were offloaded to the moon or the mole people the ratio of energy/real GDP has consistently fallen since ~1980, unlike it's behavior over the previous hundred years or so in the states.
Whoa.... Keep it in your pants Mulder.

The chart is easily found after a few minutes of searching via Google. Pointing out foibles in modeling is just that, no perturbation theory needed although more math used properly never hurts. Creative data use isn't something that should be encouraged in anything calling itself science IMO. I don't think, or should I say I hope the CIA and/or NSA isn't this direct. Although if they were I suppose that would explain America's craptacular record throughout the world.

Hey Short,

Do you have any higher resolution versions of that chart? The one with AE overlaid over the standard PO chart.

I would like one suitable for presentation.

Alternatively if you have the data available I will make one myself, but I couldn't see the info accurately laid out anywhere.

idiom said:



Give me an email address and I will send you one. Let me know what else you need and I’ll send that along also.

PS Its easier as an HTML attachment.

I must apologize to those who have asked me to post additional information on the dollar, energy relationship as expressed by the Available Energy model. Lately, I have been very busy getting ready for the up coming economic dislocation that is (or is not) coming down the pipe.

For those of you who have retained the common sense that God Gave Geese, I would like to recommend the same!

The present economic tsunami that is brewing can be viewed as a predictor that is expressed by the Available Energy model. Oil shortages do not have to be an ostensible sign of the coming energy crisis. What is occurring is that we are seeing a declining economy because of oil’s falling energy contribution. As the economy contracts, and will continue to with the energy that is needed to maintain it, pieces of the system’s institutional structure will continue to fall off. We have seen this most predominately in the financial and banking sectors because of their initially more highly leveraged positions. It is also starting to appear in more basic industry, and will spread to transportation and other sectors. This will continue for more than a decade.

Since there are very few who can appreciate the situation, it is doubtful that much will be done to mitigate the problem.

Short, for some strange reason this thread was momentarily resurrected, perhaps by the ongoing server problems.

I am writing an article for publication that seeks to tie the economic crisis to peak oil. I believe you have developed another 'knot' the connects these disparate ideas.

I understand eroei and have a layman's understanding of Hubbert's method (at least via Deffeyes' version) but I am no good at calculus. I don't need to understand the math, just the implication.

Dohboi's question remains unanswered. (Due perhaps to Yesplease bizarre inability to understand net energy analysis) So please bear with us mathematically impaired folks.

k and m are constants that control the heigth and width of the curve. Search logistic curve to find a more detailed explanation.

All I've seen in this thread is a belief that the NSA and/or CIA are all over the place along with assumptions that ignore decades of data. While there is certainly something here, net energy analysis it ain't.

Energy analysis is one of the most common and powerful tools used by physical scientists and engineers. It is used on an ongoing bases to solve problems that are otherwise undeterminable by common stochastic methods. Remarks concerning energy analysis’s lack of applicability merely demonstrate a lack of expertise about the subject by the commentator.

The Baseline Scenario



A reply to a Baseline Scenario:


Baselinescenario


On 02/06/09 in the This is really serious the poo has hit the fan thread I posted that based on the Available Energy Model it can be predicted:



The data in the chart above did not take into consideration the effect that would occur from a significant reduction in exploration and development efforts. A reduction in E&P by the energy industry would free a portion of energy for use by the general economy. Since the Availability Energy model as applied to economic analysis is based on one simple assumption; that is, that all economic activity requires energy to be performed, it is necessary to look at the impact of any major reductions in E&P.

Whereas 83% of modern industrial societies’ energy is extracted from fossil fuels, and 38% of that is derived from petroleum, an analysis of the energy contribution of those products will give us a determination of economic viability, both now an into the future.

Counter arguments as to efficiency of energy use as not being considered have little validity and can not be seriously embraced because of the time element necessary to implement efficiency programs. Significant increases in efficiency require changes in both technology and social behavior. Within the time frame of the decade and one-half remaining for the functional period of the oil age, it can be reasonably assumed that increased efficiency could only have a minor impact on oil’s rapidly declining energy contribution.




A 40 percent reduction in E&P costs of $140 billion over the next two years with 20 percent having occurred in 2008, based on 20,000 BTU per dollar of E&P expense, would adjust world GDP figures as shown below. This reduction is supplying the world with additional energy for its general economy. (It required 8356 BTU from all sources to product $1 in GDP in the US during 2008.) This reduction in E&P results in an additional 552mbe for the general economy over this period, or 1.8% of one year’s total oil production. The adjusted figures are:



These figure are in the range projected by the UN Council on Economic Development of -2.75% for worldwide GDP in 2009, and the OECD which is now forecasting a contraction of -4.3% in 2009 for the OECD. The BEA reported a decline of -6.3% for the fourth quarter of 2008 in the US.

It must also be remember that the “official” GDP numbers are being skewed upwards by the immense expansion that is occurring in the money supply of most nations. This is being done to compensate for the rapidly declining velocity of money, and to pay for stimulus programs. The US is expanding its money supply by at least 17% per year, China by over 20%.

It is not surprising that economists are discovering that ”models keep being revised back on a monthly basis”. They have “unknown factors”. It is evident that these continually reemerging unknown factors lay outside the conventionally used economic models and are poorly understood.

To admit that energy is the determining factor, or to even considerate it, would be for them to admit that their P/Q hypothesis is fundamentally flawed. That is, the market does not actually provide an infinite quantity of resources by some magical process that is independent of time.

All of the economic recovery policies set forth to date refuse to address the problem of resource depletion, and its impact on world wide economic decline. It can therefore be assumed that no workable program will be put forth in time to mitigate the ongoing carnage in the financial industry and the general economy.

It would seem reasonable for the prudent individual to prepare for the worse case scenario. It seems highly probable that worldwide economic chaos will fully manifest itself no later than the third or fourth quarter of 2011 when GDP can be expected to experience a substantial drop!


Huffingtonpost

For those of you who find discussions concerning the monetary consequences of our debt based fiat currency system confusing, Mish provides a short course that is excellent.
Mish

You’ve got to love this quote:



These simple equations tell the story:



If we do a little mathematical conjuring here and take the first derivative of the equation:
Fm = Fb + MV(Fc)
we get some interesting insight into why the monetary system is at death’s door.

now, Fb changes very little and very slowly, so it is reasonable to consider it as a constant, and the derivative of a constant is zero, which gives us:

d(Fm)/dt = d(MV(Fc))/dt

This says that the rate of change of the Fiat Money Total is equal to the rate of change of the Market Value of Fiat Credit.

On 02/25/09 in the This is really serious the poo has hit the fan thread I posted this:
It shows the decline in US GDP and net worth for four years as projected by the AvailableEnergy model.



On 04/07/09 in the Available Energy thread I posted a revision which reflects the expected decline in GDP which also takes into consideration the reduction in exploration and development that has been reported. These reductions in E&D will increase the energy supply to the general economy and mitigate the decline in GDP while those reductions continue.



Filling out the rest of the chart, and assuming that the US follows the world trend we get:



The destruction in net worth by the end of 2011 will be $87 trillion. The Market Value of Fiat Credit for the entire US bond portfolio is only about $58 trillion. It will not be possible for the FED to create enough Fiat Monetary Base to compensate. Fiat Money Total is going to disappear, leaving only the Base.

This is how the prediction for a monetary system collapse of no later than the 3rd or 4th quarter 2011 was derived. Almost the entire value of the Market Value of Fiat Credit will be wiped out by that time.

Thanks for the clearing up my questions about k and m. The rest of your analysis makes it pretty clear that the pundits that are declaring a bottom to the financial crisis are talking out of their you-know-whats.

Is still do wonder if there could be one last fake-out pseudo-recovery for a few months or years before we really get into steep decline. Aren't there a bunch of mega-projects due to come on line in the next couple years? Have they all been mothballed? It seems like some folks over at TOD and elsewhere are thinking that things get really serious in more like 2013 or a bit later. Not that a few months really makes much of a difference in the big scheme of things.

dohboi said:



We know that banks, in collusion with government agencies, are burying a lot of this debt with Mark to Miracle devices, and off balance sheet schemes. These types of manipulations can cover banks for some indeterminate time, but that will not alleviate the basic problem. The credit markets are dysfunctional and in spite of claims to the contrary they are getting worse.

Corporate profits, and personal incomes are falling like a stone and bankruptcies will soon be exploding as individuals and firms find themselves unable to roll over debt by refinancing. By just looking at the asset destruction that we saw last year in home values, equities and bonds it is fairly apparent that the situation is much worse than most are admitting to.

When there is a disappearance, of what Mish calls Market Value of Fiat Credit, equal to the value of the US bond market, there will no longer be a way for the FED to create money. Estimates in general have been optimistic, and that has been because most estimates have been based on miscalculations of future GDP.

White House Estimates


The above White House estimates, obviously, vary greatly from the -6.3 in 4th quarter ‘08, and the -6.1% we’ve seen in 1st quarter ‘09. Adding to that, most estimates for recoveries are extrapolated from previous recessions. Such as, since post WWII the average recession has lasted 14 months, meaning if this was a typical recession if should be ending soon.

We are likely to see a slowing in the rate of decline for the next 6 or so months. That will be interrupted as a sign of the end by most, as seen now happening by the proclamations of the“green sprouts” enthusiasts. Unfortunately it will only be a brief hiatus, and those sprouts will be looking more like tumble weed within another year.

In the post above is a calculation of the expected decline rate in world GDP which was based on IEA estimates of the on going decline in E&D.



The IEA is revising their estimates from a $140 billion decline in E&D to $170 billion. That will affect the decline rate in world GDP. I’ll post those new figures in the next few days.

This was also posted on 06/08/09 in the Umployment thread of E&F.

Well well well. I think it's time for a reality check here. So far, shortonoil's little model isn't working so well. Perhaps it needs a bit of tweaking - no? Nay, I say it will eventually prove to be utterly worthless, but time will tell. So far, his prediction for a 2008 world GDP decline of 4.2% has gone down the drain, as world real GDP in 2008 actually expanded by 3.1% (source). His 2009 prediction is looking even worse. This shall be entertaining to watch.

That is not funny. You get no ha ha ha.

Last time I heard, thermodynamics is not a "little model." I am so very very sorry that the real, non-virtual world trumps voodoo economics.