I must have missed the thermodynamics part, Short is predicting a change in GDP, which is an economic scheme, by pretending that it is the dependent variable to whatever his available energy model does.

Short will undoubtedly be the first to tell you that an important part of a modelers job is to calibrate them against reality to make sure they are doing what they are supposed to, accurately. If Shorts model does not match reality, there is a reason for it, and to make it work better, he needs to find out what it is. Apparently, available energy isn't quite the driver of GDP that his model says it is.

This isn't a surprise, all models are wrong, but some are useful. ( paraphrasing ). This isn't the first attempt by someone around here to try and incorporate EROEI into a economic model of some sort, I haven't seen one work well yet, which should be saying something to the modelers.

SS said:





Read the introduction! The relationship was defined by Cleveland in his paper. That is, over the last 100+ years there has been a direct relationship between GDP (GNP) and BTU consumed. R squared 98%.

I think that this is about the tenth time that this has been discussed! Can you say: "memory span of a coach roach"!

Within 16+ years we will have 4.3 trillion barrels of oil remaining and they will be about as useful as tits on a bull. It's called the end of the fossil fuel age and the economic/monetary system will be the first to feel its inpact.

That's true, however the data in the Cleveland paper only goes up to the early 1980s.
That's incorrect. Up until the early 1980 it held, but since then the relationship between the two has changed significantly compared to it's behavior prior to the early 1980s.
Speaking of which...