[Whatever]

The volcano thing is an ANALOGY. It's not a model. The other one is doomer-porn from a doomer that lives, drinks, and pisses doom. Therefore not a good appeal to authority.

You have it all wrong, ennui. These are not appeals to authority. They are appeals to logic. So your boiler plate responses and cartoons are simply not effective as a form of rebuttal. Try to say something smart instead.



---Futilitist

[StarvingLion]

world is currently producing over 90 million bopd

The GIGO Factories masquerading as Peak Oil/Energy websites seem to never transcend the sophomoric state of counting # of barrels of oil.

If the 90 million barrels/day has half the energy content of the 80 million barrels/day from 10 years ago, is it better? Yes, according to the resident oil expert and "I faked my own Retirement" Ron over at that other place. Its not even sophomoric, its a complete waste of time to track # of barrels. I bet those garbage sites like peakoilbarrel.com never report a drop in counting barrels despite their posturing of "This is it, we have Peak oil in 2015".

Then, of course, it makes perfect sense for the bought and paid for chatterboxes to steer attention away from oil and towards electricity, climate change, ...everything but oil.

UPDATE: TURKEY IS ON THE BRINK OF TOTAL COLLAPSE

They got too much oil...the glut...so they decided to have a coup.

[sparky]

.
Peak oil is a peak of crude extraction , at 94 millions barrels a day and rising we obviously are not there yet ,
will it happen ...Ohh yeee ! the world is littered with ghost towns ,dead when the stuff run out
when ? I don't know .
the age of oil is roughly one hundred years old ,
I'm reasonably certain the peak will be within a couple of decades .
to say as the danger of peak oil passed is to misconstrue the industry

[dissident]

.
Peak oil is a peak of crude extraction , at 94 millions barrels a day and rising we obviously are not there yet ,
will it happen ...Ohh yeee ! the world is littered with ghost towns ,dead when the stuff run out
when ? I don't know .
the age of oil is roughly one hundred years old ,
I'm reasonably certain the peak will be within a couple of decades .
to say as the danger of peak oil passed is to misconstrue the industry

94 million barrels is not all oil. It includes ethanol and biodiesel.

http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/

US actual crude oil production is about 8 million barrels per day even if its total production is recorded as 12 million barrels per day. Note that US oil and condensate production has decline 8% compared to the year before.

http://peakoilbarrel.com/eia-world-crud ... on-update/

World crude oil and condensate production was 76 million barrels per day in 2013. There is no freaking way it increased by 18 million barrels per day in three years.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2016- ... -about-oil

Counting condensate as oil is BS anyway.

https://rbnenergy.com/dont-let-your-cru ... condensate

Oh my, most of Eagle Ford production is condensate.

These figures purporting to show that oil production is 94 or 96 million barrels per day are nothing but investor scams. Ethanol is not oil and never will be.

[Whatever]

.
Peak oil is a peak of crude extraction , at 94 millions barrels a day and rising we obviously are not there yet ,
will it happen ...Ohh yeee ! the world is littered with ghost towns ,dead when the stuff run out
when ? I don't know .
the age of oil is roughly one hundred years old ,
I'm reasonably certain the peak will be within a couple of decades .
to say as the danger of peak oil passed is to misconstrue the industry

Barrels are still rising, but the total energy available to the general economy is actually declining. This is because of rapidly rising entropy in the oil production process. Basically, net energy per barrel is declining so fast that all of the extra barrels aren't doing any good. The all liquids peak is not decades away. It will happen very soon, but it really doesn't matter much because the effect of declining total available energy is what causes the world economy to decline. That process has already begun and will very soon lead to the total, rapid collapse of modern industrial civilization. The world is about to be littered with a lot more ghost towns. Every major city in the world is about to become one.

The whole concept of counting barrels is just wrong. Doing that completely ignores the effect that the second law of thermodynamics has on the net energy per barrel. This effect is very significant. As the energetic cost of raising each barrel increases, the energy available to the general economy falls. So the important thing to be counting is energy, not barrels.

Insisting on counting barrels while ignoring second law effects makes absolutely no sense at all. It is a form of denial.



---Futilitist

[ennui2]

We were discussing complex system and networked dependencies. Got any fresh ideas?.

Like the house of cards metaphor is somehow a new idea? How many times do we want to flog that horse? I mean, how is that predictive? It's not. All it does is say things can go tits up overnight. It's useless outside of doomer porn. Once we actually DO get down to predictions then this stuff unravels.

[Whatever]

We were discussing complex system and networked dependencies. Got any fresh ideas?.

Like the house of cards metaphor is somehow a new idea? How many times do we want to flog that horse? I mean, how is that predictive? It's not. All it does is say things can go tits up overnight. It's useless outside of doomer porn. Once we actually DO get down to predictions then this stuff unravels.

The Korowicz paper is is not a metaphor. It is a detailed, complex non-linear systems analysis of how the world economy will react to declining energy.

Declining energy --> Financial crisis/Credit freeze --> Supply chain cross-contagion --> Mass starvation

This will eventually happen because there is no other possibility. In order to rebut the Korowicz paper, you'll have to do more than call it a metaphor to hand wave it away. I don't think you have even read it. You certainly haven't made any comments that pertain to it's actual contents. Your arguments are hollow and fake.

As far as predictions go, the Korowicz paper is about WHAT must eventually happen: rapid collapse. The other half of the prediction is about WHEN the collapse will actually begin. Timing is always harder to predict exactly, but the Etp model provides a very good way to understand the current rate of energy decline in the system. A good understanding of the physics of the Etp model combined with a good understanding of highly networked, complex non-linear systems as outlined in the Korowicz paper should very logically cause some sense of alarm in rational humans.



---Futilitist

[ennui2]

Declining energy --> Financial crisis/Credit freeze --> Supply chain cross-contagion --> Mass starvation

In 4 years? How long should the center hold before that detailed analysis proves to be faulty?

Or will it always seem plausible in the same way any doomsday prediction can, by simply saying "well, it can happen at any time!"

This will eventually happen because there is no other possibility.

Sure there are other possibilities. There's Greer's long descent for one, which I know you hate so much. Fast crash narratives are just one of several.

A good understanding of the physics of the Etp model combined with a good understanding of highly networked, complex non-linear systems as outlined in the Korowicz paper should very logically cause some sense of alarm in rational humans.

And now we come to the heart of the matter.

If you're a doomer, there's only one way to face each new day: in a pool of sweat waiting for empty store shelves and zombie hordes.

This is why there are only a handful of posters on this site: doomer fatigue.

Look, if you want to spend your retirement years quaking in your boots and/or trying to get other people to quake in their boots, be my guest.

I don't feel it really benefits anyone to fall into a state of extended panic, certainly not during what most consider to be, at the very least, a remission.

Carpe diem.

[onlooker]

So it has not occurred to you Ennui, that the reason some of us are doomers is because the facts of the matter and circumstances point precisely to this attitude. You seem to wish to believe that we simply like to project pessimistic forecasts or analysis. All you can do is simply refute us by saying we are too extreme or too pessimistic. This is not a valid rebuttal and thus most here are now aware that you stand on very shaky ground in your posturing to seem moderate or something akin to that. If you can debate the facts and extrapolations on those facts please do so otherwise you should not be taken seriously.

[ennui2]

If you can debate the facts and extrapolations on those facts please do so otherwise you should not be taken seriously.

The flow of history is the only rebuttal required. A doomer saying the house of cards will fall within some narrow time window is going to be proven false again and again. As long as he keeps shifting the prediction forward like Harold Camping then he can try to avoid looking like an idiot, but that excuse only works with the weak-willed.

I mean, this site has over 10 years of bad short-term predictions within its halls, symbolized by the catch-phrase "Iran Cable-Cut". Doesn't any of this have an impact on you, onlooker? Or will you just embrace any and all short-term doom prediction?

BTW, even though you seem a bit more reasoned than most, your a 911 troother, are you not? The more tinfoil someone believes the less credibility they have, IMHO. StarvingLion's probably the worst offender as far as giving of crazy vibes, which is why I don't rebut him very often. It's painfully obvious the guy needs to be on meds.

I mean, come ON people. This site is peakoil.com. Just look around. If there was any validity to the peak oil movement, there would be a more vibrant and diverse group of people here. I knew all the way back in 2008 or so that PSTarr would be the last man standing as far as classic peak oil doomers, and sure enough, he is. Even the moderators here don't take his talking points that seriously anymore, so much so that Whatever has accused this site of being some sort of corny conspiracy.

It seems what's left of the peak oil "movement" has split up and moved off to follow individual blogs like Gail's or Greers, but they don't bother to congregate at what should be the true homebase.

We are in snoozebar territory, plain and simple. By the time things change, there will be more people to sound the alarm than the likes of PStarr or Whatever.

I mean, I was calling this place a ghost town years ago and it's only worse now. When was the last time Pops actually posted? It's been maybe close to six months, I think. It's pretty much turn off the lights time, but that's how these things tend to work. It degrades down to shouting matches between literally a handful of individuals. That's where we are. The only discussion worth having here at the moment is AGW. The oil situation at present is a snoozefest.

[StarvingLion]

the Korowicz paper should very logically cause some sense of alarm in rational humans.

Lets see,,,put these two on reddit.com and observe the reaction:

Korowicz paper
Climate Change

"Climate change, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh run for your lives, we'll be swallowed by the rising oceans and mega storms within 5 years...ahhhhhhhhhhhhhrg"

The idiots are indeed alarmed by climate change; on oil depletion and its consequences, they are 100% sure there is 20-30 years left of cheap oil. In other words they don't even believe in the contemporary naive Peak Oil story.

The Korowicz paper wouldn't even shake up todays physicists. Nobel Laureate in Physics winner Robert Laughlin's retarded book 'Powering The Future: How we will (eventually) solve the energy crisis and fuel the civilization of tomorrow" is the work of an amateur. Laughlin is utterly clueless and he's a physicist. I can't find any engineers on reddit.com who are even interested in either the Korowicz paper or the etp model.

Admit it, Futilitist, you could have a more intelligent conversation talking to a horse than waste your time on the fake peak oil sites. "Oh look, the # of barrels has increased again...we must study this closely!!!"

[Whatever]

Declining energy --> Financial crisis/Credit freeze --> Supply chain cross-contagion --> Mass starvation

In 4 years? How long should the center hold before that detailed analysis proves to be faulty?

Or will it always seem plausible in the same way any doomsday prediction can, by simply saying "well, it can happen at any time!"

The Etp model forecasts the end of world oil production around 2021. That represents a loss of 38% of total energy and about 90% of transportation fuels. The world economy is already shrinking according to Gross Planet Product. Collapse has already technically begun. It is about to speed up. A lot. You won't have to wait much longer, ennui.

This will eventually happen because there is no other possibility.

Sure there are other possibilities. There's Greer's long descent for one, which I know you hate so much. Fast crash narratives are just one of several.

No, ennui. The only possible outcome is rapid collapse. Those other "possibilities" are actually impossibilities. Besides, it's on you to show why I am wrong. Offering up fantasies like Greer's long descent does not rebut my thesis.

A good understanding of the physics of the Etp model combined with a good understanding of highly networked, complex non-linear systems as outlined in the Korowicz paper should very logically cause some sense of alarm in rational humans.

And now we come to the heart of the matter.

If you're a doomer, there's only one way to face each new day: in a pool of sweat waiting for empty store shelves and zombie hordes.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never suggested that fear was the best reaction to the truth. You are so fearful, you can't even handle the truth.

This is why there are only a handful of posters on this site: doomer fatigue.

That is one theory. I have a better one.

Look, if you want to spend your retirement years quaking in your boots and/or trying to get other people to quake in their boots, be my guest.

I retired young, ennui. I am only 54. I am not trying to get other people to quake in their boots. You are the puss in boots, remember?

I don't feel it really benefits anyone to fall into a state of extended panic, certainly not during what most consider to be, at the very least, a remission.

Most people are now highly delusional with respect to collapse. This is to be expected.

Carpe diem.

Do you feel you are doing that? How?



---Futilitist

[Whatever]

the Korowicz paper should very logically cause some sense of alarm in rational humans.

Lets see,,,put these two on reddit.com and observe the reaction:

Korowicz paper
Climate Change

"Climate change, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh run for your lives, we'll be swallowed by the rising oceans and mega storms within 5 years...ahhhhhhhhhhhhhrg"

The idiots are indeed alarmed by climate change; on oil depletion and its consequences, they are 100% sure there is 20-30 years left of cheap oil. In other words they don't even believe in the contemporary naive Peak Oil story.

The Korowicz paper wouldn't even shake up todays physicists. Nobel Laureate in Physics winner Robert Laughlin's retarded book 'Powering The Future: How we will (eventually) solve the energy crisis and fuel the civilization of tomorrow" is the work of an amateur. Laughlin is utterly clueless and he's a physicist. I can't find any engineers on reddit.com who are even interested in either the Korowicz paper or the etp model.

Admit it, Futilitist, you could have a more intelligent conversation talking to a horse than waste your time on the fake peak oil sites. "Oh look, the # of barrels has increased again...we must study this closely!!!"

Great post, StarvingLion. I have no trouble admitting that I have a bad habit. But it won't be for much longer. I have much more important things to do since we are having an apocalypse and all. Timing is everything.



---Futilitist

[AdamB]

We were discussing complex system and networked dependencies. Got any fresh ideas?.

Ideas are easy. But for fresh ones, we discount everyone who ever fell for the peak oil/collapse claims last time, such sources having been already been discredited by their own "fresh last time maybe" ideas.

And then we examine everyone left, and why they knew better than to fall for the last round of doomer porn.

[Whatever]

Yup. It's great having you two here. Among the few who haven't rolled over for the denialists and hangerons. This place needs more shaking up.

Thanks pstarr. Yeah, let's shake it up while we still can. I have to admit this is starting to get somewhat entertaining. This grinding, slow witted propaganda machine cannot possibly keep up with the rapid changes that are happening all around us. Their lame excuses are failing by the day. The veil is slowly lifting as the apocalypse finally overtakes the endless conversation. Where's my popcorn?

We were discussing complex system and networked dependencies. Got any fresh ideas?

Ideas are easy. But...

But you never seem to have any. Oh, wait, you do have something original. Your sine wave theory of oil depletion. Ha ha.



Oops, sorry, wrong graphic. This one is obviously wave sign theory. But it also seems quite terrifying, don't you think?

Seriously though, you are always making some excuse not to actually answer the question.

...for fresh ones, we discount everyone who ever fell for the peak oil/collapse claims last time, such sources having been already been discredited by their own "fresh last time maybe" ideas.

And then we examine everyone left, and why they knew better than to fall for the last round of doomer porn.

So discrediting the messenger is the go to strategy, as usual. Cool. That general attitude tends to foster the kind of open minded, critical examination of often difficult and even taboo ideas that is necessary to figure out the truth. No wait, it does the opposite.

Timing the exact moment of collapse is an inherently difficult thing to do. You should actually try to examine the ideas presented before you start making excuses not to. Did you happen to get a chance to read the Korowicz paper?



---Futilitist

[ennui2]

Timing the exact moment of collapse is an inherently difficult thing to do.

On more than one occasion you have put your chips on fast-crash doom within 4 years. Is this statement you walking back from that position or not? Do you understand what happens to someone's credibility when they plant a stake in the ground and say "doom by this date" and then that date comes and goes? Do you expect people to keep giving out free passes for bad "end is nigh" calls?

[AdamB]

...for fresh ones, we discount everyone who ever fell for the peak oil/collapse claims last time, such sources having been already been discredited by their own "fresh last time maybe" ideas.

And then we examine everyone left, and why they knew better than to fall for the last round of doomer porn.

So discrediting the messenger is the go to strategy, as usual. Cool.

As usual, I didn't say that, and you aren't even clever up to make up something difficult to spot. Any objective perspective starts with understanding the quality of the sources of information. Some are better than others, and these sources need prioritized. I just made what i thought was a perfectly objective comment, and while I understand that it doesn't reflect well on chicken littles and others of the "been declaring the end for as long as they've been on the web" types, it is what it is. Nothing to do with the messenger other than understanding what they have claimed before, and matching that with the empirical reality. Except for Mr Starving Lion of course, we aren't sure what reality he happens to be in at any particular time.

Put down "doesn't have a clue about objective research"on the list of things you have demonstrated zero understanding of.

Timing the exact moment of collapse is an inherently difficult thing to do.

Not according to your make believe chart. Draw two intersecting lines on a Cartesian plot for tomorrow and do what you do. When the world doesn't collapse according to schedule, just bend the lines a little for tomorrow. Rinse and repeat. I'm assuming you learning this from peak oilers, but they aren't the only ones who have been caught doing this type of stuff before.

You should actually try to examine the ideas presented before you start making excuses not to. Did you happen to get a chance to read the Korowicz paper?
---Futilitist

Did you happen to have a chance to redraw your two lines across the appropriate time spans, using all the data, and changing the nominal and completely relative to something else prices into real prices?

[Whatever]

Timing the exact moment of collapse is an inherently difficult thing to do.

Not according to your make believe chart. Draw two intersecting lines on a Cartesian plot for tomorrow and do what you do. When the world doesn't collapse according to schedule, just bend the lines a little for tomorrow. Rinse and repeat. I'm assuming you learning this from peak oilers, but they aren't the only ones who have been caught doing this type of stuff before.

I have never been caught needing to change my forecast. The graphs I have been posting are consistently forecasting the downward price trajectory of oil. They have been doing so for more than 2 years running. There is no need for me to change this forecast because it hasn't been wrong yet.

My graphs do not forecast the exact date of the total collapse of modern industrial civilization, they just forecast the descending price of oil. Do you ever have anything real to say?

You should actually try to examine the ideas presented before you start making excuses not to. Did you happen to get a chance to read the Korowicz paper?
---Futilitist

Did you happen to have a chance to redraw your two lines across the appropriate time spans, using all the data, and changing the nominal and completely relative to something else prices into real prices?

One more time. Adjusting for inflation is not always necessary or proper.

http://people.duke.edu/~rnau/411infla.htm

Inflation-adjustment is not always necessary when dealing with monetary variables--sometimes it is simpler to forecast the data in nominal terms...

The oil price data published by EIA is not adjusted for inflation.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=13&t=5

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) publishes nominal prices (prices that are not adjusted for changes in the value of the U.S. dollar or inflation), unless stated otherwise.

The Etp model considers the number of barrels produced, the average water cut, and the average reservoir temperature for each year. These are obviously not adjusted for inflation. This actual data is the input for Equation #7, which is derived from the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes. This yields the Etp function curve. This curve is compared to the actual price paid for the barrels of oil in the year they were purchased. This is only logical. For example, if a barrel of oil was produced in 1995, it was paid for in 1995 dollars. So there is no need to adjust for inflation. Distorting actual data with an arbitrary CPI adjustment makes no sense in this case.

Given all of the above, why do you keep falsely claiming that an inflation adjustment is necessary? Grow up, Adam.

I have addressed your CPI claim yet again. You don't accept my answer. Fine. The readers can decide. We are done with this point now.

I asked you if you had a chance to read the Korowicz paper. Did you? Will you now please comment on it? If not, I think it is pretty obvious that you are just using this CPI disagreement as an excuse to keep dodging my question. That is a cheap and dishonest tactic. You are losing the debate, Adam.



---Futilitist