[John_A]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/06/limits-to-growth-was-wrong.html?m=1

The authors of The Limits to Growth predicted that before 2013, the world would have run out of aluminum, copper, gold, lead, mercury, molybdenum, natural gas, oil, silver, tin, tungsten, and zinc. Oil and natural gas were to run out in 1990 and 1992, respectively; today, reserves of both are larger than they were in 1970, although we consume dramatically more. Within the past six years, shale gas alone has doubled potential gas resources in the United States and halved the price.

Limits to Growth was a number of scenarios based on a false premise, that use of resources grows exponentially. They don't. So of course they were "wrong", you can pick any one scenario and show how it didn't work, but the fundamental flaw is the exponential growth model. You can't grow anything exponentially without it becoming a ridiculous number in a short amount of time. Remember the one grain of rice per box on the Chess board model, doubling each time, so that by the final box you have more rice grains than exist on the planet? No different than that.

[Lore]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/06/limits-to-growth-was-wrong.html?m=1

The authors of The Limits to Growth predicted that before 2013, the world would have run out of aluminum, copper, gold, lead, mercury, molybdenum, natural gas, oil, silver, tin, tungsten, and zinc. Oil and natural gas were to run out in 1990 and 1992, respectively; today, reserves of both are larger than they were in 1970, although we consume dramatically more. Within the past six years, shale gas alone has doubled potential gas resources in the United States and halved the price.

Limits to Growth was a number of scenarios based on a false premise, that use of resources grows exponentially. They don't. So of course they were "wrong", you can pick any one scenario and show how it didn't work, but the fundamental flaw is the exponential growth model. You can't grow anything exponentially without it becoming a ridiculous number in a short amount of time. Remember the one grain of rice per box on the Chess board model, doubling each time, so that by the final box you have more rice grains than exist on the planet? No different than that.

It's relative to time. Global population is still growing exponentially.

[Don35]

Because they missed the timing, it must mean they are completely wrong? Funny how belief trumps data. The mind believes what it wants to be real regardless of data. Look and see for yourself! If think physiologists call it "cognitive dissonance". But in the end reality gets us all!

[ralfy]

We are. This is SpaceX. Probably the coolest company on the planet with the stuff they are doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujX6CuRELFE

Mar 14, 2013 - Uploaded by spacexchannel
SpaceX designs, manufactures, and launches the world's most advanced rockets and ...

Another amazing technology SpaceX is working on is making rockets reusable. That would lower the cost per pound of reaching orbit by a factor of 10.

Vertical takeoff and landing of a rocket. The most recent test was to 250 meters, hovered, this landed. Later this year they are going to try it with a full sized rocket after it delivers its satellite payload to orbit. They are going to attempt a soft landing over water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoxiK7K28PU

This stuff will inspire you. Watch a few Elon Musk video interviews on YouTube. Amazing stuff.

Given what you've shared and current realities (e.g., 60 pct of people earn only around two dollars a day), not even close.

[agramante]

Limits to Growth was a number of scenarios based on a false premise, that use of resources grows exponentially.

Looks like you paid about as much attention to this book as you did to Hubbert's paper.

Exponential growth is certainly part of their thinking--and for a period of history, human population has exceeded exponential growth. The authors also consider logistical population growth, and a few other models as well, such as a peak-and-crash or peak followed by a series of overcorrections. But specifically to resource usage they posit that with increasing industrialization and per-capita GDP, that per-capita consumption levels off:

Resource Usage.jpg

It's not a linear relationship based on exponential population growth.

[John_A]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/06/limits-to-growth-was-wrong.html?m=1

The authors of The Limits to Growth predicted that before 2013, the world would have run out of aluminum, copper, gold, lead, mercury, molybdenum, natural gas, oil, silver, tin, tungsten, and zinc. Oil and natural gas were to run out in 1990 and 1992, respectively; today, reserves of both are larger than they were in 1970, although we consume dramatically more. Within the past six years, shale gas alone has doubled potential gas resources in the United States and halved the price.

Limits to Growth was a number of scenarios based on a false premise, that use of resources grows exponentially. They don't. So of course they were "wrong", you can pick any one scenario and show how it didn't work, but the fundamental flaw is the exponential growth model. You can't grow anything exponentially without it becoming a ridiculous number in a short amount of time. Remember the one grain of rice per box on the Chess board model, doubling each time, so that by the final box you have more rice grains than exist on the planet? No different than that.

It's relative to time. Global population is still growing exponentially.

But that isn't how you can model it any more than you can model oil production growing exponentially.

[John_A]

Limits to Growth was a number of scenarios based on a false premise, that use of resources grows exponentially.

Looks like you paid about as much attention to this book as you did to Hubbert's paper.

I can quote parts of Hubbert's paper nearly verbatim. Which is how I know the guy was gangbusters about resource calculations related to a nuclear powered future.

As far as the "book" of Limits to Growth, it wasn't so much a book as a layout of the various scenarios generated by a model.

If you'd like, I can retrieve it again from the library and we can discuss the validity of the scenarios. Not sure what the value of that might be, they put enough of them in there that you can pick the one you'd like, true or not, or disprove any of them, true or not.

3.9% in annual petroleum growth rate being one of those interesting assumptions. Please. We've been at 0% growth rate for 8 years now, and all it took was $100/bbl oil. According to one of their tables, there was only like 29 years of gold around....and maybe 50 years of oil. Well, so we must be out of gold and oil is toast in 7 years? Certainly those who like the idea of a big model predicting the same Malthusian doom as Malthus did will like the idea, but all it takes is one look at an EIA or IEA projection of oil production (let alone gold!) to see that running out, it ain't here yet, and we might not even be able to see it from here yet.

[Keith_McClary]

and all it took was $100/bbl oil. According to one of their tables, there was only like 29 years of gold around....and maybe 50 years of oil. Well, so we must be out of gold and oil is toast in 7 years? Certainly those who like the idea of a big model predicting the same Malthusian doom as Malthus did will like the idea, but all it takes is one look at an EIA or IEA projection of oil production (let alone gold!) to see that running out, it ain't here yet, and we might not even be able to see it from here yet.

All it takes is $1300 gold.

Should gold just put on its commodity hat, instead of its increasingly more popular currency one, its cost of production should provide some guidance.

Assuming sustaining capex at around $200/oz, this indicates cost support at around $1300/oz
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-1 ... port-price

Of course, it looks different through shadowstats coloured glasses:

[Wyoming]

I am new around this blog (I came over from TOD). I tend to lurk and not post often but the original post provoked me (I realize that was probably what was intended).

To be frank, the original post is just brain-dead wrong. I own and have studied all of the different editions of the Limits to Growth books and it is certain that the original poster has never read them and is just repeating ideologically motivated distortions and lies.

These works can only be described as gifted work. Time has proven the trends they documented and we see the risks they warned us about every day. This blog is full of those risk discussions. Considering the date of the original work and how accurate it has proven to be I would guess that there has likely never been a body of work that proved to be so prescient. Get them and read them. It is enlightening in terms of all the discussions about collapse and such that fill the blogs these days. They were decades ahead of us and we are still following the likely path they laid out today. Note that almost no matter what scenario they put to the models the curves really turn south between mid-century and about 2070. We still fit this path quite well and BAU practices almost guarantee we will continue to follow it.

The only meaningful criticism of the more recent work (2052 by Randers) is that the likely effects of AGW are not really taken into account. There is no curve on any scenario they graph that will not be worsened by AGW. It is quite probable that they will be proved to be optimists because of that factor.

But, if you don't like their conclusions, you can download a copy of the model and run your own scenario's (I have the software also) and see what you get. When you pick a fight with a couple of dozen MIT PHd's you best get your ducks in order or you are most likely to be looking around for your head.

[John_A]

and all it took was $100/bbl oil. According to one of their tables, there was only like 29 years of gold around....and maybe 50 years of oil. Well, so we must be out of gold and oil is toast in 7 years? Certainly those who like the idea of a big model predicting the same Malthusian doom as Malthus did will like the idea, but all it takes is one look at an EIA or IEA projection of oil production (let alone gold!) to see that running out, it ain't here yet, and we might not even be able to see it from here yet.

All it takes is $1300 gold.

You just made an economists point for him/her. For the right price, you never get to say "running out".

[John_A]

But, if you don't like their conclusions, you can download a copy of the model and run your own scenario's (I have the software also) and see what you get. When you pick a fight with a couple of dozen MIT PHd's you best get your ducks in order or you are most likely to be looking around for your head.

Conclusions? They did scenarios with different inputs, and decided that bad things happen. I can build a model which says bad things happen even sooner. Or not. Doesn't mean either will happen, any more than theirs figures that by now, gold is gone and oil has only 7 years left.

GIGO. And that assumes the model even works when compared to the real world, which certainly is not in evidence.

[Pops]

The only meaningful criticism of the more recent work (2052 by Randers) is that the likely effects of AGW are not really taken into account. There is no curve on any scenario they graph that will not be worsened by AGW. It is quite probable that they will be proved to be optimists because of that factor.

Hi Wyoming, IIRC, the "pollution" curve was the stand in for AGW but I haven't read the newest book

[ETA] the problem with the model is CO2 doesn't go away just because you quit producing it, does it?



http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/201 ... rowth.html

[dsula]

I can build a model which says bad things happen even sooner.

Now, I'm sure you can. But can you also build a model that is more accurate?

[Keith_McClary]

Conclusions? They did scenarios with different inputs, and decided that bad things happen. I can build a model which says bad things happen even sooner. Or not.

Yeah, but can you find a plausible scenario where the bad things don't happen? That's the whole point of their project.

[Keith_McClary]

You just made an economists point for him/her. For the right price, you never get to say "running out".

If stuff gets so expensive to produce that few people can afford the "right price" then production will decline. Is that "running out"? I guess you can define "running out" to mean whatever you want it to mean.

[John_A]

I can build a model which says bad things happen even sooner.

Now, I'm sure you can. But can you also build a model that is more accurate?

More accurate than what? The single independent variable on that entire chart? Every single other line on that graph is slow changing, non-inflection point trend fitting until....DOOM!

I wonder why the single independent variable on that chart isn't matched to reality?

[John_A]

Conclusions? They did scenarios with different inputs, and decided that bad things happen. I can build a model which says bad things happen even sooner. Or not.

Yeah, but can you find a plausible scenario where the bad things don't happen? That's the whole point of their project.

There are plenty of plausible scenarios where bad things don't happen. As far as the resource side of the thing goes, we appear to be living in one of them right now. Let us not forget the contemporaneous mindset of that age. Was the point of their project really a sensitivity analysis of what could happen, or a model which would create the result they wanted to talk about?

"Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich (in 1970)

[agramante]

I can quote parts of Hubbert's paper nearly verbatim.

Doubtful since you seemed to have forgotten one of his basic points about production trends. Hubbert was quite optimistic about nuclear power. Outside of France, not many countries have followed that policy and his vision hasn't come to pass. He was also a Technologist. These things generally aren't discussed because his prediction of oil production is the most relevant to our situation now.

According to one of their tables, there was only like 29 years of gold around....and maybe 50 years of oil.

Again the utter lack of comprehension. Those plots of resource consumption are not predictions. They are models, extrapolations based on contemporary consumption rates and reserve amounts. They make it clear repeatedly within the book that they aren't able, and aren't trying, to identify when any given resource will run out. The one thing approaching a prediction that they did make is in the quote I highlighted earlier: in 100 years, non-renewable resources will cost a whole lot more. So far, forty years out from the initial publication, they're pretty much right on. You might also want to review their model run which dismissed all resource limits except arable land.

You could say they were predicting the POD, in a way--where scarcity of a resource makes it more expensive, creating deleterious effects on the society based on that resource being cheap. Only their work went on to consider several different specific resources, as well as population and environmental feedbacks.

[dsula]

I can build a model which says bad things happen even sooner.

Now, I'm sure you can. But can you also build a model that is more accurate?

More accurate than what? The single independent variable on that entire chart? Every single other line on that graph is slow changing, non-inflection point trend fitting until....DOOM!

I wonder why the single independent variable on that chart isn't matched to reality?

Yes, doodle some curves showing the future till 2050, or 2100. Something more accurate than we currently have. Try to minimize the error (reality-model)^2

[John_A]

I can quote parts of Hubbert's paper nearly verbatim.

Doubtful since you seemed to have forgotten one of his basic points about production trends.

Haven't forgotten anything about them. Haven't talked about them at all, is all.

Hubbert was quite optimistic about nuclear power. Outside of France, not many countries have followed that policy and his vision hasn't come to pass. He was also a Technologist. These things generally aren't discussed because his prediction of oil production is the most relevant to our situation now.

Oh, now you are just inviting me to go wildly off topic. How's this for an idea...what say you and me go find an appropriate thread where we can validate, dispute, argue and beat each up about what Hubbert did, and did not do. Game?

Because a Limits to Growth thread ain't the place.