[vision-master]

C RB............

Call me crazy, but if that is a graph of world level production, has anyone noticed that we are using 30 billion a year, not the midget volumes of 12 or 13 shown on that graph?

Boy did the author of THAT thing get it wrong!

M. King Hubbert's original 1956 prediction of world petroleum production rates.

[shortonsense]

Boy did the author of THAT thing get it wrong!

M. King Hubbert's original 1956 prediction of world petroleum production rates.

Well, that is certainly pretty telling. He underestimated global production by a solid 2X +

If I understand his method correctly, that means he also probably underestimated global resource sizes by 2X + as well, assuming his method really is based on the symmetry which many appear to assume is critical to this type of prediction.

[vision-master]

Boy did the author of THAT thing get it wrong!

M. King Hubbert's original 1956 prediction of world petroleum production rates.

Well, that is certainly pretty telling. He underestimated global production by a solid 2X +

If I understand his method correctly, that means he also probably underestimated global resource sizes by 2X + as well, assuming his method really is based on the symmetry which many appear to assume is critical to this type of prediction.

Dude, it was 1956. That was over 50 years ago. Most likey before YOU were born.

[shortonsense]

Well, that is certainly pretty telling. He underestimated global production by a solid 2X +

If I understand his method correctly, that means he also probably underestimated global resource sizes by 2X + as well, assuming his method really is based on the symmetry which many appear to assume is critical to this type of prediction.

Dude, it was 1956. That was over 50 years ago. Most likey before YOU were born.

It strikes me that his method either works, or it does not, at least within some error bar.

I'm guessing the error bar between actual production rate and his prediction for the US was not a 2X +.

[AdamB]

The biggest albatross of environmentalism is its well-deserved reputation for apocalypticism: the world is always going to come to and end because of. . . plastic bags! Bee colony collapse disorder! Endocrine disruptors! Velociraptors! And of course the big one: c—— c—– (formerly known as g—– w——). This apocalyptic outlook always comes with the same sort of moral unctuousness you associate with a fire-and-brimstone street preacher: repent of your fossil-fool ways! Why, people often ask me, are environmentalists so gloomy about the human prospect? I have a simple answer: it makes them happy. Seriously: if you point out to environmentalists the data showing many environmental problems on the national and global scale are improving, they usually go into a rage. Good news is bad news. A few of the smarter environmentalists know that decades of nonstop environmental gore (heh) has been counterproductive,

Gimme That Old Time Religion!

[dissident]

Cornucopianism is the real religion. It is based on pure faith in BAU and magical trust in technological progress. Its adherents are not the actual people involved in the technology development, but all sorts of vicarious achievers.

Using the failure of Malthusianists to predict timelines as a reason to call them religionists or cultists is BS. Both cornucopians and doomers have exactly the same bias of highly accelerated future timelines. This includes all the morons who think some "singularity" will happen around 2050. Good luck having it in 2500 or even 3000 assuming that global warming and cheap resource depletion does not neutralize humanity first (as a technological factor as opposed to a few survivors scrounging for food for the next 10,000 years).

[AdamB]

Cornucopianism is the real religion.

So is faith based doomism. No different than Harold Camping, except names like Ehrlich get thrown out...used to be Campbell and whatnot but they are avoided nowadays (as is generally Ehrlich) because they aren't worth than a hearty laugh about why peak oil is as much like a religion as happy mcdoomsters.

It is based on pure faith in BAU and magical trust in technological progress.

That magical trust sure worked out better for the cornies than it did the Happy McPeaksters though didn't it? Maybe you need to worship at the feet of another God rather than the one that keeps coming along and making doomers look like Harold Camping?

Using the failure of Malthusianists to predict timelines as a reason to call them religionists or cultists is BS.

Except it works because it is true. And those of us who are pragmatists understand why you might rail against reality...just can't quite get to that Rapture moment, can you? But keep waiting! Sooner or later, in someone's lifetime, there is bound to be a doom! Maybe just not the one prayed for at the altar in the Happy McDoomster church.

[AdamB]

Peak Oil is the opposite of a religion--it's the natural extension of pure logic. Only folks with religious minds have a problem digesting the concept of peak oil.

I love going back to the early posts in old threads. Look at THIS guy! PURE LOGIC!!!

Yes...that is why it is so funny to see the same religious belief in your "logic" as that of a religion...since disproved. Well, until the believers dredge up the same tired ideas and hope folks don't notice how it worked out the last time your "logic" was applied.

[AdamB]

No its not, it's a short name for the time when oil reaches peak production. It's got nothing to do with religion.

You still believe this Quinny? Because the true believers won't even admit they were wrong a decade ago, and avoiding facts, reality, history, science and logic is about a prerequisite for a religion, and peakers are hitting all the right buttons, 5 X 5.

[aldente]

aren‘t we discussing the Gauss bell curve at the example of a limited resource?

hence P.O. is discovering the fascination associated with mentioned specific math.

( the fact, that so far no gasoline- shortages have occurred is a different matter altogether and allows to conclude that crude oil being limited in availability is apparently a faulty paradigm).

[Outcast_Searcher]

aren‘t we discussing the Gauss bell curve at the example of a limited resource?

hence P.O. is discovering the fascination associated with mentioned specific math.

( the fact, that so far no gasoline- shortages have occurred is a different matter altogether and allows to conclude that crude oil being limited in availability is apparently a faulty paradigm).

Funny how so many people are so narrow minded about when they pay attention to math.

Oil is definitely physicially limited. We know, for example, that the total volume of crude oil is << the volume of planet earth. (We don't know it will "run out" in a decade or three or even ten, despite all the predictions we see around here).

What's DEFINITELY faulty is the constant fast crash doomer meme that chaos and economic failure are going to happen "real soon now" each and every (week, month, year -- check a box), depending on who is copying "news" from zerohedge, etc. For the folks constantly preaching that meme, that seems to be a religion or a hobby, etc.

[aldente]

outcast searcher ! I hold a degree in technical math-
Issued by the German chamber of industry and trade !

hence you should be better cautious with snotty comments that give away that you are only 14 years of age ( if not physically, then at least mentally this is where you must have stagnated).

I confront you hereby - as a challenge - YOUR challenge to explain the Gauss Bell curve function in three short sentences -

You will not be able to!

I suggest that you apologize and revise your meaningless comment.

The worst and the most meaningless people on this earth are exactly those of your nature: No idea about nothing but speaking in a presumptuous, obnoxious way about topics that one should only approach with a humble attitude.

have at it now: explain the Gauss function at an example OTHER than oil and most important - Explain what the fascination in your explanation would be -

[rockdoc123]

hence you should be better cautious with snotty comments that give away that you are only 14 years of age ( if not physically, then at least mentally this is where you must have stagnated).

I confront you hereby - as a challenge - YOUR challenge to explain the Gauss Bell curve function in three short sentences -

You will not be able to!

OK, lets make this simple....you are a blithering idiot. The whole discussion around the various predictions from M.K. Hubbert and others that use a Gaussian distribution has been discussed ad infinitum on this site (use the search engine you twit). Basically, there is good science behind the assumptions made at the time but like everything else GIGO. The information that was put into the models was incorrect and hence the result was wrong. There is no belief that we are any better at putting that information into such a simplistic model at this point in time because there are variables involved that are changing continuously that are nearly impossible to capture numerically. Yes eventually we will run out of oil but the concept of Peak involves a lot more than what King Hubbert presented back in the fifties. And I make these sort of observations from the point of someone who learned about this back as an undergrad at a university from a Prof (who ended up being one of my thesis supervisors) who worked for Hubbert at Shell back when all of this was happening. My guess is this is all way before you were even a glime in your parents eyes.

sorry for interseding but when you see stupid you need to call it out.

[Outcast_Searcher]

outcast searcher ! I hold a degree in technical math-
Issued by the German chamber of industry and trade !

hence you should be better cautious with snotty comments that give away that you are only 14 years of age ( if not physically, then at least mentally this is where you must have stagnated).

I confront you hereby - as a challenge - YOUR challenge to explain the Gauss Bell curve function in three short sentences -

You will not be able to!

I suggest that you apologize and revise your meaningless comment.

The worst and the most meaningless people on this earth are exactly those of your nature: No idea about nothing but speaking in a presumptuous, obnoxious way about topics that one should only approach with a humble attitude.

have at it now: explain the Gauss function at an example OTHER than oil and most important - Explain what the fascination in your explanation would be -

** Sigh ** Maybe you should calm down and stop hyperventilating before you embarrass yourself.

I was agreeing with you. I wasn't even TALKING about the Gauss function as I'm no expert at that and have NEVER claimed to be. (My career was in computers and I wasn't a math major). My comment on people who don't understand math was NOT about you but about people who claim peak oil doesn't exist, as though oil is somehow unlimited.

Context matters. Unless I'm missing something, we're BOTH saying there is almost certainly quite a bit of oil available.

So I'd suggest trying reading my response again and look at the context of what I said. I'd also suggest initially if you disagree with a comment, don't start by going ballistic until you're sure of the intent. (Did I say you're stupid? No. Did I say you don't know what you're talking about or you're wrong? No.)

If you can't do that, then look in the mirror and look for the person who is acting like a 14 year old. Are you so insecure you must assume anyone is attacking you instead of making a comment on the overall topic?

[aldente]

You people are unfriendly .

Signing off

[aldente]

DuneWalker on page 1 was actually quite accurate!
Let's contiune.