[Aaron]

My favorite from that presentation is the newspaper headline example.

No newspaper would run a headling which says "Crime growth averages 7% this decade"

Because people would just say... "So what?"

But they will run "Crime doubles this decade"

It's the same number.

[Jake_old]

My favourite bit was the bacteria in a jar.

Not the maths of it, or the timing although I do understand it.

He says a line something like;

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')t what time would some of the bacteria realize there is a problem?

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RedJake', '
')
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')t what time would some of the bacteria realize there is a problem?

[Jake_old]

Thanks for the clarification but..

I don't think it matters for the bacteria analogy. Until now I would have put bacteria on a par with mindless consumers (or the other way around)

It is only a bad example for someone like you, who knows about stuff like this.

Humans don't seem to communicate with each other above talking about football or clothes and handbags.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RedJake', 'T')hanks for the clarification but..

I don't think it matters for the bacteria analogy. Until now I would have put bacteria on a par with mindless consumers (or the other way around)

It is only a bad example for someone like you, who knows about stuff like this.

Humans don't seem to communicate with each other above talking about football or clothes and handbags.

[Jake_old]

point taken

but it made me look up, and i'm thankful for it.

[scordry]

ESpin wrote:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y problem with the example is that simplifies not only bacterial physiology but human nature.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('scordry', 'E')Spin wrote:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y problem with the example is that simplifies not only bacterial physiology but human nature.

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RedJake', '
')
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')t what time would some of the bacteria realize there is a problem?

[AnniCat]

>>Sigh ..... I wish he stopped using this example .... bacteria have a pretty sophisticated system of sensing and adjusting their numbers.
In a totally artificial system with 1/2 their genes misregulated it is no wonder they behave this way. <<


it doesn't matter if he uses bacteria or bunnies, it's creating the understanding in the student that is important. bartlett uses the bacteria and the pill bottle so the student can have something that they can viusalize. grains of sand, drops of water, bacteria ...the medium is irrelevant, the fact that we all immediately knew what Lokutus was referring to is what is significant.

~anni

[LadyRuby]

I watched that presentation some months ago and found it very powerful.

The example I liked, and could relate to better, was population increase. He described how a city council member at the City of Boulder thought a 5% annual population increase would be a desirable thing. In my mind, before seeing this presenation, 5% annual increase doesn't seem like that much, does it? But as he pointed out, if Boulder Colorado's population increases at an annual rate of 5%, in 70 years (a heartbeat in earth-time) Boulder's population would equal that of current-day Los Angeles. YIKES!

[Gazzatrone]

The British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once said “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” If ever there were a more suitable topic of debate that encompasses the spirit of the quote then it surely must be the current issue of declining oil.

From my short time here at peakoil.com, I had become overwhelmingly aware that there are plenty of lies, plenty of damned lies but more importantly an overkill of Statistics. Whether it be in pie chart, column graph or spreadsheet from the many "reliable" and "authoratative" sources. This all being well and good and serves a purpose, but to a point.

As stated I had not been here for as long as many but I found myself increasingly frustrated by the statistical mountainI had to climb trying to understand the significance of Peak Oil. I'm sure a main part of this frustration came from a desire for the substantial, yet none was forthcoming simply because no two sources were alike, even if they supported the same point of view.

Then whilst trawling through the melee of countless websites I came across a link pointing me towards a wmv download of a lecture given by Dr Albert Bartlett. Initially I thought that a lecture given by a retired Prof in physics would be complicated in its context, bearing in mind I work as a fine artist and maths was never my strongest subject. I was astounded how a simple equation given in the lecture could have such devastating effects.

In principle everyone should download and watch this wmv. Yes the Hubbert Peak is important, but Bartlett's lecture should be upheld as a work of genius.

Armed with the equation I was renewed with new vigour to find subtantial results as to when oil will run out and more importantly when declining oil would start to take effect. Now admittedly the latter is hypothetical, but the results from using the simple equation more or less pointed me to a frightening future.

Taking an average of known oil reserves at being 1000gb left in the world from various websites, using that as my start point I took global usage statistics (yes that word) from http://www.eia.doe.gov going back over the years finding that the world increases its usage by 1.6% per year. with exeception of 2004 when it shot up by 3.5% but with these statistics the increase has continued at 1.6%. In 2005 our average daily usage works out at 84mbd (rounded up from an average of 83.78mbd). Naturally multiply this by 365 for a yearly amount and it works out at 30.5 bbpy increase this by 1.6% for 2006 etc

We get a chart like this

2005 = 30.5
2006 = 31.1
2007 = 31.7
2008 = 32.1
2009 = 32.6

Total = 158gb

Its plain to see that within 5 years we can remove close to 160gb barrels of oil from the 1000gb.

This doesn't seem a lot, but when you add a further 5 years increase to that we are getting close to 400gb

By 2015 we will have used close to half of the worlds amount, thats in 10 years time.

I know this appears all very simplistic and will probably be scoffed at by those that have lived on the site for an age, but thats the whole point of simplicity. It workst because it is so brutal in its honesty.

Since working this out needless to say my life has changed to the point now where my friends tell me to shut up, purely because I know the either cannot comprehend the ramifications of what I am saying or blatantly flat out refuse to believe that the status quo can change in such a dramatic fashion.

I can't predict the future, but I believe the figures given by the simplicity of percentage growth indicate two circumstances:

1) Mankind faces serious issues that we are refusing to face, simply because we are not reducing our use of a finite resource.

2) the very real possibilty that Hubbert was correct in predicting an Oil Peak, but more importantly his bell curve may not have had the beautiful symetry, that we have already hit peak and are on our way down at an very sharp decline.

Now I wouldn't be surprised if people argue against my simplicity, but hopefully I can persuade people into stripping away a lot of information that hinders people seeing the real truth about Peak Oil.

[strider3700]

I think you've over simplified it a little too much and forgot about the issue of depletion on existing fields. We aren't just using it really fast. It's also getting harder and more expensive to get out of the ground.

Your analysis says we're screwed in the near future. Add in depletion and we're screwed even quicker.

But I'll definitely give you props for doing the math to figure it out on your own.

[pup55]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') know this appears all very simplistic and will probably be scoffed at by those that have lived on the site for an age, but thats the whole point of simplicity

[Ludi]

It's really heartwarming to see someone grasp the seriousness of the issue and how quickly the crisis is approaching. It helps ease my doomerosity somewhat, and not just in a "misery loves company" or schadenfreude kind of way.

[CARVER]

I have tried to simplify it in my avatar. My idea was to show two gauges: 'fuel' and 'oil pressure'. The fuel gauge would be indicating half-full and still in the green and a long way to go to till it's in the red. Indicating that the amount of fuel in the tank is not the most pressing issue. With the 'oil pressure' gauge in my avatar I tried to point out that the more pressing issue is a 'dropping oil pressure', a dropping rate of extraction of the oil (fuel), or more effort (energy) required to extract it.

I wanted to make an animated gif, showing a timeline and the two gauges. Where the red in the 'oil pressure' gauge would expand towards the indicator (a growing oil consuming population/civilization) and the indicator moving towards the red. I haven't finished it yet. Since you are a fine artist, you might be able to make some nice picture that is worth a thousand ...uh... statistics.

[coyote]

Nice post, Gazzatrone. I agree completely about Dr. Bartlett's video, it's awesome. I'm planning to send it to all my disbelieving friends and family. Welcome to the boards.

[ubercynicmeister]

Yes, I agree about the rather overwhelming amount of material that Peak Oil generates.

Firstly, as regards that representation, I have a 56 k modem, so I am NOT going to download it, no matter what anybody says. I may get a mate of mine (who has broad-band) to do so, however.

Secondly: yes, I agree - peak Oil needs to be summarised, so that "beginners" and persons simply not used to dealing with large amounts of staistical data can sort through "it" all and make some sort of sense. This is especially relevant when dealing with the media. The modern media is seemingly populated only by those who have IQ's about the same as their shoe-size, or "room temperature IQ's" (measured in Celcius, too, not Fahrenheit) , as the saying goes. Simplicity is mandatory for these clowns, who literally cannot sift through large amounts of data and arrive at their own conclusions.

Thirdly - for the beginner, such an easy-to-read summary is vital. Understanding a complex issue always starts somewhere and the consistant way that beginners are sneered at by some on theese forums is particularly disturbing. We seem to have forgotten: we are all beginners, once. If someone had sneered at us when we were starting most of us would not have gone further into discovering about Peak Oil.

Fourthly: Peak Oil is a complex issue. This should not need re-stating, but those who are most active here at these boards have forgotten how specialist the knowledge imparted at theses boards really is. One can see the disgruntlement at the (to the experts) obvious questions from the newbies. Related to that is the way that our schools have "dumbed down" their curriculum, because of Political Correctness. While denouncing Political Correctness if a favourite topic of mine, this dumbing down does have one noticeable effect: it makes those freshly graduated from our educational institutions unable to do anything other than grasp the most basic of basics on complex issues. Peak oil, to re-state once again - is a complex issue. Stop being so darn shocked when someone "can't get it." It's the way they've been educated.

Fifthly: while Life After The Oil Crash (and other sites, such as here) are excellent resources, there is a certain level of "innate knowledge" which they assume. Example: most people here (I hope!) know how vital Oil is to modern life. But do most people who are not either petroleum engineers or 'scientists' in some way, most people do not know this - to us - basic fact. It really does need to be re-stated, but in a way that does not overwhelm the "newbie".

Just the other day, I went to one of the discussions here at these boards, which had some intellectuals (or supposed intellectuals more like) sneering about the Pope, and how "backwards" he is. All the time they were espousing the use of contraceptives & condoms. As I asked there: don't you know contraceptives & condoms are made from oil-derived chemicals? It would seem that the haste-to-sneer is one of the things that keeps newbies from coming here and making a full contribution. My own remarks were, as usual, ignored.

Sixthly, and lastly: this Doomers-versus-Closet Cornucopians debate had better start to acknowledge the real issue: the amount of time to effect a replacement for Oil. If we have a long time, then we'll (possibly) do the task. If we have a short time, then we will not do the task. It is as stark as that. Discussions of the Freemarket , or the legislature or whatever are (in that sense) irrelevant. It's all about the amount of time we have.

Matt Savinar stands on the side of those who say "we don't have the time" and good on him for having the guts to stand up and say it, and above all, to OWN his opinions. Oddly, those who DO subscribe to the idea that we do have enough time (the Closet Cornucopians) oddly want us all to "relax, chill out, take it easy". In other words, to effect a cure at some future point, as yet undetermined. We'll worry about Peak Oil, later. One would have thought that, if the Closet Cornucopians were to advance that idea (we can find a replacement for Oil) that they would have recommended acting NOW not later, but, well, I am siding more and more with Matt Savinar, lately.

Undoubtably, I'll be ignored, as usual. Gee, it's just like being married!

[smiley]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')econdly: yes, I agree - peak Oil needs to be summarised, so that "beginners" and persons simply not used to dealing with large amounts of staistical data can sort through "it" all and make some sort of sense. This is especially relevant when dealing with the media. The modern media is seemingly populated only by those who have IQ's about the same as their shoe-size, or "room temperature IQ's" (measured in Celcius, too, not Fahrenheit) , as the saying goes. Simplicity is mandatory for these clowns, who literally cannot sift through large amounts of data and arrive at their own conclusions.