by venky » Tue 12 Sep 2006, 14:34:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', '
')Anyway, Lorenzo, you can't use simple words like "Peak Oil" because that is too narrow for scientific journals. Use longer phrases that still grasp the narrowness of the subject: peaking of world oil production.
Ok, as you suggested: "peaking of world oil production"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22 ... tnG=Search43 results.
Look, I've done this exercise many times. The simple fact is that peak oil is simply not being taken seriously as a subject by the scientific community.
That doesn't mean it is not an interesting subject. It just isn't for science.
Why don't we leave it at that?
But Lorenzo, what exactly does Peak Oil research mean? Does it refer to Hubbert Linearization curves to predict future oil production? You can find a few publications on that. Besides that isn't rocket science, or contains the complexity of climate change models. I could do one myself. The only trick is plugging in the correct data; and unless the data is better like if Matt Simmons recommendations are followed we are still groping in the dark.
Or does is refer to megaproject studies like Skrebowski and Koppellar. There has been a lot of work on those lines. That is also not exactly rocket science, the trick is again to just have the right figures for new projects and depletion in current fields. And most studies have only used data available in the public domain.
We could even say economic forcasting models like those developed by Michael Lynch are part of Peak Oil work. And economic models that try to predict the price of oil. Studies on how some cities have implemented far reaching policies to tackle peak oil and reduce oil consumption. Or studies on how carbon quotas could be integrated into our economic system. Studies on alternatives such as development of biofuels.
To sum up, Peak Oil is not exactly rocket science or requires complex modeling such as in climate change to require research that way. But there has been a lot of work on it all the same.
I play the cards I'm dealt, though I sometimes bluff.
Only Man is vile.
by mekrob » Tue 12 Sep 2006, 15:00:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', '
')Anyway, Lorenzo, you can't use simple words like "Peak Oil" because that is too narrow for scientific journals. Use longer phrases that still grasp the narrowness of the subject: peaking of world oil production.
Ok, as you suggested: "peaking of world oil production"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22 ... tnG=Search43 results.
Look, I've done this exercise many times. The simple fact is that peak oil is simply not being taken seriously as a subject by the scientific community.
That doesn't mean it is not an interesting subject. It just isn't for science.
Why don't we leave it at that?
You're either purposely making errors to suit your own case or you just don't know how to search. Try making that same search, but without the quotes. It doesn't have to be in those exact words and in that exact order to make it a scientific paper. Try it without the quotes and you get 6,250. You get plenty of scientific papers written by academia and research facilities that are devoted to oil depletion and what it entails.
How come you're ignoring these? Or how about the fact that there shouldn't be a huge devotion to PO because it is still very young. 10 years ago, it was unheard of almost because the price of oil was so low. It wasn't until recently that the price started to creep up and become permanent in most people's minds. Like one said earlier, go back to the '80's and see how many articles there were on climate change. Probably very few because it hadn't been made as public as it is now.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t just isn't for science.
What have you done for science? You're going to bash geologists and engineers and mathematicians who have poured over decades worth of work to write articles in
scientific and mathematical journals and then say those results aren't science? You must've poured over a lot of documents to make claims like that right? You have a Ph.D. in geophysics, petroleum engineering, mathematics, reservoir engineering? You must if you're going to throw into doubt research done by actual Ph.D's.
Why is it that all of those with Ph.D's and such and have experience with oil believe in peak oil, while economists and political writers are the doubters??? Here's an assignment for you: name one credible person who has presented clear and undisputable evidence that Peak Oil doesn't exist. I've shown that there are plenty of articles written for it, now how many are against it.
I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God. - Rabia
by Miki » Wed 13 Sep 2006, 14:31:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nwildmand', 'p')eer review will also not work because of corporate interests wanting to keep the status quo. just like those drugs companies miki.
Hmmm...that sounds like a far-fetched claim to me. There are many studies on energy, oil, etc out there. It's not like those studies are not getting funded. And once the data is there, one can reach one's own conclusions, right?
There are also interdisciplinary studies and journals, in which all these "pieces of the puzzle" can be put together in studies that combine input from different areas of scientific research (eg, economy, geology, etc.).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'l')orenzo has no workable ideas miki. he always is touting something that will save us but every one of arguments gets torn to shreds by just a few internet posters. his ideas are in the vein of "lets turn most of africa into a biofuel plantation".
Hope doesn't hurt. On the contrary, research shows that having positive expectations of one's performance actually improves the performance. It's called "self-efficacy". Studies also show that by believing in negative future outcomes, one may start acting in ways that will confirm ones beliefs. It's called "self-fulfilling prophecy".
Given the abundance of doomers and psychopaths in this forum, someone with a fresh hopeful look doesn't hurt. It's good to have the devil's advocate around. It promotes creativity
.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')hat saddens me most is we almost had her on the bandwagon and then 2 cornicopians spit spit derailed the subject. i doubt miki that you will stay interested in the most important subject man has ever come across.
It is hard to grasp so much information at once, especially in fields that I'm not familiar with. So don't expect me to comment too much, at least for now. What's the use of repeating what all of you have already said? That said, I'll try to contribute as much as I can, within the limits of my knowledge.
As for the cornucopians, it was
them who caught my interest. One-sidedness is boring. When I noticed that there are different possible scenarios--as Venky pointed out, and some hope, as Lorenzo pointed out, and some challenging of the ideas that you all held by some of you---that's what catches my interest.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')nd lorenzo, your a fuckin troll.
by mekrob » Wed 13 Sep 2006, 17:15:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ope doesn't hurt. On the contrary, research shows that having positive expectations of one's performance actually improves the performance. It's called "self-efficacy". Studies also show that by believing in negative future outcomes, one may start acting in ways that will confirm ones beliefs. It's called "self-fulfilling prophecy".
That is true, but it doesn't apply here, sorry. If you are about to run the mile and your best time ever was 4 minutes and 1 second and you just couldn't get to 4 minutes no matter what you did, then yes, if you think good though thoughts, you could potentially get to and below 4 minutes on your mile.
But this is science. No matter how many good thoughts you and the other 6 billion others on this planet make, you can't reverse gravity. You can't stop the sun in the middle of the day. You can't make water boil magically. You just can't. This is the same thing with Peak Oil. No matter how much you hope and think good thoughts, you can't change pressure laws, intermolecular laws, intramolecular laws, fluid dynamics and other laws of science.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou said even PO critics agree that the oil reserves are running out. So, is the disagreement on the date of PO, or is it only on the consequences?
Care if I take this question, Venky?
It's both, and depending upon the person or entity, it could be more towards one than the other.
Those that do analysis such as CERA and EIA don't look at the consequences, they only look at oil production and even then they aren't too reliable.
Most of the dates center around the next decade although the optimists claim 2020 at the very earliest. Others like Lynch have no foreseeable date.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ould you please briefly summarize the more hopeful scenarios for me. I think I heard enough about the doomerish scenarios!
Again, may I? I'll try to not go all on one side since I'm not that optimistic.
1) Lorenzo-types (Peak What?): We can just harvest all of Sub-Sahara Africa, Amazon and other tropical locations. There are XXX exajoules in those regions which is more than enough to last us. We all continue our current lifestyle and may even expand it.
2) JD-types (techno-fix): We can just invent our way out of this.
This is his blog in which he has more than 300 posts that supposedly debunk peak oil when in fact some have even reinforced peak oil. He sees it as a non-event.
3) More realistic: While Lorenzo and JD are both right on many occasions, that is there is a great deal of things we can do and great deal of energy sources, they fail to see how reality will accomodate them. They seem to think that just because it may be the right thing to do, that people will automatically do it and thus no reason to fear peak oil.
Others take all into account. They realize that we, as nations and people, are for the overwhelming majority of the time reactionary, not pro-actionary. We can't see ahead of us, only react to what is happening now. As has been discussed earlier, we don't care about the future, it's only the now which is important. Thus, we will start too late to do anything to prevent peak oil or make it a non-event like JD proclaims.
The Hirsch report, a study on Peak Oil which was financed by the US government and subsequently covered up (possibly due to its gloomy analysis), claims that 20 years is needed for massive preparation before peak oil occurs in order to make peak oil irrelevant. By most predictions and scientific analyses, we do not have 20 years left.
Even now, when it is so clearly in front of us with $3 gas and $70 oil (well, it was a few weeks ago), nobody was doing anything. There were no major Congressional hearings on oil. No huge protests. No consumer advocacy groups demonstrating or petitioning. Nothing. Why? Because the economy was/is fairly well, ie. people could afford the oil. There weren't any shortages so no major problems. Even after Katrina, when we had shortages and high prices, nothing was seriously done. All that happened was a nation blaming "Big Oil".
I digress. The more realistic still generally believe a peak before 2020, thus it can not be averted completely. Most believe that little will be done until major crises are upon us, thus alternatives will have a hard time to catch up since new industries require vast pools of money and probable bad economic conditions, a less than desirable amount of capital will be available for alternatives.
They still believe that alternatives will come online overtime and will help to replace the decline in oil and NG production. However, it won't be the same spendid lifestyle we live with now. Cars will not be so required for society as we become more 'with the Earth': more local communities, farming, death of suburbia, and such.
I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God. - Rabia
by smallpoxgirl » Wed 13 Sep 2006, 21:37:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'N')o, actually we got the beginning of a cure:
If you're believing that, you must spend a fortune buying miracle cure colonic cleanses from late night informercials.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'A')ctually no: September 05, 2006
Dutch CO2 emissions fell 2 percent in 2005, now at 1990 levels due to imported biomass
http://biopact.com/2006/09/dutch-co2-em ... nt-in.html Hot damn! Break out the champagne! We're killing ourselves 2% less fast.
Ooops. The CO2 from the champagne fizz put us back up to our previous emission level.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', 'O')hh come on. Generations of Europeans and expatriate Europeans have devoted their lives to exterminating life in the cosmos and they haven't succeeded yet.
By the way: aren't you Americans doing most of the killing nowadays?
by mekrob » Thu 14 Sep 2006, 09:22:21
Lorenzo, I'm still waiting day and night for your response to my post on Sept 12 at 3 pm.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy is it that all of those with Ph.D's and such and have experience with oil believe in peak oil, while economists and political writers are the doubters???
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou're either purposely making errors to suit your own case or you just don't know how to search. Try making that same search, but without the quotes. It doesn't have to be in those exact words and in that exact order to make it a scientific paper. Try it without the quotes and you get 6,250. You get plenty of scientific papers written by academia and research facilities that are devoted to oil depletion and what it entails.
I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God. - Rabia
. BTW, I like your name!
