[WebHubbleTelescope]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Geko45', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', 'N')ow that would have been a really inventive class project.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', '
')No one has yet shown how you can derive the curve from first principles.

[Geko45]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', 'F')or the most important question of our time, we find a failure to commit. The fear of not succeeding strikes again.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

[thepeople]

Hey, Im just wondering has anyone got any links to artciles or sites from around the time when Hubbert made his USA prediction to critics views on his predcition etc. Just tryin to find sum references that are in context and see who actual was against it etc. Any help would be appreciated

[shakespear1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', 'Fifty years ago this week, on March 8, 1956, at a meeting of the American Petroleum Institute in San Antonio, Texas, M. King Hubbert, in the preprinted version of his prepared remarks, had the following statement, "According to the best currently available information, the production of petroleum and natural gas on a world scale will probably pass its climax within the order of a half century (i.e., by 2006), while for both the United States and for Texas, the peaks of production may be expected to occur with the next 10 or 15 years (i.e., 1966 to 1971)." As more and more people are learning, Lower 48 oil production, as predicted by Dr. Hubbert, peaked in 1970, and it has fallen fairly steadily since 1970.')

I would go to the library and try to find out what industry magazines were published in the Oil and Gas Business and search for anything that was published shortly after the above presentation. I would imagine that a year or two after the presentation the subject would have gone off into oblivion.

[thepeople]

thanx for the reply, any idea when the statement was made that hubbert was actuallt right! when did the oil inudstry sate that production pekaed in 1970???

[shakespear1]

Here I wouldn't be able to tell you much as I always had my head in industry literature about technology. Equations and such

Take a look at dieoff.org. There's a lot mentioned there and was the first site that I found that started me off on the subject of PO.

I read Hubbard's stuff earlier but to be honest it did not ring an alarm loudly in my ear. The same was for my industry friends. I can honestly say that this was never discussed extensively by anyone I worked with until about 2002-2003 !!!! I mentioned PO to some friends in 2001 but the discussion died off very quickly. About 5 minutes of discussion and then we went off to do our every day engineering stuff.

[I_Like_Plants]

If you listen to AM radio, you're familiar with the program MMMMMMMoneytalk. They're on AM-810 where I am right now, and they're about to discuss Hubbert's Peak. Cool

[I_Like_Plants]

OK they're about to start, they'll have Kenneth Deffeyes (pronouncing it deff-AYS) on, talking about his book, "Hubbert's Peak".

mp3's of this MMMMMmmmoneytalk program should be available, so it might be one to find and put in with the audios offered on this site.

[Jack]

Any chance of a summary...and, perhaps, a link to the mp3?

It sounds interesting, but I'm not going to be able to listen today.

Thanks, Jack.

[cynicalheretic]

AM wow!!! that would be great, oh no wait, that isn't NBC red and this isn't 1933 when AM radio was still valid. If you get a chance tell David Sarnoff about this, perhaps he can do an op-ed

[I_Like_Plants]

Geeze, ok SSB is a much more effecient mode, but AM radio is where the talk is, it's also easiest to build an AM transmitter and receiver.

Just look up Bob Brinker and Moneytalk, you should be able to find it.

[killJOY]

A short video of an older King Hubbert explaining peak oil. Wonderful!

http://www.energybulletin.net/26976.html

[Twilight]

Didn't know something like this existed. Thanks!

[perdition79]

On his chart, peak was shown as 40 billion barrels of oil a year. He was pretty generous considering current levels, at peak, are about 31 billion barrels a year.

[Twilight]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('perdition79', 'O')n his chart, peak was shown as 40 billion barrels of oil a year. He was pretty generous considering current levels, at peak, are about 31 billion barrels a year.

[killJOY]

The more I view this, the more I love it.

He ANTICIPATED the objections people throw around now! He foresaw that the embargos of the 70s would delay the peak "about ten years."

He was no prophet, just a great forecaster, probably the sine qua non of a great scientist.

[Newsseeker]

However, one thing is critical to keep in mind. If you are going to use the model for forecasting, the model must be tested. Testing the model is called “validation”, or sometimes “back-casting.” This involves feeding the model real data, and observing how well the predictions match up with the observations. If the predictions match up on a consistent basis, and any large variations are explainable, you have the makings of a predictive model. If you have not validated your model, or if you have attempted to validate it and found that the predictions were inconsistent, the model should be used with caution (if at all). In this essay I have done some back-casts on the Hubbert Linearization (HL) model and attempted to use it to make predictions using historical data.
....http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2357#more

This article/essay brings up the problems associated with trying to use HL techniques for forecasting. It is a very good essay and brought up a lot of points that I had previously not known about. Thoughts??

[nth]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gideon', '
')
1. I've never seen a written communication begin with the word "however". So that's a first for me. Thanks.

2. Although I have seen people praise their own work, I like your twist on the ol' "I ain't braggin' cuz it's true" approach; I like the way you note that your essay is so damn good that it brought up points that even you, the author, had not previously considered. Wow! That is good stuff.

3. Thanks for the cite. It was a good read.