DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Global Collapse
HTML https://globalcollapse.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1736--------------------------------------------------
Re: mental masterbation
By: RE Date: November 19, 2021, 1:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=83.msg1734#msg1734
date=1637291648]
My metrics for how to tell a collapse is here, and maybe even
seeing the early stages of it
[/quote]
That's some progress.
There isn't one metric, and it certainly isn't whether your ice
maker works. It doesn't happen at the same rate in all places
at the same time either.
Detroit, in fact the entire Rust Belt of the FSoA has been
collapsing since the 70s when manufacturing was off shored to
China and Mexico. NOLA has been collapsing since Katrina.
Greece has been collapsing since the 2010 debt crises in Europe.
[img
width=1000]
HTML https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2020/10/30/PDTF/5583e77c-0521-46d4-98df-26de030964a3-chryslerstampingplant_12.jpg[/img]
On the ecological level, collapse has been underway at least
since the 1960's when Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring. The
major effects of Climate change, floods, droughts, wildfires,ice
sheet and glacial melt off have been underway since the early
2000s.
The FSoA economic system has been in collapse since the debt
curves went Hockey Stick in the 1990's.
HTML https://desdemonadespair.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/US-household-debt-1945-2018-New-York-Fed-Consumer-Credit-Panel-CCP-Haughwout-et-al-2019-Federal-Reserve-Bank-of-New-York-1024x755.png
Globally, Population collapse is underway now, which the UN
stats people finally acknowledge. Japan's 2nd derivative is
already negative, China's is expected to be this year.
[img
width=1000]
HTML https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/BFW7cLn83rTa5ENIKHBpEhfEg4c=/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost/public/2SXYPUSGLI7CLA7YRXYNQB5XBM.jpg[/img]
At least you finally admit collapse "may" be underway. That is
a big step in the right direction. I commend you for making
that admission.
RE
#Post#: 1738--------------------------------------------------
Re: mental master debating
By: Phil Potts Date: November 19, 2021, 3:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=83.msg1735#msg1735
date=1637294522]
[quote author=Phil Potts link=topic=83.msg1726#msg1726
date=1637222077]
[quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=83.msg1718#msg1718
date=1637200703]
Would you like to discuss either the nuance of these claims, or
some of the lesser known references, like Ruppert's and Simmons,
or Youngquist, Duncan, Campbells 20th century claims, or even
Hubbert himself? Some of us, we do this research thing, and it
is REALLY cool.
[/quote]
What you should discuss is what any of them have to do with any
of us and of course your own correct timeframe for peak
oil.[/quote]
First you asked for me backing up the 6. Now you want to run and
change the subject? Okay, I can answer this question...vaguely
for your liking perhaps, but I will try.
Peak oil timing is a solution to a 3 part equation. Think...like
a Ternary plot. Or a supply/demand/price chart if you'd like?
The peak oilers previously mentioned operated primarily in only
one of the three dimensions. Quantity of resource produced
through time, looks like a bell shaped curve, declare victory.
Almost no one, even today, matches that supply with demand.
Certainly not peak oilers. But the economic modeling gang, they
do something similar from the opposite side. They calculate
demand, from growth in population or GDP or new cars or
whatever, and then they basically presume supply will arrive.
Same dumb from the 2nd part of the equation. The third part of
the equation is price.
So here is my vague answer. If someone could model all 3, with
each dependent on the other 2, and maintain that relationship
through time, that solution would tell you when peak oil
arrived. But it would also have to tell you what the demand was
at that point in time, and the resulting market clearing price.
An "old" peak oil type estimate, volume at a point in time,
requires you figure out all 3. And as it turns out, this is most
certainly not a deterministic answer. K-Dog might love the
statistics wrapped up in what it takes to estimate not just ONE
peak oil, but all the possible combinations.
So the answer to your question is, pick your independent
variable. You can choose any 1 of the 3. And then we can discuss
the stochastics of the answer that results from the other two
complying with the user supplied independent variable.
[quote author=Phil Potts]
What are you trying to ridicule all the 'doomers' and 'peak
oilers' about, if none of them claimed the end of the world in
the particular year you focus on? Those years are only a rough
halfway point of oil extraction since the late 19th C.
[/quote]
I don't know what halfway point of extraction has to do with
anything. Certainly that was what was assumed about all 6 of the
peak oils this century. And all the ones I can recall in the
past century as well. Halfway point of extraction has come and
gone according to some folks for the past half a century now.
Jimmy Carter was the last one to claim a "running out", I
believe that was modified during the modern peak oil era because
it allowed the huge and obvious changes in reserves and
resources to be instantly halved, thereby negating their value.
After all, the idea is to talk about the end, not just another
how damn well the industry keeps making peak oil doomers look
bad.
[quote author=Phil Potts]
Lundberg states in that article there should not be a
distraction with the exact year, and a 20 yr range is proposed
between 2005 and 2020. 2005-2012 conventional only, up to 2020
with improved extraction and refining technology. You have made
it almost a year past that.
[/quote]
I referenced Lundberg not because he knew squat about
calculating a peak oil, but because he captured the claimed
consequences and typical expectations of the time. What was once
as common as rain has nearly vanished. Peak oil doomers are
quite rare nowadays. It is obvious why, now, even to them.
[quote author=Phil Potts]
The fact we had covid with a whole new structure coming into
existence is something none of us knew in 2005, but proves
Lundberg right. It did not happen for nothing.[/quote]
Lundberg was right about the consequences of peak oil? Which one
of the 6 best fit his description do you think?
[/quote]
I didn't forget why you mentioned Lundberg, but I think he is
representative of all of them not being especially focussed on a
year like you are.
The only year you mentioned outside of his own is 2002 (by an
eon of 3 yrs). The entire span you listed and insist on being
wrong if the world did not end that year, is 15 yrs. China was
drilling with hollow bamboo about a thousand years ago. North
America in the 19th C. Going with china as start point, you're
saying a range of 5 seconds out of an hour invalidates them.
Going with north America as starting point, you're saying a
range of 7 minutes out of an hour makes them wrong.
I don't see any expectations of a bell shape curve, or
neglecting to consider the variables you mentioned by people
like Gail Tverberg or Steve Ludlum etc, although if you can't
tell us peak price, you can't demand they should.
Carter said cars needed to get smaller and more economical to
maintain consumer culture, so his presidency marked peak land
yacht and gas guzzler. If he was completely wrong, we wouldn't
have rising excess mortality among the highest per capita
consumers, bringing demand in line with nice steady supply. He
couldn't have known that running cars on corn would buy a bit
more time.
#Post#: 1740--------------------------------------------------
Re: mental masterbation
By: John of Wallan Date: November 19, 2021, 3:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I was last in Merika in 2008. Helped set up a factory in Hebron
Kentucky. Equipment supplier was in Groveport Ohio, I drove with
the owner of that company to Detrot Michigan to look at another
potential supplier.
I travelled the rust belt of the US.
Drove through Toledo and Detroit.
It was a shock to me.
First shock was being told while driving through Detroit: "We
dont want to stop here John"....
I did not get what he meant.
After a few strange looks he elaborated: "We dont want to stop
here John, we are the wrong colour".
Second shock was actually driving past abandoned sky scrappers
in Detroit. It was hard to get my mind around abandoned building
so big. We have abandoned factories and building in Melbourne,
but I have never seen an abandoned sky scrapper like I saw in
Detroit. 15 storey plus building with 6 foot high fence and 4
foot high grass, and every window smashed on bottom 4 or 5
storeys. Think of the investment in time, money and resources in
that asset that is now left to rot.
I used to work in the car industry here in Oz. We honestly made
wold class cars, as good as anything I drove overseas. We dont
have a car industry any more. The foreign ownd car companies
closed up shop due to financial pressures back home. The areas I
worked in are now a rust belts. Broadmeadows, Elizabeth and
Tonsley park. (Melbourne and Adelaide)
Collapse has started.
We are just rich enough to delay the consequences for a few
years for our areas.
JOW
#Post#: 1742--------------------------------------------------
Re: mental masterbation
By: RE Date: November 19, 2021, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=83.msg1730#msg1730
date=1637258170]
Now to finance their road trip you would have to rob a bank.
They would have.
And for us times are a changing.
[/quote]
What goes around, comes around.
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GM0LKQ-ml0
RE
#Post#: 1753--------------------------------------------------
Re: mental masterbation
By: RE Date: November 19, 2021, 10:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So now you've backtracked to your familiar position that none of
the graphs matter, the climate doesn't matter, ecology doesn't
matter...all that matters is that you have ice. It's
ridiculous, which is why it's a waste of time to discuss any of
this with you. You wonder why you get booted off so many forums
and nobody buys your spin? ::) You are back on ignore.
RE
#Post#: 1756--------------------------------------------------
Re: mental master debating
By: Phil Potts Date: November 19, 2021, 11:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=83.msg1752#msg1752
date=1637374752]
[quote author=Phil Potts link=topic=83.msg1738#msg1738
date=1637313451]
I didn't forget why you mentioned Lundberg, but I think he is
representative of all of them not being especially focussed on a
year like you are.[/quote]
I'm not focused on a year.
You mention specific years as wrong if you lived to the end of
those years.
I'm focused on how a system to answer the question might work.
so until you come up with better predictions using a better
system, the least you can do is point out how exactly anyone
else is wrong.
I use the certainty of others gone wrong to demonstrate why, at
the VERY least, they needed to advance their methods.
ive never seen it. You only claim they said the world would end,
so are wrong. You never address what they have said about how
peak oil plays out going forward.
And then pulled the real boner when they reset-rinse-recycled
and repeated without tackling the understanding side.
You are doing that by not addressing anything they have really
said and replacing it with a straw man. Not a year or a decade
later, but only a day later.
[quote author=Phil Potts]
The only year you mentioned outside of his own is 2002 (by an
eon of 3 yrs). The entire span you listed and insist on being
wrong if the world did not end that year, is 15 yrs.
[/quote]
Your challenge was to my comment of the "6 in this century", not
"all". I did not give you the 1886, 1919, 1943, late-1980s
(running out), Hubbert, or 1990 Colin Campbell call. There are
probably others (Younguist, maybe Duncan, Hirsch danced near
claiming it but didn't quite, etc etc), but I mean really, you
either get the point, or you are just trying to escape the
obvious conclusion it leads anyone to.
I knew you would go to other years just like you went to other
people. This is what you called the challenge:
"You should put names to the years mentioned, so we can give you
the benefit of the doubt and check if any of them did claim the
end of the world that year, or only whatever problems they
expected going forward occurred."
You gave names and said none of them did claim the end of the
world. I see in your reply to RE you're saying Steve Ludlum
claimed the end of the world for 2015.
If you prefer, we can talk about "easy" oil? Folks often say,
"we're running out of easy oil", and that can be quantified
temporally.
I don't forget peoples posts about easy oil, or easy money for
making them Mr Jardine. You said the easy oil was already long
gone in 2013
[quote author=Phil Potts]
China was drilling with hollow bamboo about a thousand years
ago. North America in the 19th C. Going with china as start
point, you're saying a range of 5 seconds out of an hour
invalidates them. Going with north America as starting point,
you're saying a range of 7 minutes out of an hour makes them
wrong.
[/quote]
Feel free to recalculate based on the other dates I've provided.
And I am familiar with China and how long ago it was using
petroleum, claims that the Caspian beat Drake, the "American
Well" that set the Cumberland River on fire in 1829
HTML https://www.murfreesboropost.com/opinion/vinson-raisin-hell-in-kentucky-river-of-fire/article_3f368060-828a-5a73-916c-5523b2dd71ab.html,<br
/>but wasn't considered the beginning of the industry in the US,
Kier's rock oil call, etc etc.
[quote author=Phil Potts]
I don't see any expectations of a bell shape curve, or
neglecting to consider the variables you mentioned by people
like Gail Tverberg or Steve Ludlum etc, although if you can't
tell us peak price, you can't demand they should.
[/quote]
I don't demand they should. I don't even have a clue if they CAN
do a fully integrated system. I just enunciated the answer to
the question "how to do it right". And I didn't say I can't tell
you peak price. I said that you need to start by picking the
independent variable, market price, supply, or demand.
It's up to you to demonstrate how pinning down an exact date for
a three dimensional peak oil helps discussion of the in present
and future events. I see the peak oilers talking about those
variables.
[quote author=Phil Potts]
Carter said cars needed to get smaller and more economical to
maintain consumer culture, so his presidency marked peak land
yacht and gas guzzler.
[/quote]
Carter said we were the King of Coal, and should be using all of
it we could. Isn't that a funny comment, in light of what's
happened since? He was saving the world from "running out" of
oil, but creating climate change with coal!
It's probably the lesser evil to draining and poisoning
groundwater, while using half a continents farmland for corn
fed cars. EIOER surely can't be lower for coal than ethanol. If
he proposed cutting down and burning forest for 'biomass' green
energy, or half the food and most of the finished products being
transported around the world instead of from as close as
possible, using untold amounts of oil, he could be called crazy
Carter.
[quote author=Phil Potts]
If he was completely wrong, we wouldn't have rising excess
mortality among the highest per capita consumers, bringing
demand in line with nice steady supply. He couldn't have known
that running cars on corn would buy a bit more time.
[/quote]
I don't understand the relationship you are implying between
Jimmy, his idiot resource scarcity claims related to global oil
"running out", or his passage of the Fuel Use Act because of his
fears (instilled by Hubbert in part) of lack of natural gas in
the US, with per capita anything, or what he would know about
who was doing what. Whatever he did or didn't know about the
future, he didn't know dick about oil or gas, in the US or
internationally.
If he was wrong about cars needing to get smaller, more
economical and carry more people to go anywhere, his ideas have
really persisted long after him.
The main thing he underestimated was how far mankind would go in
order to keep burning oil. The only thing limiting that, is fear
of collapse and loss of control by the billionaires if it
continues with supply unable to meet demand. They're not
concerned about running out of trees to give us oxygen, when
2021 witnessed the greatest amount of Amazon ever cleared when
it was recognised as a problem that needed to end, in the early
80s.
More wrong to me is insisting there is abundant and affordable
energy for the 2019 trajectory to continue. For how long, u
never say.
[/quote]
#Post#: 1783--------------------------------------------------
Ice making Idiocy
By: RE Date: November 20, 2021, 11:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I shouldn't have to do this since I think anyone with any CFS
knows that measuring collapse by the availability of ice is
ludicrous, but just to be complete I'll do it anyhow.
Mechanical refrigeration comes straight out of the Gas Laws, an
early discovery in chemistry. It uses a principle called
Adiabatic Thermal Expansion, which basically states that when
you let a gas expand rapidly, it cools down. How do you do
this? You just need a pump to compress the gas. Where do you
get the energy to compress the gas? From electricity usually,
but you can use any source of mechanical energy to do it. An
old fashioned farm windmill for pumping up water from the
aquifer under your house would work fine.
Refrigeration has been around since the 1800s, and as long as
you know basic thermodynamics you'll be able to make ice. Spare
parts abound in junkyards around the world. To get to the point
you could not make ice, you have to go back to the 1700's.
That's a pretty far fall, and I think most people would consider
collapse as well underway if we just dropped to 1930s level.
Using ice making as a measure, you would not accept collapse as
being in progress for quite some time into the future, likely
long after all of us are dead. Half the population could
starve, but if the other half still makes ice, it's not
collapse! It's utterly ludicrous, and I'm sure everyone except
our group permadenier realizes this.
He is tiresome I know, but I tolerate him because he makes such
a fool of himself with stupidities like this all the time.
Since I no longer care to attract newbies, I don't worry that
somebody might actually buy any of the bullshit. He's just a
clown, comic relief as all reasonable metrics head downhill.
RE
#Post#: 1786--------------------------------------------------
Re: mental master debating
By: Phil Potts Date: November 21, 2021, 12:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=83.msg1780#msg1780
date=1637461587]
[The main thing he underestimated was how far mankind would go
in order to keep burning oil. The only thing limiting that, is
fear of collapse and loss of control by the billionaires if it
continues with supply unable to meet demand. They're not
concerned about running out of trees to give us oxygen, when
2021 witnessed the greatest amount of Amazon ever cleared when
it was recognised as a problem that needed to end, in the early
80s.
[/i]
He claimed nothing in his written speech about how far any
country would go. Only that they would produce everything they
had, and they didn't have enough. His written claim said nothing
about billionaires. Do you have a reference to where he blamed
anything on billionaires, rather than just inserting what you
wish he had said into the argument? He certainly never mentioned
the Amazon either. Reference if you have it please.
[/quote]
The only written speech I saw was the undelivered speech of
1979. He does not say any country will produce everything they
have in that one. He's laying out his vision for energy
independence by 1990 and then 20% solar power by 2000. I didn't
say anything about a particular country either by mentioning
'mankind'.
I'm surprised this needs explaining; '..when Jimmy Carter
proclaimed the end', is attributing something to him. When I say
"the only thing limiting that...", only 'that' is what I'm
ascribing him and I'm going into making my own comments on it,
not trying to paraphrase him.
Anyway Buddy selected at random J, just carry on making everyone
who mentions peak oil problems interchangeable. It's no longer
my problem.
#Post#: 1801--------------------------------------------------
Re: mental master debating
By: Phil Potts Date: November 21, 2021, 9:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=83.msg1799#msg1799
date=1637548293]
[quote author=Phil Potts link=topic=83.msg1786#msg1786
date=1637476085]
I'm surprised this needs explaining; '..when Jimmy Carter
proclaimed the end', is attributing something to him.
[/quote]
Well then we can discuss the quote perhaps? This would seem to
indicate an end...an end of supply meeting demand. This is
generally referred to as peak oil.
[quote author=Jimmy C, 1977]
Each new inventory of world oil reserves has been more
disturbing than the last. World oil production can probably keep
going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the
1980's it can't go up any more. Demand will overtake production.
We have no choice about that.[/quote]
Not an "end" as much as a no choice, peak oil claim.
This is an "end" of all proven oil reserves.
[quote author=JimmyC 1977]
World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible
to keep it rising during the 1970's and 1980's by 5 percent a
year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven
reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next
decade.[/quote]
He had several similar speeches over the years, I can review
them for the word "end" itself if you'd like, but I'm happy with
other words and concepts meaning the same thing being used by
him.
[/quote]
Yes let's deal with what he did say there.
Looks like once again he was prescient. Taking 1979 production
of 37m barrels and increasing it by 5% per year brings us to 64m
barrels by 1990. Consumption was 63.5m. He was right on target
to the exact year that world oil consumption could not continue
at 5% annual increase and fell that year from the previous. The
next few years, increases avg 1.6%, more than 3x lower. That's
crystal ball uncanny.
Obviously if he wrote in 1977 about how to still be consuming
oil in the 21st C, he never implied that there would be a
complete end to oil in 1990. But telling you that you should get
energy independent and not be so reliant on the middle east,
about a year before the Iran oil shock was subliminal.
Take your hat off! The only easier money than taking Jimmy to
the track, would be if I had a dollar for every peak oiler and
doomer you misattribute The End.
HTML https://youtu.be/jjaqrPpdQYc
#Post#: 1802--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ice making Idiocy
By: RE Date: November 21, 2021, 11:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=83.msg1797#msg1797
date=1637546816]
I picked an excellent metric, as anyone I know, and probably you
as well, would consider that lifestyle and the level of
civilization it entails as collapse.
[/quote]
It's a worthless measure, because it's a lagging indicator. It
only tells you after a collapse has gone a long way down that
it even began. What the collapse observer studies are LEADING
INDICATORS. Things like falling birth rates, stagnating
incpmes, rising debt loads, rising disease epidemics, rising
blackouts and brownouts, rising social unrest, falling per
capita energy availability, etc.
There is no claim here that collapse has finished, only that the
leading indicators trend in that direction. The timeline is
very contested, there is no echo chamber on that issue. Some
short horizons, others longer but I don't think anyone here
(besides you) pushes out significant collapse past the 50 year
mark, at most.
RE
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page