Joined: Dec 16, 2004 Posts: 706 Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:15 pm Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
DamienJasper wrote:
Funny thing is the amount of people who accuse you of A) Not having a prediction date and B) Believing that oil is endless. Shows hardly anyone is actually reading your stuff before they start throwing crap. Total hypocrisy. Same goes for JD on his blog.
Please tell me what Lynch's PO date is. I have not been aware that he has provided such.
What he has provided is assumptions for another Saudi Arabia (in oil reserves) yet to be discovered in SA, where they have not yet looked. Hell, they have not validated that it does not exist, therefore those reserves are there (like diamonds in the front lawn. There until proven otherwise.).
Joined: Mar 22, 2005 Posts: 201 Location: Pocatello
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:47 pm Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
So I see that light, sweet crude peaked this year. Who came closer on this one: Campbell or Lynch?
It's a game of horseshoes folks.
As Bill Paxton said in Aliens: That's it man, game over man, game over, man! Game over!
I love how suddenly the prediction date (that Campbell needed pointed out to him cause he didn't see it) was Light Sweet Crude all along and not REALLY oil in general. Funny how that works out.
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:50 pm Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
DamienJasper wrote:
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
So I see that light, sweet crude peaked this year. Who came closer on this one: Campbell or Lynch?
It's a game of horseshoes folks.
As Bill Paxton said in Aliens: That's it man, game over man, game over, man! Game over!
I love how suddenly the prediction date (that Campbell needed pointed out to him cause he didn't see it) was Light Sweet Crude all along and not REALLY oil in general. Funny how that works out.
Unfortunately, he and a lot of the other traditional analysts continue to use the inadequate and unjustified logistic function to derive the Hubbert curve. If they would have done the right thing and used a correct mathematical model for oil depletion we wouldn't be having to play these "gotcha" games.
Joined: Mar 22, 2005 Posts: 201 Location: Pocatello
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:29 pm Post subject: Campbell vs Laherrere
Anyhow, I've been wondering about something. Campbell and Laherrere (SP?) both penned the original mainstream article in National Geographic back in 1998, right? Well, out of curiosity, isn't Laherrere's date like after 2010? (2015 I think?) If so, what is it that makes Laherrere's prediction different? If his date is the same as CC, nevermind and just move on.
Joined: Dec 16, 2004 Posts: 706 Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:37 am Post subject: Re: Campbell vs Laherrere
DamienJasper wrote:
Anyhow, I've been wondering about something. Campbell and Laherrere (SP?) both penned the original mainstream article in National Geographic back in 1998, right? Well, out of curiosity, isn't Laherrere's date like after 2010? (2015 I think?) If so, what is it that makes Laherrere's prediction different? If his date is the same as CC, nevermind and just move on.
Minor correction here: the artical was Scientific American, not National Geographic (though both periodicals had articals of the same subject titled "End of Cheap oil").
I think Campbell has adjusted his date to around 2010 just recently. Laherrere's is somewhere around 2015, I think.
2010 to 2015 is not a whole lot of difference in the grand scheme of things. It hardly matters that all immanent peak predictors agree on an exact date. The problem I have is with naysayers like Lynch who offers no alternative prediction. Lynch's modus operandi is to smear any and all PO forecasts while leaving only a vacuum in its place. What really make me angry is how he stakes that on the basis of his bias', assumptions and a total distain for the study of depletion. Many folks like Mike Lynch don't want anybody to pay attention to our oil predicament because it threatens the massive government highway building project & sprawl laws here in the US. There are tremendous vested interests in keeping the public confused.
When the day comes when he is willing to take a stab at mapping the future of oil, I think then we should begin to take his forecasts seriously.
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:22 am Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
Quote:
The problem I have is with naysayers like Lynch who offers no alternative prediction. Lynch's modus operandi is to smear any and all PO forecasts while leaving only a vacuum in its place. What really make me angry is how he stakes that on the basis of his bias', assumptions and a total distain for the study of depletion. Many folks like Mike Lynch don't want anybody to pay attention to our oil predicament because it threatens the massive government highway building project & sprawl laws here in the US. There are tremendous vested interests in keeping the public confused.
Although I find fault with Mr. Lynchs arguments in some places I have to point out that he does offer an alternative predicition....that there will be a bumpy ride over a long term due to all sorts of factors influencing global production including demand destruction, technologic advancement etc. I think it is important to note that he does not deny that a peak will not happen he is merely saying it is not going to happen soon and that it will not be well described using the models, simply because they ignore some of the key variables in the equation. Jumping to a conspiracy theory explaination of his reasoning is just way over the top. What he is saying is a valid possibility....he is not jumping up and down about limitless oil supply and abiotic oil like some of the other whackos out there....his approach is fairly reasoned I believe and the points he makes need to be considered when you look at the various models of Campbell and others.
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:28 pm Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
rockdoc123 wrote:
Quote:
The problem I have is with naysayers like Lynch who offers no alternative prediction. Lynch's modus operandi is to smear any and all PO forecasts while leaving only a vacuum in its place. What really make me angry is how he stakes that on the basis of his bias', assumptions and a total distain for the study of depletion. Many folks like Mike Lynch don't want anybody to pay attention to our oil predicament because it threatens the massive government highway building project & sprawl laws here in the US. There are tremendous vested interests in keeping the public confused.
Although I find fault with Mr. Lynchs arguments in some places I have to point out that he does offer an alternative predicition....that there will be a bumpy ride over a long term due to all sorts of factors influencing global production including demand destruction, technologic advancement etc. I think it is important to note that he does not deny that a peak will not happen he is merely saying it is not going to happen soon and that it will not be well described using the models, simply because they ignore some of the key variables in the equation. Jumping to a conspiracy theory explaination of his reasoning is just way over the top. What he is saying is a valid possibility....he is not jumping up and down about limitless oil supply and abiotic oil like some of the other whackos out there....his approach is fairly reasoned I believe and the points he makes need to be considered when you look at the various models of Campbell and others.
I also see this as Mike's most compelling argument.
The complexities involved may very well have long reaching and unforeseen consequences, including moving the conventional peak date many years forward or backward.
Absent a global economic downturn, I can't imagine what would cause peak to shift out till 2030 or beyond though. (Assuming we don't find a new super giant).
2010 - 2015 seems a more reasonable guess. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Joined: Jun 26, 2004 Posts: 1189 Location: Madison,Wisconsin
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:54 pm Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
And honestly, it doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory.
A conspiracy everyone knows is true kinda lacks that key ingrediant of secrecy. There Are huge interests in regaurds to highway building. That's a trillion dollar industry in the US. So having their interests messed with, yeah, they tend to object to that.
I'm not saying this is super secret spy kinda conspiracy. More a well, of course that's the case. And it's not people conspiring. It's simply if you threaten the interests of a large group of people with alot of money, of course they are going to fight back and not let you cause them to Not get as much money. That's like saying well of course iraq is going to love us for getting rid of saddam, he's obviously evil. _________________ Azreal60
Joined: Dec 16, 2004 Posts: 706 Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:54 pm Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
dub_scratch wrote:
.... Many folks like Mike Lynch don't want anybody to pay attention to our oil predicament because it threatens the massive government highway building project & sprawl laws here in the US. There are tremendous vested interests in keeping the public confused.
azreal60 wrote:
And honestly, it doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory.
A conspiracy everyone knows is true kinda lacks that key ingrediant of secrecy. There Are huge interests in regaurds to highway building. That's a trillion dollar industry in the US. So having their interests messed with, yeah, they tend to object to that.
I'm not saying this is super secret spy kinda conspiracy. More a well, of course that's the case. And it's not people conspiring. It's simply if you threaten the interests of a large group of people with alot of money, of course they are going to fight back and not let you cause them to Not get as much money.
Thanx azreal60. You saved me the time and trouble of clearly articulating this "conspiracy" business. I could not have said it better.
Going back to what I wrote, I must say that I don't think that Mike Lynch himself is trying to serve any particular vested interests. I think he is very sincere about his beliefs and position regarding peak oil.
What I do see are those who do directly serve powers, like the highway and sprawl interests, will elevate analyst like Lynch who serve their arguments as they try to influence public policy.
Case in point: one such shill for the highway, auto and sprawl industries is the fraud & economist Randal O'toole. O'toole is a phony libertarian who claims to be opposing "big government" while he tries get them to build more highways and to keep the sprawl laws on the books. In the below link, O'toole cites Lynch as he desperately tries to make the case that peak oil is a myth and that "New Urbanism" should continued to be banned in the US.
Joined: Mar 22, 2005 Posts: 201 Location: Pocatello
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:44 pm Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
Oh for pete's sake. Could you not answer the question without turning it into another "Lynch has no date, just critique" topic? Fact is, he's beaten Campbell at every turn and that just burns some people for some reason.
I'm wondering what made Laherre's prediction different in the first place, that's all. It's been well established that the PO community doesn't respond well to being wrong versus Lynch. Let's move past that, shall we?
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:23 pm Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
As an outsider trying to understand how either side reaches their ultimate conclusion, I find it amazing that Laherrère and company continue to use the extremely questionable Logistic curve formulation to model oil depletion. Equally disturbing is the fact that Lynch cannot come up with a better model, or at least shoot holes in the way the Logistic curve gets derived.
Laherrère seems to have picked up the curve as an empirical fit and then over the years it has seemed to attain the status of a theoretical fact. That unfortunately is not the case if you look at how it gets derived. The logistic equation models the predator/prey or birth/death relationships which occur in discrete populations in nature. It falls in the class of chaotic systems. Try the following applet out and you can see that in certain regimes it goes periodic.
Such is the behavior of non-linear, nearly chaotic mathematical models.
With the right parameters, the thing goes periodic! Why does anybody believe in this model? It models population of foxes and bunnies perfectly well, but oil molecules? It's the petroleum equivalent of a stupid pac-man game where little oil drops scurry around gobbling each other up.
Given that fact, it is amazing that the traditional oil depletion analysts have gotten even close in predicting when peak oil will occur, or has occurred in local regions.
I fear we are in the pre-Newton age where young Isaac had yet to come up with his theory of calculus. Everyone knows that the apple will fall off the tree and hit the ground, but no one can figure out the math behind it.
Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:42 am Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
Quote:
Oh for pete's sake. Could you not answer the question without turning it into another "Lynch has no date, just critique" topic? Fact is, he's beaten Campbell at every turn and that just burns some people for some reason.
Really? So his prediction that oil would fall to 30$ by the end of 2004, I believe, was correct then? Will his new prediction that oil will fall to 30$ by 2006 be correct? Furthermore, Campbell has had 2010 (plus or minus one or two years) as peak year since 2001, I don't see how his small date fluctuations around one point means anything on the large scale. His modelling does seem to be somewhat flawed, though. Too many factors he doesn't concider. On the other hand, I believe he and some other "Hubbertists" argue that technology and politics have often very little impact on reserves and recovery.
Quote:
With the right parameters, the thing goes periodic! Why does anybody believe in this model? It models population of foxes and bunnies perfectly well, but oil molecules?
Although, Laherrere admits that the hubbert curve is not based on geology. As far as I know, he uses it only as a convenience to model several fields at once. I'm still not sure what you mean, though. Is the Hubbert curve a logistics curve or a gaussian curve? Is there any difference? So logistic curves are used to model animal populations? _________________ "Life is merely an orderly decay of energy states, and survival requires the continual discovery of new energy to pump into the system. He who controls the sources of energy controls the means of survival. "
We can go back and forth between the two threads with posts without too much trouble.
Take a look at both of these and see if the sorting has been done right.
I'm looking into an easy way to duplicate specific posts. Mike has a starter thread here http://peakoil.com/fortopic2400.html that could use some company, now that I fixed up "Experts". My vision is to take the best of Mike's replies here and make them appear over there as well.
I ask that you do this: Find the ones you like best and excerpt them on the 14944 thread so I know which ones to dupe, and we'll have a "Best of Mike Lynch" thread over in "Experts".
Thanks _________________ --------------------------------
| Whose reality is this anyway!? |
--------------------------------
(-------< Temet Nosce >-------)
____________________________
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
