That is an overly narrow interpretation of what this thread is actually about. I think Write4U is on topic.
You say I made a "prediction". I would like to see exactly what I said. Can you please provide the post number?
---Futilitist
Apocalypse Soon?
- Thread starter Futilitist
- Start date
- Status
That is an overly narrow interpretation of what this thread is actually about. I think Write4U is on topic.
You say I made a "prediction". I would like to see exactly what I said. Can you please provide the post number?
---Futilitist
I think you've lost track of the conversation (which is odd because it is only a handful of posts on one page). You didn't ask a question, you were the one responding (whether to an implied question or just another statement is irrelevant). This has nothing whatsoever with you asking me questions, difficult or otherwise.
Not sure what maoner.com is, but I trust the World Bank a little more. It isn't possible for per capita gdp to go up and world population to go up and not have world total gdp also go up. One issue with my graph though is that it wasn't inflation adjusted. Here's another one showing world GDP growth, which is inflation adjusted:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG/countries?display=graph
Again: just one negative year.
You left out the word "growth", but yes, it has. You know what else has dropped?
-Population growth.
-Energy intensity (energy efficiency has improved).
The vague conclusion of course must be correct. What is incorrect is your prediction about when. Your prediction just a few monthsh ago was that by the summer we'd be in the throes of the oilpocalypse, whereas most expert predictions don't even show decreasing production for decades.
No. That .4% rate is a reflection not a cause of slow economic growth. The world economy is expected to pick-up next year and with it, production is expected to rise by 2.3%.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323550604578413081208912360.html
Beyond that? The EIA's projection appears roughly linear for the next few decades, meaning roughly constant barrels and slowly decreasing percentage growths (page 31):
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2013).pdf
Just plugging some numbers in it looks like an average of just under 2% growth for the next several decades.
Yes, but again, slow is not backwards.
Unrelated. And even if you could prove they were related, it still wouldn't help you since our debt problems are also decades away from becoming critical. For example, Social Security is projected to exhaust its trust fund in 2037.
"at some point" is far too vague to be of value. Of course it will start to decrease "at some point". At issue is when:
The link above projects increases out for three more decades, which is as far as the projection goes. You of course know this since you've been looking at such predictions for like two years! I don't know if this is a case of selective memory or trolling, but you are - as always - very, very wrong.
You asked:
"Since oil production growth is currently so anemic, it seems obvious that it will decline soon. Is that incorrect?"
and I said yes its incorrect, certainly not "anemic." So naturally with a wrong premise your conclusion is wrong too.
I agree that oil production in US probably peaked four decades ago, but US production is now just slightly more than US consumption. In part because alternatives to oil are being used more but in larger part due to new technology (Fracking etc.) I hope US can rapidly cut oil burning / CO2 production rate. If we can, then oil (actually refined product) exportation will help more with the balance of payments problem. (It already does as a barrel of refined product sells for more than a barrel of imported oil.)
#395
"We might not see major social unrest (hard to quantify) until the summer."
Another from that post:
"I think the stock markets are due for a very large correction (still known as a crash) as the US falls into recession again (happening now)."
=================
Dow Stocks Close at All-Time High
By Sandy Cannold
CNN
Jul 11, 2013 4:50pm
Stocks surged today as investors set aside fears that the Federal Reserve will soon stem its bond-buying that has boosted the economy. The Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 – a broader measure of the markets – closed at all-time highs.
The Dow finished today’s session up 169 points at 15,460. The industrials are now up 18 percent this year. All 30 stocks in the Dow finished the session higher. The biggest winners were Intel Corp., The Walt Disney Co. and Microsoft.
The S&P 500 finished today’s session up 22 points at 1675. The S&P is in the midst of its best six-day run in two years. Homebuilders were among the best performers today – PulteGroup, Lennar & D.R. Horton were each up more than 7-percent.
The NASDAQ also posted major gains today. The tech-heavy index is now up 11 of the last 12 trading days to a 13-year high.
====================
Thank you for finding that, billvon. Why didn't you just quote the whole thing?
Futilitist said:
I added the bold this time. So obviously I was not making a prediction, just expressing my expectations, as I clearly said above.
Russ_Watters said:
Gosh Russ, it would seem that you have grossly mischaracterized what I said.
Yep. The stock market continues to surprise me. I still expect it to crash soon.
What do you think about the latest oil spike?
---Futilitist
You continue to grossly mischaracterize my statements. I never made any such "prediction". Here, again, is what I originally said:
"Fair enough, but that is not what I am expecting (expecting--not predicting). I think the stock markets are due for a very large correction (still known as a crash) as the US falls into recession again (happening now). We might not see major social unrest (hard to quantify) until the summer. But there will be no recovery from the next recession. The recession/depression will morph into full scale social collapse, eventually, as the monetary system fails, probably from a major sovereign default in Europe. Total collapse might not begin for a few years (unlikely), depending on the reactions of governments to all of this, although an immediate collapse would not surprise me (I think sooner is more likely than later)."
"Selective memory" and "trolling" are highly inflammatory words for a serial miss characterizer to be flinging around.
---Futilitist
Ah. So you weren't making a prediction; you were just expressing an expectation of how the future would turn out, an expectation you strongly believe is accurate?
What do you think a prediction is?
I think these will continue as more oil comes from unconventional sources. Since these sources are more expensive they will drive oil prices incrementally higher. Due to the nature of the stock market this will not be smooth and come as a series of "spikes."
its not like all these issues have come up all of a sudden....we know we have to end our dependence on oil and/or coal but then there is also the dependence on water and well some may argue the earth is slowing down.....global warming and pollution ......the lists goes on and on but the fact remains what we can do is accept that apocalypse is destiny of the earth.precautions however should be taken......Now are we too late...only time will tell but non sincerity of the global leaders for the preservation of the earth also remains a major drawback in this race against time
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Sorry, I was just responding to the thread Title.
IMHO, it makes no difference if the collapse is this summer or 10 summers from now. I worry about it's consequences. if they are catastrophic, then indeed we may experience an apocalypse.
Thanks bvillion.
You really should get yourself a thesaurus, futilitist. You can't weasel out of that one.
And are you really claiming you are just FORGETTING the single most critical piece of corroborating information for your hypothesis? If you think oil production is already crashing and experts think oil production will continue to rise for several decades at least, that's a fairly serious discrepancy/flaw, isn't it?
You really should get yourself a thesaurus, futilitist. You can't weasel out of that one.
And are you really claiming you are just FORGETTING the single most critical piece of corroborating information for your hypothesis? If you think oil production is already crashing and experts think oil production will continue to rise for several decades at least, that's a fairly serious discrepancy/flaw, isn't it?
It makes a pretty big difference for our ability to adapt if it is going to happen slowly over decades or quickly, over weeks.
I just bought a new car, one I expect to keep for 5-10 years. My expectations about the price/availability of gas factored into my choice.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
We're still hanging on to the 1978 Mercedes diesel we bought right after we got married. In a crisis we could start siphoning the 600 gallons of heating oil out of the fuel tank for our furnace. That would go 15,000 miles.
A cottage industry has popped up, people scavenging the used cooking oil from fast-food joints, filtering it, and using it in their diesel cars. You can always tell when one of those cars goes by: the exhaust has just a faint whiff of french fries.
I don't know what they put in fast-food french fries, but if it can survive being exploded in an internal-combustion engine, I'm not sure I want them in my stomach!
You are the one who needs a thesaurus, Russ. Here is what the Merriam-Webster Thesaurus has to say:
So, according to the Merriam-Webster Thesaurus, prediction and expectation are not synonymous. You can't weasel out of that one. :bugeye:
1. I never said that oil production was already crashing. I said that it will soon begin to decline.
2. Experts don't forecast that oil production will continue to rise for several decades. Several decades means at least 20-30 years. Here is a graph from the EIA:
That is a pretty huge gap to be filled by "unidentified projects". They are not very specific about where those unidentified projects are going to come from. Doesn't that bother you little bit?
Here is a graph from the IEA:
They have the same problem as the EIA. They call their gap "Crude oil: Fields yet to be found". This is category is a recent addition to their forecasts. It seems pretty convenient that it adds just enough oil to keep us from going into decline.
Here is a more realistic forecast from the Energy Watch Group:
And here is one from the ASPO:
Here is another interesting example of your inexactness with words:
Write4U said:
Russ_Watters said:
10 summers equals decades? Really? You are a master of word games.
You say we have nothing to worry about, since oil production will continue to rise for "several decades". It would seem that this timeline is critical to your theory that we are in no danger of collapse. Here is a hypothetical question for you. What if oil production begins to slowly decline before the end of the year? Would that be a serious problem? Would it change your estimation of the probability of collapse?
Also, what rate of oil production growth do you expect during your "several decades"? Will it increase? Will it continue to rise at the current rate? World oil production growth is currently only .4%. Oil prices keep rising. The economy isn't exactly booming. Debt levels are rising. Not enough jobs are being created to keep up with population growth. Tax revenues are not keeping pace with infrastructure needs. Are you saying that our civilization could easily survive several decades of these conditions?
---Futilitist
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Russ_Watters,
We are talking and debating, but nothing is being done except developing the remaining resources. Where are the great hydro projects, the wind farms, the solar fields., the tidal turbines?
We better start building something, 20 -50 years go by very quickly and by that time we must be fully able to switch, not start and spend 20 years building, after we run out.
Check out China and see what those poor (backward) people are building. It's putting us to shame. But then profit is not there greatest priority, survival is.
We are talking and debating, but nothing is being done except developing the remaining resources. Where are the great hydro projects, the wind farms, the solar fields., the tidal turbines?
We better start building something, 20 -50 years go by very quickly and by that time we must be fully able to switch, not start and spend 20 years building, after we run out.
Check out China and see what those poor (backward) people are building. It's putting us to shame. But then profit is not there greatest priority, survival is.
Solar:
===============
Ivanpah
BrightSource’s LPT solar thermal system is currently being deployed at the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) in California’s Mojave Desert. Ivanpah, which started construction in October 2010, is the first project that will deliver power to serve the company’s signed contracts with PG&E and Southern California Edison. The project - which counts NRG Solar, Google and BrightSource as equity investors - is currently the largest solar plant under construction in the world. The project is being constructed by Bechtel.
Project Overview
A 377 megawatt net solar complex using mirrors to focus the power of the sun on solar receivers atop power towers.
The electricity generated by all three plants is enough to serve more than 140,000 homes in California during the peak hours of the day.
The complex will reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by more than 400,000 tons per year.
Located in Ivanpah, approximately 50 miles northwest of Needles, California (about five miles from the California-Nevada border) on federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
The complex is comprised of three separate plants to be built in phases between 2010 and 2013, and will use BrightSource Energy’s LPT solar thermal technology.
============================
Wind:
===========================
Alta Wind Energy Center
The Alta Wind Energy Center is a wind farm located in Tehachapi Pass of the Tehachapi Mountains, in Kern County, California. As of 2013, it is the largest wind farm in the world, with a combined installed capacity of 1,320 MW (1,770,000 hp). The project, being developed near Tehachapi Pass Wind Farm – site of the first large-scale wind farms installed in the U.S. in the 1970s and 1980s – is "a powerful illustration of the growing size and scope of modern wind projects".[1][2]
Southern California Edison has agreed to a 25-year power purchase agreement for the power produced as part of the power purchase agreements for up to 1,500 MW (2,000,000 hp) or more of power generated from new projects to be built in the Tehachapi area. The project will "reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 5.2 million metric tons, which is equivalent to taking 446,000 cars off the road".[1] A total of 3,000 MW (4,000,000 hp) is planned.
========================
This is a big part of the dishonest game you play, and it's why few people are taking you seriously. If you want to be taken seriously, stop with the fictional strawmen and argue the topic. (Or admit you can't and just go full Camping mode.)
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Good, we have started. How much total energy will they produce in % of the total national energy need?
Futilitist to Russ_Watters said:
I am arguing the topic. Russ_Watters clearly said that he expects oil production to rise for several decades:
Russ_Watters said:
I say we are headed for an apocalypse. He says we don't need to worry about that ever happening. I have accurately characterized his position.
Where is the straw man? It would seem that you are the one who is playing a dishonest game.
My post #1513 contained a great deal of pertinent, on topic argument. You choose to ignore all that and instead fixate on personally attacking me. Why should anyone take you seriously?
---Futilitist
Here is a chart showing total world energy consumption by source for 2010:
Wind power and solar power combined do not even make up 1% of the total! They have a long way to go.
---Futilitist
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
- Status