chafamandurrias
Madmaxista
- Desde
- 29 Ago 2007
- Mensajes
- 1.376
- Reputación
- 1.328
Este año y el anterior se han escrito muchos artículos sobre la actualidad de las predicciones maltusianas en relación al crecimiento de la población y de los recursos. Independientemente del acierto o error de las predicciones en corto la hipótesis de un diferente patron de crecimiento de población y recursos y sus posibles consecuencias sigue siendo una idea potente.
En el mismo sentido lo es la idea de un máximo de producción, aunque haya factores que aceleren o retarden la llegada de ese momento. Campbell and Laherrere en su artículo de Investigación y Ciencia (versión española se Scientific American) de mayo de 1998 situaban los problemas en un horizonte de 10 años.
Esto son las conclusiones del artículo de Linch que refuta el Peak Oil, cada cual que juzgue. Yo creo que en menos de un año o revienta la "burbuja" o revienta el sistema económico mundial.
Rebuttal of Hubbert' claims
The New Pessimism about Petroleum Resources:
Debunking the Hubbert Model
(and Hubbert Modelers)
Michael C. Lynch[1]
Conclusions
The many inconsistencies and errors, along with the ignorance of most prior research, indicates that the current school of Hubbert modelers have not discovered new, earth-shaking results but rather joined the large crowd of those who have found that large bodies of data often yield particular shapes, from which they attempt to divine physical laws. The work of the Hubbert modelers has proven to be incorrect in theory, and based heavily on assumptions that the available evidence shows to be wrong. They have repeatedly misinterpreted political and economic effects as reflecting geological constraints, and misunderstood the causality underlying exploration, discovery and production.
The primary flaw in Hubbert-type models is a reliance on URR as a static number rather than a dynamic variable, changing with technology, knowledge, infrastructure and other factors, but primarily growing. Campbell and Laherrere claim to have developed better analytical methods to resolve this problem, but their own estimates have been increasing, and increasingly rapidly.
The result has been exactly as predicted in Lynch (1996) for this method: a series of predictions of near-term peak and decline, which have had to be repeatedly revised upwards and into the future. So much so as to suggest that the authors themselves are providing evidence that oil resources are under no strain, but increasing faster than consumption!
En el mismo sentido lo es la idea de un máximo de producción, aunque haya factores que aceleren o retarden la llegada de ese momento. Campbell and Laherrere en su artículo de Investigación y Ciencia (versión española se Scientific American) de mayo de 1998 situaban los problemas en un horizonte de 10 años.
Esto son las conclusiones del artículo de Linch que refuta el Peak Oil, cada cual que juzgue. Yo creo que en menos de un año o revienta la "burbuja" o revienta el sistema económico mundial.
Rebuttal of Hubbert' claims
The New Pessimism about Petroleum Resources:
Debunking the Hubbert Model
(and Hubbert Modelers)
Michael C. Lynch[1]
Conclusions
The many inconsistencies and errors, along with the ignorance of most prior research, indicates that the current school of Hubbert modelers have not discovered new, earth-shaking results but rather joined the large crowd of those who have found that large bodies of data often yield particular shapes, from which they attempt to divine physical laws. The work of the Hubbert modelers has proven to be incorrect in theory, and based heavily on assumptions that the available evidence shows to be wrong. They have repeatedly misinterpreted political and economic effects as reflecting geological constraints, and misunderstood the causality underlying exploration, discovery and production.
The primary flaw in Hubbert-type models is a reliance on URR as a static number rather than a dynamic variable, changing with technology, knowledge, infrastructure and other factors, but primarily growing. Campbell and Laherrere claim to have developed better analytical methods to resolve this problem, but their own estimates have been increasing, and increasingly rapidly.
The result has been exactly as predicted in Lynch (1996) for this method: a series of predictions of near-term peak and decline, which have had to be repeatedly revised upwards and into the future. So much so as to suggest that the authors themselves are providing evidence that oil resources are under no strain, but increasing faster than consumption!
