Diving into the Deeps of Decarbonization

[UPDATE: Comment from Anthony: There has been a tremendous amount of discussion and dissent on this topic, far more than I ever would have imagined. On one hand some people have said in comments that Willis has completely botched this essay, and the Kaya identity holds true, others are in agreement saying that the way the equation is written, the terms cancel and we end up with CO2=CO2. It would seem that the cancellation of terms is the sort of thing that would rate an “F” in a simple algebra test. But, I think there’s room for both views to be right. It seems true that *technically* the terms cancel, but I think the relationship, while maybe not properly technically equated, holds as well. Here is another recent essay that starts with Willis’ premise, where CO2=CO2 and expounds from there. See: What is Kaya’s equation?

Further update (modified 3AM 7/12/14): Willis has posted his response in comments, and due to my own travels, I have not been able to post it into the body of the message until several hours later, see it below. – Anthony]

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Another day, another new piece of mad garbage put out by the UN. It’s called “pathways to deep decarbonization”, all in lower case (8 Mb PDF). Their proposal is to get CO2 emissions down to zero. I didn’t get far into it before I cracked up laughing and lost the plot.

It starts with the following definition:

Deep decarbonization requires a very significant transformation of energy systems. The ultimate objective of this transformation is to phase out fossil fuel combustion with uncontrolled CO2 emissions. Only fossil fuels in conjunction with CCS [carbon capture and storage] would remain.

But that wasn’t the funny part. That was just depressing. The funny part came later.

Now, out here in the real world the most charitable way to describe this lunacy of forcing the nations of the world to give up fossil fuels is to … to … well, now that I think about it, there is no way to describe this as anything but a pathetic joke which if implemented will cause untold economic disruption, disaster, and death.

In any case, in order to figure out how to “phase out fossil fuel combustion”, they go on to describe what they call the “principal drivers” of CO2 emissions, viz:

The simplest way to describe the deep decarbonization of energy systems is by the principal drivers of energy-related CO2 emissions—for convenience, since the focus of this chapter is on energy systems, we simply refer to them as CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions can be expressed as the product of four inputs: population, GDP [gross domestic production] per capita, energy use per unit of GDP, and CO2 emissions per unit of energy:

$CO2_{emissions} = Population * \frac{GDP}{Population} * \frac{Energy}{GDP} * \frac{CO2_{emissions}}{Energy}$

That was where I lost it …

Now, at first glance that looks kind of reasonable. I mean, emissions must go up with population and with GDP per capita, and go down with energy efficiency.

Here’s why I laughed. Lets apply the usual rules of math to that equation. We know that if a variable occurs both on the top and bottom of a fraction, we can cancel it out. Starting from the left, Population on the top cancels Population on the bottom. Then GDP on the top cancels GDP on the bottom. Then Energy on the top cancels Energy on the bottom … and we’re left with …

$CO2_{emissions} = CO2_{emissions}$

Pretty profound, huh? CO2 emissions are equal to CO2 emissions. Who knew?

OK, now let’s build their equation back up again. But instead of using gross domestic production (GDP), we’ll use gross beer production (GBP) instead.

$CO2_{emissions} = Population * \frac{GBP}{Population} * \frac{Energy}{GBP} * \frac{CO2_{emissions}}{Energy}$

Note that this is identical to and equally as valid as their whiz-bang equation, in that it simplifies down to the same thing: CO2 emissions = CO2 emissions.

And as a result, the clear conclusion from my analysis is that the best way to fight the evil menace of CO2 is to figure out a way to make beer using less energy …

Now, there’s a carbon reduction program I could get behind.

Best wishes to all,

The Usual Request: If you disagree with someone, please quote the exact words you disagree with. This prevents misunderstandings, and lets us all understand your objection.

PS—Due to a cancelled flight, I’m stuck here in a hotel in LA on my way back from the Ninth International Climate Change Conference, which I’ll write about another time, and sitting in my hotel room wishing I were home. Not much to do but read boring UN documents … at least this one was funny.

PPS—Although it’s not mentioned in the document, their goofy equation is known as the “Kaya Identity“. Apparently, the number of innumerate people on the planet is larger than I had feared.

==============================================================

Willis Eschenbach says:

July 11, 2014 at 8:43 am

Well, yesterday was a long day. Up early to get to the airport, and this time the flight actually flew. Go deal with the rental car. Roll on home.

Then change clothes, I’d spent the night without luggage. Hang out with the gorgeous ex-fiancee and catch up. Put in a load of wash. Put the trash in the trash bin, the recyclables in their bin, the kitchen scraps in the garden waste bin. Roll all three of them up the driveway to the street. Unpack. Pack. Wash the dishes. Make coffee. Scrub the toilet.

Then when I got around to opening up my computer in the afternoon, after waking up from its normal sleep and running for about 15 minutes … it died. Dead. As in when I turned it on, It ran for about 5 seconds, and croaked …

So … that meant another 45 minute drive to the “local” Apple store. It also meant about an hour’s worth of waiting for an appointment. Then another three hours while they worked on the machine before finally getting It to run again. Net result?

It’s now 10 PM, and I’m back where I was last night … on line again. Oh, and a couple hundred bucks lighter.

Anyhow, that was how my day went. I hope Bart had more fun than I did.

Regarding the comments, I’m overjoyed that there is much discussion of the issue. My point, albeit poorly expressed given some of the comments, was that since the Beer Identity Is equally as true and valid as the Kaya Identity, it is obvious that we cannot use the Kaya Identity to “prove” anything.

So yes, the Kaya Identity is true, but trivially so. We cannot depend on it to represent the real world, and it can’t show us anything.

For example, folks upstream said that we can use the Kaya Identity to show what happens if the GDP per capita goes up by say 10%. According to the Kaya Identity, emissions will also go up by 10%.

But according to the Beer Identity, if Gross Beer Production per capita goes up by 10%, then CO2 emissions have to go up by 10% … and we know that’s not true. So clearly, neither identity can serve to establish or demonstrate anything about the real world.

What I tried to say, apparently unsuccessfully, is that by itself, the Kaya Identity cannot demonstrate or show or prove anything about the real world. If there is anythlng true about it, that truth must exist outside of the Kaya Identity. Otherwise the Beer Identity would be a valuable guide to CO2 emissions … but we know that’s not true.

Finally, l hear rumblings that Anthony shouldn’t have published this piece of mine. This totally misunderstands Anthony’s position in the game. The strength of WattsUpWithThat is not that it is always right or that it publishes only the best stuff guaranteed to be true.

The beauty and value of WUWT that it is the world’s premier location for public peer review of climate science. On a personal level, WUWT is of immense use to me, because my work either gets falsified or not very quickly … or else, as in this case, there’s an interesting ongoing debate. For me, being shown to be wrong is more valuable than being shown to be right. If someone can point out my mistakes, it saves me endless time following a blind alley.

And indeed, there is much value in the public defenestration of some hapless piece of bad science. It is as important to know not only which ideas are wrong but exactly why they are wrong. When Anthony publishes scientific claims from the edges, generally they are quickly either confirmed or falsified. This is hugely educational for scientists of all kinds, to know how to counter some of the incorrect arguments, as well as giving room for those unusual ideas which tomorrow will be mainstream ideas.

So it is not Anthony’s job to determine whether or not the work of the guest authors will stand the harsh light of public exposure. That’s the job of the peer reviewers, who are you and I and everyone making defensible scientific comments. Even if Anthony had a week to analyze and dissect each piece, there’s no way that one man’s wisdom can substitute for that of the free marketplace of ideas … which is why it’s not his job. Bear in mind that even with peer review, something like two-thirds of peer reviewed science is falsified within a year. And Anthony is making judgements publish/don’t publish on dozens of papers every week.

So please, dear friends, cut Anthony some slack. He’s just providing the arena wherein in 2014 we practice the blood sport of science, the same sport we’ve had for a few hundred years now, ripping the other guys ideas to bits, also known as trying to scientifically falsify another person’s claims that you think don’t hold water. It is where we can get a good reading on whether the ideas will stand up to detailed hostile examination.

It is not Anthony’s job to decide if mine or any other ideas and expositions and claims will wtthstand that test … and indeed, it is often of value for him to publish things that will not stand the test of time, so that we can understand exactly where they are lacking.

So please remember, Anthony is just providing the boxing ring. It is not his job to predict in advance who is going to win the fight. His job is to fill the cards with interesting bouts … and if this post is any example, he is doing it very well.

Best to everyone,

===============================================================

And a final update from Anthony:

While Willis wants to cut me some slack, and I thank him for that, I’m ultimately responsible for all the content on this website, whether I write it or not. While some people would like nothing more than to have content they deem “wrong” removed, such things generally present a catch-22, and cause more problems than they solve. Of course some people would be pleased to have WUWT disappear altogether. Some days, I’m one of them, because it would allow me to get my life back.

The value is being wrong is learning from it. If you don’t learn from it, then being wrong deserves every condemnation thrown at you. I plan on being wrong again, maybe as soon as today, though one never knows exactly when your training and experience will lead you down the wrong path. In this case I was wrong in thinking that this simple terms cancellation argument pretty much made the Kaya identity useless. I’m still unsure how useful it is, or whether its usefulness is mainly scientific or political, but rest assured I now know more than I ever thought I would know about it, and so do many of you. And there’s the value.

I thought this was relevant, and worth sharing:

“For a scientist, this is a good way to live and die, maybe the ideal way for any of us – excitedly finding we were wrong and excitedly waiting for tomorrow to come so we can start over.” ― Norman Maclean

Thanks for your consideration – Anthony Watts

0 0 votes

Article Rating

682 Comments

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

john robertson

July 10, 2014 8:27 pm

So cutting to the chase; This identity is PC rubbish, disguised as algebra to fake out the”Math is hard”crowd.
Or the terms are poorly defined and very badly expressed.
If it means something other than its self cancelling algebraic form, it should be written correctly to avoid confusion.
However as it is a mere bureaucratic tool, one must assume the poor expression, resulting in an appearance of information where none exists, is deliberate.
As is so much of bureau speak.
The intentions are moot, the pretence of mathematical information is rubbish.
What wisdom is dispensed by 1×1=1?
Apart from a warm fuzzy feeling of the political creatures…. Oh look I can do math.

Truthseeker

July 10, 2014 8:36 pm

Peter Taylor says:
July 10, 2014 at 4:08 am
“The situation is deathly serious. ”
—————————————————————————————————————————-
Peter the whole premise of the original article is that CO2 is bad and that is fundamentally wrong.
Let me repeat that.
The premise that CO2 is bad is fundamentally wrong.
CO2 improves the biosphere and the environment universally and without requiring any bureaucracy to administer it. There has been an 11% “greening” of the planet since the beginning of the sattelite era mostly due to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 will not significantly (if at all) affect ambient temperatures, which is unfortunate because it looks like we are heading into a cold period. The most prolific periods in Earth’s long history of life occurred when CO2 levels are much higher than they are now. The planet is responsible for the production of about 97% of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere. We are at 400 ppm for CO2 concentration. At about 180 ppm it is game over, for everything.
With the coming cold period, the only thing that is going to mitigate against the massive loss of grain growing regions in Russia and Canada is going to be the CO2 levels. Cold is orders of magnitude worse than warm. The darkest times in human history have been during cold periods. The brightest times in human history have been during warm periods.
The situation is serious, but not because of CO2. It is serious because we have been wasting resources on a non-problem during a time of abundance and now have nothing in reserve for when the bad times come. So thank you and your alarmist, illogical, power grabbing, destructive friends. You may well have condemned future generations to hardships that could have been mitigated or even avoided.
Curse you and the horse you rode in on.

Brad

July 10, 2014 8:38 pm

[snip – again, don’t comment on personal things you know nothing about -mod]

bryanwoodsmall

July 10, 2014 8:43 pm

Chucky77 says:
July 10, 2014 at 1:10 pm
“Treating each of the factors as a separate variable and varying the numerical value of one factor to see it’s effect of CO2 emissions assumes those factors are independent of one another. That’s called a static model. In reality changing the value of a factor will likely cause the value of another factor to change; a dynamic model. So it’s really difficult to attribute the change in CO2 emissions to one single isolated factor. Yes, people do that, but without realizing the assumption they are relying on. Those factors in the equation are surely correlated with each other. This is one reason simple-minded models often fail to predict actual outcomes. Viz., increase GDP per capita and energy intensity is likely to change with it.”
In a later post he gives examples and explains this further. The point is that you can’t do these kinds of policy tweaks without unintended consequences. My favorite example related to the topic at hand has to do with auto fuel efficiency standards. (Originally the purpose of the efficiency standards was not mainly related to CO2 emissions, but nowadays the standards are partly for that purpose, I think it is safe to say.) The car manufacturers have ways of getting around them to some extent, but let’s say for the sake of argument that the government is successful in improving average fuel efficiency (which I believe is probably true). By doing this they decrease energy, and thus hope to reduce energy/GDP (by the way, for those having trouble with the concept that the identity under discussion could be useful, read “energy/GDP” as “energy per GDP”, and think of it as the amount of energy used per dollar of GDP). But how much will this policy tweak decrease energy/GDP? A static accounting will look at the total miles driven currently, and then assume that miles driven will not change with greater efficiency. But of course that is not correct. When cars are more efficient, people will drive more, which means the energy used (and thus energy per GDP) will not decrease as much as anticipated. Furthermore, what if the requirements are too extreme, and cause the car manufacturers to make design decisions that do not make economic sense, to the extent that the car industry (and thus the GDP) suffer? Now GDP has gone down, as well as energy, so energy/GDP may not go down at all, but instead GDP/population (read GDP per person) goes lower than it otherwise would have been. So emissions may be reduced, but at the cost of reducing GDP/population instead of reducing energy/GDP (as intended).
But what if our policy makers and regulators are geniuses, and are smarter than the marketplace (as they often claim to be). What if they are successful at instituting requirements that not only make cars more efficient, but that also HELP the auto makers, and thus the economy? (Please leave aside the question of whether this is even a theoretical possibility.) If this happens, then GDP (and thus GDP/population) increases! Now that is a good thing, but it works against the goal of reducing CO2 emissions. So, in that scenario, you reduce energy/GDP (but not by as much as anticipated, because driving increases), but you increase GDP/population. So the net effect on CO2 emissions does not work out as anticipated.
However, these considerations DO NOT mean that the “Kaya Identity” is fundamentally useless just because things cancel out. Many have done a good job (using several good examples ) of explaining how such identities can be useful in general. As for the “Kaya Identity”, I think it gives a reasonable look at the basic quantities that policy makers would be concerned with if they have the goal of reducing CO2 emissions. Actually achieving the intended adjustments is another matter, and anticipating the secondary effects (and overall net effect on CO2 emissions) of the instituted policies is yet another matter.
Of course all this also ignores whether reducing CO2 emissions is even a worthy goal, but that is not what the discussion has mostly been about.

Matthew R Marler

July 10, 2014 8:51 pm

Daniel G: There is nothing funny about a minor slip that creates a discussion spanning over 400 comments.
I think it’s funny, and Willis started with a short paragraph and then laughing out loud.

LanceB

July 10, 2014 9:05 pm

Future total CO2 emissions can be calculated based on changes to the other factors.
Starting Basis
Population = 300M people
GDP = $15T
Energy used = 100Q Btu
CO2 emissions = 5.5M Tons CO2
GDP per capita = $50K / person
Energy use per unit GDP = 6667 Btu / $
CO2 emissions per unit of energy = 5.5×10^-11 Tons CO2 / Btu
Population * GDP per capita * Energy use per unit of GDP * CO2 emissions per unit of energy =
300M people * ($50K / person) * (6667 Btu / $) * (5.5×10^-11 Tons CO2 / Btu) = 5.5M Tons CO2
Scenario 1, assume the following changes every 5 years after the base year:
Population +10M
GDP per capita +5K / person
Energy use per unit GDP -100 Btu / $
CO2 emissions per unit of energy -0.1×10^11 Tons CO2 / Btu
In 5 years
310M people * ($55K / person) * (6567 Btu / $) * (5.4×10^-11 Tons CO2 / Btu) = 6.05M Tons CO2
In 10 years
320M people * ($60K / person) * (6467 Btu / $) * (5.3×10^-11 Tons CO2 / Btu) = 6.58M Tons CO2
In 15 years
330M people * ($65K / person) * (6367 Btu / $) * (5.2×10^-11 Tons CO2 / Btu) = 7.10M Tons CO2
Scenario 2, assume the following changes every 5 years after the base year:
Population +10M
GDP per capita +5K / person
Energy use per unit GDP -500 Btu / $
CO2 emissions per unit of energy -0.5×10^11 Tons CO2 / Btu
In 5 years
310M people * ($55K / person) * (6167 Btu / $) * (4.9×10^-11 Tons CO2 / Btu) = 5.15M Tons CO2
In 10 years
320M people * ($60K / person) * (5667 Btu / $) * (4.4×10^-11 Tons CO2 / Btu) = 4.79M Tons CO2
In 15 years
330M people * ($65K / person) * (5167 Btu / $) * (3.9×10^-11 Tons CO2 / Btu) = 4.32M Tons CO2
Looks like the formula is working fine to me. My numbers are made up and useless other than to show the formula works. The only time you need to know your CO2 emissions before doing the calculation is for the base year.
Let me know if I did anything wrong or miss understood the point of the formula.

Robert in Calgary

July 10, 2014 9:08 pm

[snip – in fairness, since Brad’s comments have been snipped, so must be this one in response -mod]

Zeke

July 10, 2014 9:10 pm

I propose a new Misery Identity. Any area of life in which a Progressive scientist (usually from a certain generation born from 1942-1955 which I cannot mention here and shall remain unnamed), is allowed to mandate his personal proclivities and preferences on society (veiled in sciencey language and equasions) gets dialed in as a variable, giving an Expanding Misery Identity which anyone can figure out.
However, the Misery Identity is less with diversity and personal freedom. If you like solar panels you can joyously use your solar panels, and I will joyously use hydro and coal, and drive a pickup powered by gasoline, hold the corn. In agriculture, organic-only activists should feel free to pay twice as much for half as much, in the Rich Hippy area of the grocery store; however, I do not want expensive, fungus ridden food which was produced by people bent over in fields for hundreds of hours weeding. That has to go in to the Misery Variable. Vegetarians can eat their soy products and ranchers are left alone to tend their cattle in peace, selling milk, cheese, hamburger, and many other products to people who want to buy them, unmolested and without being constantly disquited by slanderous organic soy product activists.

Scott Wilmot Bennett

July 10, 2014 9:16 pm

This is just nuts!!
All these crazy formulas:
M = P * M/P
d = d/t * t
m = h * (m/h)
etc, etc!
Put simply, you can’t use the same notation for different variables!!
Yes, you are saying that the number on the left equals the result of the numbers on the right!!!
But what you have said on the right is; ”divide your result by a number, then multiply it by the same number” !
With the formula (d = d/t * t) you are saying that (the speed “d”) is the same as (distance “d”), when you have just finished showing that (speed “d”) equals (distance “d”) divided by time, multiplied by time!
The correct way to write it is either: s = d/t*t or x=d/t*t Or r=d/t*t etc
Otherwise you get the following:
d = d/t * t
d = (d÷t) x t
thus d ÷t = (d÷t)
Or
d = d/t * t
d = (d÷t) x t
d= (d/1 ÷ t/1) x t/1
d= d/1 x (1/t x t/1)
d =d/1 x 1
d =d/1
d=d
Or
d = d/t * t
d ÷ (d/t) = t (solving for t)
d x (t/d) = t (multiply by reciprocal)
d/1 x t/d = t
1 x t = t
t=t
And in the same pattern:
M = P* (M/P)
M ÷ (M/P) = P (solving for P)
M x (P/M) = P (multiply by reciprocal)
P=P
The point of an equation is that it can be rearranged to solve for different variables.
The one you don’t know can be calculated from the ones you do.
C=C is not helpful in this regard!
E=MC2 is useful because it can be written M=E/C2, if you know the energy but not the mass.
As for the equation in the head post, solving for any other variable, reduces to the pattern Willis demonstrated!
c=c, p=p and e=e ect because the terms in it, cancel each other!

anna v

July 10, 2014 9:28 pm

Curt says:
July 10, 2014 at 6:16 pm
Will, you are missing the whole point. Would it be clearer if it were written as:
m = h * (m/h)
In your equation above m on the left and h outside the parenthesis are variables of an equation , (m/h ) are a constant expressed unusually in units ( units are not mixed up in equations) in which the variables are expressed. It is total algebraic confusion to use the same symbols for variables and units. Until we substitute a value for the variables, a constant instant.
You should state: let M be the miles to travel and m the distance in miles traveled in an hour . If I go for H hours how many miles will I travel?
M=H*m
the way we write E=m*c**2, the units are not written explicitly except in order to sort out in what unit system the calculation is made so as to know in what units E is given.
The problem is not the tautology that emerges from the mixing of units with variable/constants in this famous equation.
The equation rewritten
the equation should be expressed as :
Let C be total carbon emissions , to be estimated
C=P*g*e*c
Where for the variables we substitute a constant value given by measurements.
P the population known from tables
g the GDP/population from tables
e energy /GDP from total energy used
c CO2/energy from chemical analysis and measurements in the lab
where everything above are constants expressed in appropriate units.
There is something called dimensional analysis in sophisticated equations. In simple algebra it means that the units on the left of the equation are the units on the right of the equation, Units , otherwise the equation is wrong. In the confusion of variables with units in the original equation that is what comes out, the dimensional consistency, CO2=CO2 as units, not numbers with useful value.
In my opinion the equation is given in a silly non consistent with algebra form, but is not a tautology if written correctly.

Brad

July 10, 2014 9:46 pm

[snip see previous reason, if you have issues with how Willis lived his life today while traveling, take it elsewhere -mod]

Chris Schoneveld

July 10, 2014 10:27 pm

Jason L, July 10, 2014 at 8:36 am says:
“It’s disheartening to see how many people think this equation is somehow useful.”
Hear, hear! This is a sentiment I share whole heartedly. It also makes me wonder the credibility of so many people that comment on this science blog. Thanks Willis for exposing them.

July 10, 2014 10:31 pm

Scott Wilmot Bennett says:
This is just nuts!!

Agreed. Stop trying so hard to make it worse.

But what you have said on the right is; ”divide your result by a number, then multiply it by the same number” !

Yes, and that is often a very useful thing to do. And supported by the multiplicative inverse and identity properties of algebra.

With the formula (d = d/t * t) you are saying that (the speed “d”) is the same as (distance “d”), when you have just finished showing that (speed “d”) equals (distance “d”) divided by time, multiplied by time!

Uh, no. Nothing in (d = d/t * t) says that speed is the same as distance. This is a good example of the concept, however.
1) Begin with distance: d. Not particularly useful.
2) Form the identity: d = d. A true equation, but still not particularly useful.
3) Divide and multiply the right side of the equation by time (t): d = (d/t) * t Still a true equation, and now it is useful. It defines a relationship between distance (d) and time (t) and speed (d/t) that has application in the real world. A similar gain in utility can be had if you start with 2) CO2 = CO2 and factor in Population, GDP, and Energy to arrive at Kaya’s Identity.
It is true that you can step back from (3) to (2) for either equation, but why would you do that? You’d give up the utility you have gained. And the fact that you can choose to give up the utility of the expanded equation doesn’t mean that utility never existed. If it did we’d be screwed, as any equation can be reduced to the trivial identity by standard algebraic operations.

Scott Wilmot Bennett

July 10, 2014 10:41 pm

Attempting to solve the formula in the head post, for any of its variables, is meaningless!
I have supplied my reasoning and ‘model’ code below 😉
IF
Co2 emission = c
Population = p
Energy= e
GDP= g
THEN
1. c =p*(g/p)*(e/g)*(c/e)
2. c÷p = (g/p)*(e/g)*(c/e)
3. c÷p = (c/p)
4. c= (c/p) x p/1
5. c=c
AND
6. c÷p = (c/p) [From line 3.]
7. c÷p = c÷p
8. p = c/p x 1/c [Solving for p]
9. p=p
OR
1. c =p*(g/p)*(e/g)*(c/e)
2. c/1 ÷ c/e =p*(g/p)*(e/g)
3. c/1 x e/c =p*(g/p)*(e/g)
4. e=p*(g/p)*(e/g) [Solving for e]
5. e=p/1 x e/p
6. e=e
AND
7. e=p*(g/p)*(e/g) [From line 4.]
e/1÷ e/g = p*(g/p)
e/1x g/e = p*(g/p)
g= p*(g/p) [Solving for g]
g/p=(g/p)
g= (g/p) x p/1
g=g

richardscourtney

July 10, 2014 11:19 pm

Pete Brown:
I am replying to your post at July 10, 2014 at 3:23 pm which is untrue twaddle and says in total

Richardscourtney
I’ve addressed all your points, such as they are, including all the shoutey, bold obscenities. I’m not interested in Alice in wonderland for present purposes and I’m not sure she has much to add.
I’ve asked you twice to explain which factors you object to and you’ve ducked it twice.
You started this by being rude and aggressive and you’ve finished by being rude, obscene and aggressive.
I’m not susceptible to bullies as you may have noticed. But I am done with this conversation. You are as bad as the extremists.

Before dealing with the important issue, I provide a paragraph which refutes your falsehoods which I have here copied.
I am not susceptible to idiocy from extremists so I have been rejecting your tripe by replacing it with logic and rational argument. I have ‘ducked’ nothing but I have repeatedly explained why I will not be side-tracked by your bullying that attempts to get me to answer your red-herring questions, and your claim of my bullying is a clear example of psychological projection. I began with my post at July 10, 2014 at 2:31 am which is here. You replied to that single, polite and logical post with a series of posts beginning with your post at July 10, 2014 at 4:32 am.
Importantly, you have repeatedly and doggedly refused to address my main point which I have repeatedly stated to you and was stated in my post at July 10, 2014 at 2:31 am where I wrote

{snip}
Sorry, but I know you’ve entirely misunderstood the point of the equation.
It is a political tool provided by a political organisation for political purposes.
The equation is nonsense. It links independent variables to form abstract constructs which only indicate political desires. I am astonished that this is not blatantly obvious to everyone.
The abstract constructs are NOT “factors” which combine to be CO2 emissions.
For example, what evidence is there that in any nation a significant factor to CO2 emissions is GDP per capita?
{snip}

You have NOT addressed my thesis that the equation is and can only be a tool for propounding political propaganda.
Address the real issue and don’t write falsehoods, or clear off.
Richard

Rdcii

July 10, 2014 11:27 pm

I had to read everyone elses, so even though the show’s mostly over, I’m going to contribute my two bits. 🙂
The big original confusion seems to be with values over units. Lots of people are reading the equations as if the elements of the equations are variables…but they’re not. They’re units.
In the M&M equation, C is a unit: Crates.
“M = C * B/C * P/B * M/P
M&Ms = Crates * Boxes / Crates * Packages / Boxes * M&Ms / Package”
This equation contains no values, and no way to represent values (no variables or constants). It can be used in a very elementary way to see things like, if you increase the number of packages/box, you will deliver more M&Ms. It can be used to show the equation is valid by showing that the units cancel to an identity. But it does not have variable placeholders; it is only units.
If you do put values in the appropriate places, you see that C is a unit, not a variable:
40000M = 20 C * (10B/1C) * (20P/1B) * (10M/1P)
The value next to the first C is not the same as the value next to the second C. C does not represent a variable that must be the same everywhere in the equation; it represents a unit. If the values next to the Cs were represented by variables, they’d be two different variables with the same unit: Crates.
Similarly, in the original equation, the first “population” will have a value next to it like “600,000,000”, while the value next to “population” in the ratio (GDP/Population) will probably be 1.
Population”, by itself, is a valueless unit. The original equation contains only units.
Willis got it wrong on this one, but I was with him in the beginning, and it was a struggle to follow the discussion. Thanks to all who explained this in their various ways. Thanks, too, to those folks that tried to keep the discussion civil.
But I don’t recommend, as others have, that the thread get buried. Hiding their mistakes, and pretending they don’t make any, is the shameful thing the warmists do.
Whether the equation is a political tool or not should be an entirely different thread.

richardscourtney

July 10, 2014 11:41 pm

DanMet’al:
At July 10, 2014 at 4:21 pm you say to me

I, Dan, contend that you’ve lost your perspective. . . you don’t read or give thought to what others write.

Absolutely untrue, for example, I relied to your offensive and abusive trolling at July 10, 2014 at 1:47 pm.
However, your meaningless waffle in your post I am now replying does not answer my repeated point which you quote from my response at July 10, 2014 at 2:16 pm to your egregious trolling; viz. I asked

Well, perhaps you can tell us what use this ridiculous equation is except as a tool to spout political propaganda.

Your reply to that question says

So my conclusion is that while the Kaya Identity may be criticized as a non-useful or even an easily abused model, the identity itself can not be falsified on mathematical grounds based on Pete Brown’s arguments (relative to factoring) which I believe to be rational.

And – of course – that has no relation of any kind to my question which you claim to be addressing.
Richard

Brad

July 10, 2014 11:54 pm

Consider this a CSI investigation:
Not sure when Willis actually posted the article?
First response post was at 10:30PM PST on 7-9-2014.
First and only Willis post was on 7-9 at 10:51pM. He has been absent for over 24 hours.
Anthony said in his second update that he was able to contact him at 10PM? There were no comments before 10PM, unless Anthony means 10PM on the 10th?
When was his flight home, and when did he get home?
Does he have a home PC?
When did Anthony add his two updates? No time stamps.
What type of phone does Willis carry, internet capable? Could he have accessed the post like I am doing now?
What hotel did he stay at, internet access? Did it have a business center with internet access?
What type of laptop does he have and how was it damaged?
So many questions….I have a hard time thinking the Willis I have come to know would allow for 24+ hours to pass with no internet access. (I can’t handle it, even on a cruise.)
Just asking questions, no accusations.
It is all about transparency.

Björn from Sweden

July 11, 2014 12:02 am

“The big original confusion seems to be with values over units. Lots of people are reading the equations as if the elements of the equations are variables…but they’re not. They’re units.”
Yes, useless units as I demonstrated in a post, you can also be an AGW genious and make up your own useless units. Just throw in something in the equation that seems to have bearing on CO2 in the form of (entity/entity). You can even randomly rearrange the terms to get new units that gives you new pseudo insights. If this is how economists think, I am not surprised the economy is in huge trouble.
CO2=CO2(pop/pop)(gdp/gdp)(gec/gec)….add whatever you like
try (ct/ct): carbon tax
or (ge/ge): green energy
or (ec/ec): electric cars ….rolling the dice, oh Kaya speak to me, share your wisdom…
CO2=(ge*pop*gdp*gec*CO2*ct*ec)/(pop*gdp*gec*ct*ge*ec)
CO2=(ge/pop)(pop/gdp)(gdp/gec)(gec/ct)(CO2/ge)(ct/ec)*ec
See how easy it is?
Impressive maybe, but is it useful?

richardscourtney

July 11, 2014 12:10 am

Rdcii:
At July 10, 2014 at 11:27 pm you assert without any supporting evidence or argument

Whether the equation is a political tool or not should be an entirely different thread.

I strongly disagree. The usefulness of a model is fundamental to any consideration of it.
The only perceived utility of the equation is as a tool for political propaganda, and even its staunchest supporters have not suggested any other use.
Also, your unjustified assertion which I am writing to refute is the clearest indication, but your entire post can be understood as being an example of concern trolling; e.g.
“Willis got it wrong on this one …” (wrong? RSC)
“I don’t recommend, as others have, that the thread get buried.” (not recommended but suggested. RSC)
Hiding their mistakes, and pretending they don’t make any, is the shameful thing the warmists do.” (mistakes? shameful? RSC)
Richard

Edit_XYZ

July 11, 2014 12:16 am

Unbelievable.
‘CO2 emissions = population * GDP/population * energy/GDP * CO2 emissions/energy’
As long as this expression uses uses ‘equal’, ‘multiply’ and ‘divide’, it reduces to CO2 = CO2.
Whatever demonstration (and I use the term loosely) has been used to “prove” it proves nothing beyond the fact that a quantity divided by itself is 1.
Indeed, I can replace ‘population’/’population’, ‘GDP’/’GDP’ and ‘energy’/’energy’ with ‘number of rocks on the moon’/’number of rocks on the moon’, ‘number of neurons in whomever wrote this garbage brains’/’number of neurons in whomever wrote this garbage brains’ and ‘pocket change I have in my wallet today’/”pocket change I have in my wallet today’ and I get the same tautology.
The expression shows no influence of these quantities – or any other – on CO2; that’s why it’s a tautology. The quantities chosen are put there for propagandistic purposes, to create the appearance of an influence.
But wait – there’s more.
Apparently, some posters here are under the impression that, if they use enough word salad and rhetoric, they can shove any garbage down our collective throats.
Who knows? Perhaps they’re not shameless deological propagandists; but merely incult fools, confused with regards to how one correctly uses ‘equal’, ‘multiply’ and ‘divide’.

Curt

July 11, 2014 12:24 am

A lot of people here have been confused by the shorthand used in expressing the identity. While common for people used to this type of presentation, for those unfamiliar with this type of shorthand, the use of only the units in the presentation of the equation without a variable to go with each unit doesn’t make much sense.
Without the shorthand convention, the identity would be expressed something like:
C [tons CO2] = P [persons] * G [$GDP / person] * E [GJ / $GDP] * D [tons CO2 / GJ]
Each of the variable values on the right side can be found from many sources in political, economic and scientific references. As a quick way of analyzing the problem, it can be very useful to express the relationship this way. As I pointed out above, to someone who proposes radical cuts in CO2 emissions, ask him which of the four terms on the right he wants to cut radically to achieve these emissions reductions.
The comments of some other posters here reminds me of an old joke Feynman liked to tell in expressing the concept of a derivative. In the joke, a cop stops a driver for speeding and says, “Did you know you were going 70 miles per hour?” The driver responds, “That’s impossible, I’ve only been driving for 20 minutes!”
I was challenged on my use of the equation of D (miles) = T (hours) * V (miles / hour), saying the speedometer expressed an (almost) instantaneous velocity, not the overall distance divided by overall time. But in many cases, such as traveling on an open highway, it is a good approximation to multiply the short-term velocity by time to get distance. All of us have done this type of mental calculation in our travels — the speedometer shows 75 mph, the highway sign says 300 miles to our destination, so we figure 4 hours of driving time left.
The Kaya identity uses similar logic. The “D” term is derived from very small laboratory samples, but multiplied by very large quantities.

Edit_XYZ

July 11, 2014 12:53 am

Curt
“C [tons CO2] = P [persons] * G [$GDP / person] * E [GJ / $GDP] * D [tons CO2 / GJ]”
Lol.
tons CO2 = persons * $GDP / person * GJ / $GDP * tons CO2 / GJ reduces to tons CO2 = tons CO2.
You can christen any fraction here with P, G, E, D, or the name of your first child; you can pretend that persons * $GDP / person doesn’t equal $GDP – none of this changes the fact that the ‘identity’ reduces to CO2 = CO2, showing no influence of another quantity on CO2.
Feynman would be ashamed – and angry – to see propagadists use his name to push this tautology as showing any influence of any quantity on CO2. You’re actually comparing derivatives (or equations that actually have different terms before and after the ‘equal’ after trivial simplification) with the tautology you’re trying to push?
Well – keep going; show the readers exactly how intelectually dishonest you are. Or, alternatively, how confused you are about mathematics.

Peter Taylor

July 11, 2014 2:53 am

This is one way of losing the plot. Like that bunch religiously focused on the pinhead looking for angels while the barbarian hordes gathered on the steppes.
Tonyb….not sure what I have written that might be relevant – I have been trying to warn the ecologists I work with every day on landscapes, community, forests and biodiversity – but got to be careful to go slowly, otherwise they simply switch off – I think most working ecologists cannot take on board the scale of the dissonance we take for granted. I do have an unpublished essay reviewing ‘green economics’ books – it was too long for the journal I normally get published in…I will send it via your website.

John West

July 11, 2014 2:58 am

Ok, let’s try this again:
CO2 Emissions = Population X (GDP per capita) X (Unit of Energy /GDP) X (CO2 Emissions / Unit of Energy)
CO2 Emissions = C
Population = # of people = P
GDP per capita = Standard of Living = S
Unit of energy /GDP = Production Efficiency = E
CO2 Emissions / Unit of Energy = Fuel Emission Intensity = F
So, now we have:
C = PSEF
And yes “C” is on both sides of the equation since F = C / Unit of Energy. The usefulness is not derived from determining “C” per se but in analyzing the changes in “C” from changes in P, S, E, and F.
Thus:
Denoting: “Change in” = d
Then:
dC = (dP)(dS)(dE)(dF)