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

phlogiston

July 12, 2014 12:13 am

These are the 1930s of the AGW movement. It rreminds me of similar studies carried out in the 1930s in Nazi Germany. For instance a German girl studying sociology in the 1930s had a PhD project whiu consisted of living among Roma gypsy people with the aim of deciding if they should be allowed to live or be exterminated. Her conclusion at the end was that although they were cute folks they didn’t quite make the cut and “should be culled”.
So a similar PhD student has concluded that to reduce CO2 you need to reduce human population. What starts as PhD studies can within a decade become real policy when the (eco)fascists start to implement their agenda.

Björn from Sweden

July 12, 2014 12:21 am

CO2=CO2(pop/pop)(gdp/gdp)(gec/gec)
or
CO2=pop(gdp/pop)(gec/gdp)(CO2/gec)
or
CO2=gdp(gec/gdp)(pop/gec)(CO2/pop)
or
CO2=gec(pop/gec)(gdp/pop)(CO2/gdp)
I call this “the three or four faces of Kaya”
It may look useless at firsta glance, but in economics analysis it is very useful.
Of interest may be this identity, that I found in a childrens book:
The Andersen Identity:
Population if kingdom:pop
Emperor of kingdom:emp
Tailors of kingdom:tail
New Clothes of emperor:nc
nc=pop(emp/pop)(tail/emp)(nc/tail)
This thread is one of my all time favourites on WUWT
Thank You all.

richardscourtney

July 12, 2014 1:21 am

Pete Brown:
You said you would desist but that was merely another of your egregious lies because you continue your nonsense at July 11, 2014 at 5:02 pm.
Let us be clear. I DID NOT USE ANY ‘TRICK’. Your iteration of that lie is tiresome.
You quoted me out of context and I pointed out what you had done. THAT IS NOT A ‘TRICK’.
You are an offensive and tiresome idiot who states nonsense then tries to pretend he said something else. I cannot be bothered to go through all the examples in your latest diatribe so I relate the first.
In a reply to you at July 11, 2014 at 7:55 am I wrote

You follow on with more nonsense by writing

To put the point another way, if you seriously think we can de-couple CO2 emissions and economic productivity then you really need to tell us how – because that would absolutely be the holy grail…!!

Actually, the USA has decoupled its CO2 emissions from the progress of its economic activity and you would know this if you had looked at the data. The USA did it by switching to a lower CO2 fuel (i.e. natural gas).

At this point Daniel G. joined in at July 11, 2014 at 8:29 am by writing of my report of the decoupling

Your reasoning is too simplistic. You have to consider more than one factor.
USA is just one country. It is developed one by the way, think of the rest of the world. But anyway, shale gas is expensive compared to burning coal, and it still emits CO2. They managed to decrease the co2 intensity factor (this is the fourth factor). So the relation between co2 emissions and economic growth is still there. It would be long before humans could decouple such relationship.

That, of course, is plain wrong: “the relation between co2 emissions and economic growth is” NOT “still there”. The relationship was ended and a new relationship was established. In other words, and as I said, “the USA has decoupled its CO2 emissions from the progress of its economic activity” and there was no clear relationship until the new relationship was established.
But this error from Daniel G. gave you a life-line that you grasped – but misunderstood – in your exceptionally egregious post at July 11, 2014 at 9:48 am where you wrote of my comment

Actually that’s a very fine example of an economy reducing it’s CO2 intensity of energy generation – precisely one of the four terms on the RHS of the identity, and a excellent illustration of the point! If you think the USA no longer emits CO2 as a by-product of economic activity, though, then you’ve clearly forgotten what happens when you burn gas.

The suggestion that my comment suggests I “think the USA no longer emits CO2 as a by-product of economic activity” is surreal.
I replied to that insane suggestion in my post at July 11, 2014 at 2:06 pm saying

Actually, that shows you are semi-literate!
I did NOT write
“the USA no longer emits CO2 as a by-product of economic activity”
I wrote
“the USA has decoupled its CO2 emissions from the progress of its economic activity”.
You demonstrate your complete ignorance of the subject when you do not understand that decoupling does NOT mean cessation.

Unfortunately, you had thus made a complete fool of yourself by trying to displace your ignorance of the subject with misunderstanding of an error of Daniel G.. (This is so funny that nobody could make it up).
I could go on but there is no point. You only write offensive nonsense. And I take exception to your mention of “decency” because, as with energy issues, you need to learn what it is before you mention it.
Richard

July 12, 2014 1:22 am

Without comment on the worth of the report, the Kaya Identity is demonstrated here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/10288.full

graphicconception

July 12, 2014 3:26 am

To my mind, the usefulness of the formula depends on whether the individual ratios can be determined without having to find the numerator and the denominator and then divide one by the other.
I don’t know how you can determine GDP per capita without knowing the population (in spite of Michael 2). Wikipedia shows three ways and they all need population.
“Emissions per Energy” is also something that cannot be measured directly. You might be able to measure in the lab emissions for a particular fuel but then you need to know the split: how much wood, coal, gas, oil, wind etc etc. You also need to know the efficiency. Is wood burnt in the fireplace at home as efficient as that burnt in a wood-fueled power station? So I still argue that the individual terms are not stand-alone properties.
Temperature can be defined as a ratio involving entropy and internal energy. Temperature can also be measured directly with a thermometer. So an equation with temperature in it could be useful. The fact that you can expand it in to an energy ratio does not detract from that.
I accept that people who have access to these calculated figures may believe they are useful but they should also be aware of the circularity of their reasoning.
It may explain one thing. GDP/capita is effectively Standard of Living. Many who recommend action on climate change think that the consequences of action will not affect our standard of living. That could be because they use a constant for GDP/capita and don’t think it needs recalculating as GDP varies.

richardscourtney

July 12, 2014 4:51 am

graphicconception:
You begin your thoughtful post at July 12, 2014 at 3:26 am saying

To my mind, the usefulness of the formula depends on whether the individual ratios can be determined without having to find the numerator and the denominator and then divide one by the other.

Yes, and that is problematic (as I, you and others have pointed out).
However, there are two more fundamental issues that are important whether or not “the individual ratios can be determined without having to find the numerator and the denominator”.
1.
How does one determine which factors to consider, which to ignore, which factors to combine as which ratios, and why?
All these matters are opinions. And the resulting equation is an opinion which defines how analysis is to be conducted. Such constraint of what and how to analyse is politics and it is not science. In other words, the devised equation is a propaganda tool and is not a scientific tool.
2.
What weightings should be provided to individual factors and why?
This is important because the factors affect each other but can be varied independently.
Richard

lgl

July 12, 2014 5:50 am

http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/kaya/

norah4you

July 12, 2014 6:10 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
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.
Please remember:
Neither is it your job to decide IF your or any other person’s ideas and expositions and claims are valid”
IF you have valid arguments, not provided in the comment at all, please present them as well as ALL needed premisses for the argument to be proven valid. Remember that this is one step, the very first steep, that everyone needs to take instead of writing things like:
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.
Problem is that you Eschenbach as so many others on both sides in the AWG debate lack every essential part of having proven anything due to not presenting all needed premisses for anyone outside your own backyard’s bagpack. Not only that – as in your comment your subjective view of presenting your day, which lack all contact with the subject and usually is called diversion.
In my mind you had better become a Politian. Not many outside the Political sphere has produced so many fallacies and avoiding answering questions. In other word instead of presenting facts for their view!

Dr. Doug

July 12, 2014 7:06 am

(richardscourtney 4:51 am, citing graphicconception):
The usefulness of the ratios is precisely that the ratios express causal relationships: More GDP requires more energy, more energy entails more CO2 emissions, etc.
These ratios are neither arbitrary nor simply ‘matters of opinion’. They are indeed well founded.
I very much doubt that you would argue that producing more stuff (GDP) is likely to be done without using more energy, or that producing that energy can often be done without adding CO2 emissions. These are indeed matters of science (including economic science).
You are right, of course, that science can be abused for political and propaganda purposes, but we must be careful in considering where in the analysis any abuse might potentially occur.
Regarding ‘weightings’: Strictly speaking, the ratios are not weighted, as they are multiplied in series. However, to address your underlying point, the values of the ratios are matters for investigation. The usefulness of the Kaya Identity is in clarifying what values need to be investigated and how these values matter.
I have not looked sufficiently into any application of the Kaya Identity to venture any opinion as to whether the analysis is done correctly or not. I generally try to balance good-willed presumption of others’ competence with proper ‘nullius in verba’ skepticism and the recognition that even competent scientists make mistakes.

mbur

July 12, 2014 7:23 am

That was some ‘deep decarbonization’.
Seems one of your right side variables was reported as lower, or higher depending on the point of view, but had no effect on the left side. Which seems to be equal to and the same as your identity.
Thanks for the interesting articles and comments.

gnomish

July 12, 2014 8:04 am

heh. yeah- run that on your computer. (computers used to be for computing- some old school guys still use them for that)
remember, the kayanic formula is c = p * g/p * e/g * c/e
see what value you get for C when you plug in various values for population, gdp, energy…
who wants a demonstration of the glorious utility of that magical variable assignment function?
the formula shows that no matter how many people, what the gdp or energy consumption-
well, don’t take my word for it. find out the scientific way. test it.
and now that we’ve found out who’s innumerate, we may as well find out who can correct himself when shown to have been foolish.
i want to see who delivers what he demanded of others when it turns out he’s the one who owes…lol

steverichards1984

July 12, 2014 9:05 am

I would like to think that we could agree that:
1) CO2 emissions=Carbon content of the energy*Energy intensity of the economy*Production per Person*Population
(from http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/kaya_equation.html)
is an equation that we could discuss the validity of.
Of course we would need to define what each term meant, then we could have a good old fashioned discussion.
Similarly, each of the above terms could be defined and discussed:
2) Carbon content of the energy = CO2/TOE and
3) Energy intensity of the economy = TOE/GDP and
4) Production per Person = GDP/POP
We are on firm ground here, we can argue what these units are and whether the fractions are meaningful. People could even quote research backing up each of these terms.
We can put into each value some real figures and see if we recognise or can prove the validity of these individual fractions.
However, when you write:
5) CO2 = (CO2/TOE)*(TOE/GDP)*(GDP/POP)*POP
You have produced a multiterm equation.
One of the first rules of simplifying an equation is to cancel.
Always, Always, Always.
It cancels to CO2 = CO2.
It is not an ‘identity’.
Identities are useful, they create short circuits to overwise laborious step by step processing through many lines of cancellation, substitution and any other deeper mathematical steps.
If you see your intermediate solution on your paper or whiteboard, taking the shape of a known identity, you have usually ‘proven’ your work or ‘found’ your solution without further processing required.
The fact that this equation can be cancelled down to CO2 = CO2 ‘proves’ to me, and hopefully most others, that it is wrong, pointless, worthless and rather shocking that it is used in a number of papers.
No ‘useful’ equation can be cancelled to x = x.
I am willing to be proven wrong, but you are not allowed to use faulty processing to try to do so!
*SR*

gnomish

July 12, 2014 9:11 am

walla, the kayanic runes brought to life!

Bryan

July 12, 2014 9:16 am

graphicconception says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:26 am
“To my mind, the usefulness of the formula depends on whether the individual ratios can be determined without having to find the numerator and the denominator and then divide one by the other.”
Some commenters have emphasized that it is the ratios that are important. This is correct. But some of them seemed to concede that the identity loses validity if any of the ratios are determined using the numerator and denominator rather than through some other means. If this is what they meant, then I differ with them at that point. In fact, IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW YOU DETERMINE THE RATIOS, as long as they are determined accurately. The goal would be to determine them as accurately as possible. To calculate GDP/Population, for example, I think Wikipedia is correct that you would definitely want to use Population.
Many people seem to be stubbornly holding onto on the idea that if you can cancel things out and get to a trivially true equation, then the original equation must be a useless tautology. (This was main idea of the original post, in my opinion.) This is the idea that is incorrect. The importance of the ratios IS NOT that by thinking of the terms as ratios you avoid the ability to cancel everything down to a trivially true equation. The importance of the ratios IS that they are important ratios in the real world, and they are ratios that can be influenced by public policy. That is what the Kaya identity is all about. It PURPOSEFULLY arranges the variables into important ratios that can be influenced by public policy, in such a way that things DO cancel out to obtain a trivially true equation. As others have pointed out, if they did not cancel out in that manner, then there would be a problem. So you want to calculate the ratios in the most accurate way possible. You DO NOT need to avoid “the cancel out thing” by calculating them in a way that does not use the numerator and denominator.
Now, as a practical matter, there are definitely issues with the application of the Kaya identity. In a response to another post mentioning some of the difficulties, I discussed an example (inadvertently posted as bryanwoodsmall) showing that when you try to tweak something through public policy, there are unintended consequences that affect the other variables, so the tweak (at best) will not produce exactly the results you anticipated. Some commenters seem to be saying that the practical issues are so big that the identity itself is useless. I will not comment on that idea, except to say that it is a criticism that is completely unrelated to the assertion that if things cancel out to X=X then the original equation is useless.
There are also issues relating to the goals of those who trot out the Kaya identity. Are they trying to tell us that governments had better reduce the population, and/or reduce GDP/capita (standard of living) in order to stave off climate catastrophe? Okay, I admit it, just typing that question raised my blood pressure, because I am aware that there are people who want to do exactly those things, and they predictably will use the Kaya Identity to make their point, arguing for broad (essentially tyrannical) government authority and power to control every aspect of our lives, stomp on our dreams and aspirations, and deny the world’s poor access to affordable energy, all to combat a problem that so far does not even exist. (Okay, my blood pressure is really up now.) However, that is not the only way the Kaya identity can be used. One could also look at it and say, “Okay, I want my government to keep its dirty paws off the first 2 terms (Population and GDP per capita), so if we think CO2 emissions are a problem, then let’s see what we can do about the last 2 terms.”
But the above 2 paragraphs are beside the point about the mathematics that we are talking about.

Willis Eschenbach

Author

July 12, 2014 9:20 am

Steven Mosher says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:53 pm

“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.”

That’s not the argument you made. quote yourself.
Its a tool, not a representation
It can show you something. change the population. you will get a number.
that number is a good rough order estimate of what will happen to emissions.
just that and nothing more.
But your criticism of units cancelling was just wrong.
Now, we can criticize it for a whole host of reasons.. but units?

Thanks, Mosh, always good to hear from you. As Anthony pointed out above, I did not write the subhead, nor did I think it was correct. Anthony has since removed it.
As to your claims about my canceling the units, I didn’t cancel the units. Take a look at the Kaya Identity … do you see any units anywhere? I cancelled the variables, not the units, which is a totally different operation.
Best regards,
w.

gnomish

July 12, 2014 9:26 am

bryan – can you use that formula to produce a nice chart showing these meaningful relationships of one variable to another?

gnomish

July 12, 2014 9:28 am

actually, i’m only interested in a graph showing how C varies when you change the variables on the right side.
desperate to see it! don’t fail me! maybe mosh? anybody?

July 12, 2014 9:35 am

Willis – when you cancel the terms in identity it ceases to be the original identity or anything useful even though it remains an identity (A=B is a simple identity as is CO2=CO2). That is not how they’re used. See the RPJ link and PNAS links in the comments above for working examples of how the Kaya Identity specifically is implemented. The results of course, are debatable but not because there is anything wonky about mathematical identities.

gnomish

July 12, 2014 9:51 am

oh, i know what my problem is!
i need to set C = 1 so the product is anomalies! that’ll be so much more useful.

gnomish

July 12, 2014 9:59 am

omg… how can i do a multi-model average? what do i use for error bars when all the anomalies are zero to the nth decimal place? jeez… how can i do a a collection of scenarios to show a hockey stick for bau if every graph looks like a hockey floor? this kayanic koan is uberzen…

gnomish

July 12, 2014 10:02 am

i’m afraid even mosh’s best is not enough to help me now-
i’ll have to go straight to the top:
calling michael mann!

john robertson

July 12, 2014 10:14 am

Willis, congratulations.
What an accidental discovery.
For years I have been baffled as to how otherwise intelligent people can talk absolute rubbish, particularly when discussing public policy.
The heart of the government must spend public wealth without limit versus only one taxpayer.
This post reveals an amazing gulf in communication, those of us who understood mathematics to require defined terms and internal consistency, seem to be unable to communicate with those who seem to assign very flexible definitions to what I see as identical terms.
Clearly you have struck oil.

Bryan

July 12, 2014 10:17 am

steverichards1984 says:
July 12, 2014 at 9:05 am
“…
However, when you write:
5) CO2 = (CO2/TOE)*(TOE/GDP)*(GDP/POP)*POP
You have produced a multiterm equation.
One of the first rules of simplifying an equation is to cancel.
Always, Always, Always.
It cancels to CO2 = CO2.
…”
steverichards1984:
I saw your post after I put up mine above.
Up until the part I quote above, you are exactly right in my opinion. However, when I got to that part, the source of the confusion became more clear to me.
You say: “One of the first rules of simplifying an equation is to cancel.”
However, I would ask: Is “simplifying an equation” our goal here? And the answer is “NO”. As I noted in my post above (and others have noted), the variables are INTENTIONALLY arranged in a way that is NOT the simplest form, but contains ratios that are important in the real world, and can be influenced by public policy. Of course you can simplify by canceling, but that destroys the ratios that have been intentionally been built. There is no reason to simplify.
What I think I finally see (now it is obvious, and in retrospect I think others mentioned it) is that the confusion comes from looking at the kaya identity as some kind of algebra problem. It is not an algebra problem to be solved or simplified. It is instead an intentional expression of CO2 emissions in terms of important, “tweak-able” ratios, arranged in such a way that they CAN be cancelled to show that the identity has been properly built from the ratios.
So it comes down to seeing something that has named quantities in it, and thinking that it should be simplified, when in fact it does not need to be simplified.

steverichards1984

July 12, 2014 10:31 am

Bryan: have a go at this.
Using my 5) from above, lets substitute some real numbers into the equation and see what happens:
5) CO2 = (CO2/TOE)*(TOE/GDP)*(GDP/POP)*POP
Where
CO2 = 1
TOE = 2
GDP = 3
POP = 4
6) CO2 = (1/2)*(2/3)*(3/4)
7) simplify or just type into a calculator, it will come out to 1
But the mathematically minded new that because the formula tells you CO2 = CO2 *ALWAYS*
Try any number you like in 5) and 6) for the value of CO2 and *SHOCKINGLY* CO2 will equal that number………………

steverichards1984

July 12, 2014 10:34 am

Bryan says: @July 12, 2014 at 10:17 am
We simplify equations to make life simpler!
It does not change any answer *AT ALL* – *EVER*.
Simplifying does not change any answer *AT ALL* – *EVER*.
Simplifying does not change any answer *AT ALL* – *EVER*.
Simplifying does not change any answer *AT ALL* – *EVER*.
If it does you have made an error, sorry!