As many readers know, there was quite a hullaballo over the Kaya Identity last week, two posts by Willis Eschenbach here and here created sides seemingly equally split on whether the equation is useful or not.
One of the most strident critics was Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., and in the spirit of keeping an open mind on the issue, I offered him space on WUWT. Here is my email and his response, reprinted with his explicit permission.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Anthony xxxxxxx@xxxx.com wrote:
Hello, Roger Jr.,
I’d like to direct you to a comment on WUWT that challenges your calculations using the Kaya Identity.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/the-beer-identity/#comment-1685623
I provide it only for your information.
I know both of you have issues with the current state of discussion on WUWT regarding that equation/identity/relationship, and I’m certainly OK with that.
I think that much of the dissent over it has to do with the difference in viewpoints between science and engineering. I and many others look at the Kaya identity equation more from the engineering perspective, and expect it to perform as many other calcs do, but it seems that it doesn’t act as a hard equation, but more like a soft one, that generally defines the relationships of terms. A number of commenters have approached it from the engineering viewpoint, and find themselves puzzled as to why the numbers they get don’t seem sensible.
I puzzle over that also.
To that end, and because you’ve been highly critical, agreeing with such statements as “breathtakingly ignorant”, therefore, given the critical comment above, I’d like to offer this, first raised in another comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/the-beer-identity/#comment-1684325
Perhaps Anthony could give equal time to Pielke in defense of the Kaya identity?
I’m more than happy to do so should you be so inclined; not just for my own education on the topic, but for the hundreds, if not thousands of others that suffer from the same doubts that the equation isn’t as well thought out as some claim it to be. Or, if it was never intended to produce real world numbers accurately, but serves only to illustrate the relationship of the variables, explain that clearly so that the engineering types understand it better.
If you wish to make a submission, MS Word with embedded images works best. Any equations you might want to use in MS word’s equation editor don’t translate to WordPress well, so they will be converted to images. Or, you can optionally use LaTex, which is supported directly in WordPress.
I would appreciate an answer, no matter if it is a yes or a no. Thank you for your consideration.
Anthony Watts
=========================================================
Roger’s response Tuesday, July 15, 2014 6:59 AM (published with permission)
Hi Anthony-
Thanks for your email. Apologies for the delay in responding, as have been off email while traveling.
If you’d like to help your readers better understand the use of the Kaya identity, which I think is the most important tool for analyzing actual and proposed carbon policies, then I would recommend that you introduce them to this paper (open access);
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/2/024010
The mathematics are simple. Of course, there is a more in depth discussion in my book, The Climate Fix.
Finally, for those who’d prefer a lecture format, here is me at Columbia Univ last summer explaining the significance of the Kaya Identity for climate policy analysis:
Thanks, and all the best,
Roger (Jr.)
==============================================================
I agree with Roger that: “The mathematics are simple.”
In fact I think it is that simplicity that lends itself to being criticized as not being fully representative of a complex system. Willis described the Kaya Identity as being “trivially true” while Roger in his book and video treats its with the same respect as some physical law equation. My take is that the truth is somewhere in the middle between those viewpoints.
Whether it is best used as a political tool or as a physical science tool is still an open question in my mind, though I tend to think it leans more towards political usefulness. Whatever your viewpoint is, let’s thank Roger Pielke Jr. for taking the time to respond and to offer his view here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“If the bathtub model of atmospheric CO2 levels is correct, with humans as the source for increase, why does Mauna Loa not show a corresponding jump in the rate of increase? Doesn’t this argue strongly that the increase in CO2 is not directly tied to human emissions?”
The identity does not address atmospheric CO2 levels – it is focused on the CO2 emitted by an economy.
Pielke’s “Iron Law” of Climate Policy
In practice, this means that efforts to make dirty energy appreciably more expensive will face limited success.
http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/yalee360_pielkes_iron_law_of_c
===============
And then in the same breath the author contradicts himself and proposes a carbon tax as a solution. The justification being that the tax will be used to fund innovation.
This ignores the lessons of history. Innovation is not something that can be purchased by governments. On the contrary, governments have an incredibly poor record of picking winners and losers.
The problem is that the author has a conflict of interests. Academics and universities rely on government funding. So of course they will see taxation and research funding of their work as the solution.
The rest of us, the ones living in the real word, that don’t have our snouts berried in the public trough, know when someone has their hand in our pockets.
False God’s/Equation’s
We do know the 10 commandments.
Do the math, add one more.
Thou shall not bow down to false equations.
The identity does not address atmospheric CO2 levels – it is focused on the CO2 emitted by an economy.
===========
I’m watching the video of Dr. Pielke’s presentation. There is a general rule in logic. No matter how correct your conclusion mathematically, if your premises are wrong then your conclusions are wrong.
I’m questioning the premises behind the Kaya Identity, because if the premises behind the Identity are wrong, then no matter how correct the mathematics, the conclusions of the identity will be wrong.
The unstated premises of the Kaya Identity are:
1. increased atmospheric CO2 levels will lead to warming greater than 2C, which will lead to harm
2. increased atmospheric CO2 levels can be controlled via human CO2 emissions.
The contradiction between Dr. Pielke’s video (15 min) and Mauna Loa CO2 argues that premise 2 is wrong.
There appears to be a group of posters who still parrot Willis’s original misunderstanding of the meaning of the equation. This is from the document he linked.
The simplest way to describe the deep decarbonization of energy systems is by the principal drivers of energy-related CO 2 emissions—for convenience, since the focus of this chapter is on energy systems, we simply refer to them as CO 2 emissions. CO 2 emissions can be expressed as the product of four inputs: population, GDP per capita, energy use per unit of GDP, and CO 2 emissions per unit of energy:
CO 2 emissions = Population x (GDP/Population) x (Energy/GDP) x (CO 2 /Energy)
Unfortunately, the equation is poorly framed and thus ambiguous.
Johan above proposed re framing it. ( Johan says: July 19, 2014 at 2:03 am ) similar to this
T-CO2 = (T-POP) * (GDP-POP) * (WATTS-DOLLAR) * (CO2-WATT) where the terms are defined as above. If the article had done something like this, then Willis would not have found the equation remarkable.
dp says: July 19, 2014 at 7:10 am
F = P*g*e*f
I’m not disputing that, but given that P and g in normal circumstances would be considered “exogenous”, all the “equation” says is that in order to reduce global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, all that energy and climate change policies can hope to achieve is 1) to lower energy intensity (which can never get below the limits set by thermodynamics); and 2) to lower carbon intensity of energy (which would simply be equivalent to decreasing the share of fossil fuels).
Now, if a Senator or Congressman really is that stupid, you might just as well say: “Well, Sir/Madam, if we keep all other 60000 or so relevant variables constant, I am quite certain substituting a coal plant for a wind farm would lower CO2 emissions”. Whow !
ferdberple says: July 19, 2014 at 7:28 am
“The unstated premises of the Kaya Identity are:” –>Both conclusions are wrong
The Kaya identity says nothing atmospheric CO2. It says nothing about atmospheric CO2 and temperature.
At 31 minutes in, Dr Peilke shows a very interesting graph. CO2/GDP has been dropping almost linearly since 1980. In 1980 it was 0.9 and in 2006 it was 0.62. Based on a straight line projection, which is the type of projection climate science is best known for, we end up with a carbon free economy in 60 years.
That is what we are seeing in the graph. If governments simply get out of the way and let people innovate, by 2040 CO2/GDP will be 0.30 and by 2070 CO2/GDP will be 0.0.
The Kaya Identity tells us that human emissions of CO2 will be 0 if CO2/GDP = 0.0. Thus we can conclude that business as usual will result in world with largely carbon free energy by around 2070.
So,what we really have is a bunch of governments running around spending money and creating panic, to solve a non problem. A problem that the market has been solving long before governments started meddling.
OYG!
A third post showcasing Willis Eschenbach’s mathematical errors and personality deficits? Does not the notion of quitting while one is really, really behind have any resonance here?
Rule #1 of successful deep hole rescue – stop digging.
IMHO the only real issue is the connection between CO2 and weather/climate/catastrophe/global warming. Even IPCC AR5 admits uncertainty about the magnitude of CO2 radiative forcing/feedback. The thirties were the hottest/extremest w/300 ppm (Goddard). Just focus on that, and all the semi-related issues becomes increasingly tiresome sideshows. Kick out one leg of three and the rest collapses.
The Kaya identity says nothing atmospheric CO2
==========
Not correct. In logic there is the “unstated premise”. It is part of the equation logically, it is simply not formally stated. To see if the conclusion is logically true, you need to add the unstated premise to the formal equation as part of your evaluation.
If the CO2 emission in the Kaya Identity were not going into the atmosphere, then the Kaya Identity would not exist. If 100% of human emissions was being absorbed for example by increased plant growth this web site would not exist and we would not be talking about the Kaya Identity. The Kaya Identity exists based on the unstated premise that human emissions drive atmospheric CO2.
A few posters are challenging the notion Kaya is an identity. I think Johan considers this an important distinction. I do not consider the distinction particularly relevant.
All identities are equations. Maybe there are some equations that are not identities. Have not thought that notion through.
Others have challenged Kaya because the terms are not exact for all countries and all circumstances. That complaint is a red herring. Kaya is good enough to guide policy response. Someone linked to this Ruth Dixon post above: http://mygardenpond.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/a-graphical-look-at-the-kaya-identity/#more-706
Very valuable.
Others complain about Kaya because they think it is a tool of alarmists. It is in fact the opposite – Kaya is a strong argument in favor of adaptation not mitigation because it drives out the true cost of mitigation.
In particular, Kaya shows the devastating impact of mitigation policy that drives up energy cost on the poor countries.
Never misunderestimate the ignorance of representative government. It is populated by giving an uninformed public promises of a chicken in every pot, pot in every brownie, and free health care, food, and shelter to foreigners willing to hike into the country illegally.
ferdberple says: July 19, 2014 at 7:45 am
“The Kaya Identity exists based on the unstated premise that human emissions drive atmospheric CO2.”
More accurately, Kaya is relevant because of the assumption that human CO2 emission drives atmospheric CO2. No disagreement there. However, that assumption is not part of Kaya.
Discussion of Kaya identity starts here.
RobertInAz says: July 19, 2014 at 7:47 am
Maybe there are some equations that are not identities. Have not thought that notion through.
Well yeah, maybe, who knows. y=x is an equation, and it is certainly true for y = 1 and x =1, and also true for y = 2 and x = 2, and actually, for an infinite number of cases. Now, I wonder, I really wonder, would it also be true if y = 1 and x = 2, or if y = 2 and x = 1, or …
Now, of course, there is a proof that says 2 = 1
a = b
a^2 = ab
a^2 – b^2 = ab-b^2
(a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b)
a+b = b
b+b = b
2b = b
2 = 1
With thanks to Dr. Math for this classic fallacy.
Not sure what all the fuss is about.
Is there anybody who is saying that CO2 emissions are not the product of energy use? And that the more energy we use the higher emissions will be? And that our production of wealth requires a certain expenditure of energy?
That’s all this says – trivial yes, true yes.
At 42 minutes in, Dr Pielke shows exactly how effective government policies are at de-carbonizing the economy. The UK was de-carbonizing at 3% per year prior to the Climate Change Act. After the Act was passed, the UK has been de-carbonizing at 1% per year. The UK spends billions to cut emissions, and as a result the problem gets worse. The effect of the UK government trying to pick winners and losers.
Johan says: July 19, 2014 at 6:39 am “Now, I ask you, my engineering friends, is F = P*g*e*f an IDENTITY ????? Is it, if you know that in mathematics identity means an equation which is true regardless of what values are substituted for any variables? So, is this what engineers are saying: 20 = 2 * 5 *7 * 2.4; or maybe 34 = 9 * 2.7 * 30 * 0.1 ??? ”
Not quite. Consider F=MA. Where F is expressed as KG * M/SEC**2, M is KG and A is expressed as M/SEC**2. I would consider this a physics identity. The dependent variable is on the left, the independent variables are on the right. Applying Johan’s approach of inserting random values on the left and and the right of course leads to ridiculous results. In Kaya, the value on the left is calculated from the values on the right. It holds for a broad range of real world examples. In F=MA, you can insert implausible values on the right. It does not impact the usefulness of Newton’s second law of motion.
RobertInAz says: July 19, 2014 at 8:13 am
Not quite. Consider F=MA. Where F is expressed as KG * M/SEC**2, M is KG and A is expressed as M/SEC**2. I would consider this a physics identity.
Ah, we have a philosopher in the room! Before going over to the Dark Side (becoming an economist), i did obtain a bachelor’s degree (many moons ago) in physics. I have never known a physicist to call F = ma an identity. BTW, Newton defined F as F = (dp/dt), and Euler “popularized” it into F = ma, but not relevant.
Now, in your defense, there is a mathematician turned philosopher named Whitehead who did claim that F = ma is an identity, but what he (probably) meant was that if we define F as ma, the problem is, the “fundamental” equation f = ma becomes ma = ma, which is trivial and meaningless.
So yes, if we turn this whole matter over to philosophers, I’m sure we’ll have some kind of answer a few thousand year from now.
For those who believe mandates work and spending more tax dollars to subsidize alternative energy should look at the experience with production of mandated cellulosic ethanol which has been a absolute failure (0.8 million gal versus 6 million mandated). At what point do we realize that attempts to build commercial cellulosic ethanol is not in the near future although the government “doubled down” on spending..
“The US Environmental Protection Agency lowered the amount of cellulosic ethanol required in 2013 to the amount actually produced, relieving refiners and importers of the need to buy credits to cover shortfalls against the earlier mandate.
The adjusted volume is 810,185 ethanol-equivalent gal. The earlier requirement, published on Aug. 15, 2013, was 6 million gal.
EPA made the change in response to petitions for reconsideration from the American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.
AFPM welcomed the move.
“I expect EPA to use the same rational thinking to revise its proposed 2014 ethanol and biodiesel requirements, which are already long overdue,” said AFPM Pres. Charles T. Drevna.
He said EPA has proposed a mandate of 17 million gal of cellulosic ethanol for 2014 and noted production of the material in the first quarter totaled less than 75,000 gal.”
http://www.ogj.com/articles/2014/04/epa-cuts-2013-cellulosic-ethanol-mandate.html
The US 2014 budget for climate change is $21.6 billion. Can anyone tell me what progress has been made with the hundreds of billion of dollars spent over the years, besides increasing our carbon footprint with all of academia and grant recipients traveling to conferences in posh places?
Less GDP Good
More GDP Bad
Seams pretty clear what the Malthusian crowd gets out of balancing the Kaya identity, i.e., confirmation for their assumptions, shortsighted policies and alarmist ideals all wrapped in the illusion of mathematical certainty.
Wrong/incomplete question. Are CO2 emissions only/totally/solely/alonenessly the result/consequence/product/result of mankind’s energy use? Well, no. And CO2 is not the only GHG. Now “they” are coming for methane! A psychopathic anti-coal agenda is driving all of this nonsense.