Apple manufacturing now uses 13.7 gigawatts of renewable energy, will hit carbon neutral b...
In what Tim Cook calls an "immense" challenge, Apple and its global partners have increased the use of renewable energy by almost 30%, and continues to aim for carbon neutrality by 2030.
Holmen Iggesund's Blbergsliden wind farm features 26 turbines and is located just outside of Skellefte, Sweden. (Source: Apple)
Following Cook's October 2022 call for suppliers to accelerate the decarbonization of Apple product manufacturer, Apple has announced that over 250 firms are working to achieve the 2040 goal.
"At Apple, we're carbon neutral for our own operations and innovating every day to go even further in the urgent work to address climate change," Cook said in a statement. "With partners around the world, we're adding even more renewable energy to power our global supply chain and investing in next-generation green technologies."
"The scale of this challenge is immense," he continued, "but so is our determination to meet it."
Apple says that 13.7 gigawatts of renewable energy is being used by its suppliers worldwide, which is an increase of nearly 30% in the last year. Over 250 suppliers in 28 countries, representing over 85% of Apple's manufacturing, are reportedly committed to using renewable energy for all Apple production by 2030.
The company has also announced its Green Bond spend for 2022. In March 2022, Apple said it would be using the world's first low-carbon aluminium in the iPhone SE. Now Apple says that it is investing in large-scale solar, low-carbon design, energy efficiency, and carbon removal.
Over 40 manufacturing partners joined Apple's Supplier Clean Energy Program in the last year. Apple works with them to identify carbon reductions, and also provides them with free learning resources and live training in the Clean Energy Academy.
"Our new supplier commitments demonstrate the rapid pace of progress we're making toward our 2030 carbon neutrality goal," said Lisa Jackson, Apple's vice president of Environment, Policy, and Social Initiatives. "We are taking urgent action on a global scale to unlock a greener, more innovative, and more resilient future."
(Source: Apple)
In the US, there are 27 firms in Apple's program, including some such as Bemis Associates, which have achieved 100% renewable energy for all Apple-related production. Coherent Corp is nearing that total with a green utility program, and others are making power purchase agreements (PPAs) for solar and wind projects across the country.
Apple says that it has disbursed over $3.2 billion of its $4.7 billion Green Bond commitment to date. Some 59 projects supported by the Green Bond in 2019 are expected to "mitigate more than 13.5 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide" over their lifetime.
Those projects include helping to fund the IP Radian Solar project, which recently became operational in Brown County, Texas.
Read on AppleInsider
Holmen Iggesund's Blbergsliden wind farm features 26 turbines and is located just outside of Skellefte, Sweden. (Source: Apple)
Following Cook's October 2022 call for suppliers to accelerate the decarbonization of Apple product manufacturer, Apple has announced that over 250 firms are working to achieve the 2040 goal.
"At Apple, we're carbon neutral for our own operations and innovating every day to go even further in the urgent work to address climate change," Cook said in a statement. "With partners around the world, we're adding even more renewable energy to power our global supply chain and investing in next-generation green technologies."
"The scale of this challenge is immense," he continued, "but so is our determination to meet it."
Apple says that 13.7 gigawatts of renewable energy is being used by its suppliers worldwide, which is an increase of nearly 30% in the last year. Over 250 suppliers in 28 countries, representing over 85% of Apple's manufacturing, are reportedly committed to using renewable energy for all Apple production by 2030.
The company has also announced its Green Bond spend for 2022. In March 2022, Apple said it would be using the world's first low-carbon aluminium in the iPhone SE. Now Apple says that it is investing in large-scale solar, low-carbon design, energy efficiency, and carbon removal.
Over 40 manufacturing partners joined Apple's Supplier Clean Energy Program in the last year. Apple works with them to identify carbon reductions, and also provides them with free learning resources and live training in the Clean Energy Academy.
"Our new supplier commitments demonstrate the rapid pace of progress we're making toward our 2030 carbon neutrality goal," said Lisa Jackson, Apple's vice president of Environment, Policy, and Social Initiatives. "We are taking urgent action on a global scale to unlock a greener, more innovative, and more resilient future."
(Source: Apple)
In the US, there are 27 firms in Apple's program, including some such as Bemis Associates, which have achieved 100% renewable energy for all Apple-related production. Coherent Corp is nearing that total with a green utility program, and others are making power purchase agreements (PPAs) for solar and wind projects across the country.
Apple says that it has disbursed over $3.2 billion of its $4.7 billion Green Bond commitment to date. Some 59 projects supported by the Green Bond in 2019 are expected to "mitigate more than 13.5 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide" over their lifetime.
Those projects include helping to fund the IP Radian Solar project, which recently became operational in Brown County, Texas.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
What Apple does, and basically all renewable energy contracts from power providers, is ensure that for whatever energy they or their supplier uses, they put in an equivalent amount into the grid from a renewable power source. The money that pays for renewable energy from Apple and its suppliers goes to renewable power sources. The grid doesn't have infinite capacity, and the grid operator has to maintain a balance plus reserve. If a power generator isn't paid for or is too expensive, the grid will ask them to decrease their output or shutdown. They will shut down themselves if they aren't been paid.
Since Apple is guaranteeing a renewable energy source, it typically means the most expensive power generator will be reduced or shutdown. That's coal. Nuclear is actually the most expensive, but the fleet is typically kept alive for strategic reasons. Once grid batteries, fed by renewables, get to significant capacities, natural gas peaker plants will be next. And in the not so distant future, gas plants will be shutdown too.
There's no evidence that either is better for the environment. Renewables have their own massive problems. From wind turbines to solar panels, they are arguably worse for the environment than burning fossil fuels.
But those adherents to the modern religion of so-called "climate change" don't care about the environment. They care about global wealth redistribution and political power. That is, in fact, what the entire movement is about, whether or not average people know it.
Some may ask if climate change is a hoax. The answer is yes. The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a hoax (though it is unproven), but climate change as a term is absolutely a hoax. The notion that burning fossil fuels and cattle farts will cause catastrophic warming is entirely unsupported. Warming from human activities is a moderate problem at worst, and is not well-understood. There are simply too many known (and unknown) variables at play. The problem should be carefully studied before we settle on any course of action.
Those screaming about the "climate crisis" are proof positive that the entire thing is a political slogan. It's used by politicians to push "solutions" that magically involve more taxes and control. Apple is smart in knowing where ball is going right now. It is on-brand for them to do this. They are going to make damn sure they are in the Most Favored Players club on this one.
Apple also has an opt-out "Clean Energy Charging", where it will selectively charge when the the local grid has the least carbon emissions. This is opt-out, ie, it is on by default, I think. This may have more impact than the inductive charging since it is on by default for everyone.
https://news.energysage.com/how-many-watts-does-a-phone-charger-use/
Assuming one full charge takes one hour: Charging your phone once per day uses 0.035 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per week, 0.15 kWh per month, and about 1.83 kWh per year. Charging your phone twice per day uses 0.07 kWh of electricity per week, 0.3 kWh per month, and about 3.65 kWh per year.
Wireless charging is considered to be about 15% to 20% less efficient than a plug in connection, and is at peak efficiency with Magsafe, which is now a standard. Add 0.75kWh for that.
One hour of oven use is on the order of 3kWh, so eat sandwiches instead of baking lasagna once a year, and you are good to go.
But, like the Steve Jobs Mac boot time anecdote, Apple has a billion iPhones in the market. If each iPhone uses 10 WHr a day, that's 10 MWHr a day. That's about the amount of energy used for a 2000 ft2 house in the Texas a year. Not that much, but it's a dent worth doing just like the decreasing the boot time was and is.
The question here is primarily around CO2. If we only care about reducing CO2, then maybe one method is better than another. But, if we're looking at the big picture, some of the renewables seem quite problematic. CO2 makes plants grow, and levels have been WAY higher in other periods of earths history when life thrived. I hate hot weather, so I certainly don't want warming, but when it comes right down to it, cold is more dangerous to humanity than hot. Even if the earth is warming, AND humanity is contributing in some meaningful way, is that necessarily a bad thing? But, that is far from settled science.
And, your last point is key. If the data says it's warming, then OK. And, it's a 'duh' statement that humans are contributing... but is that 0.0000001%, 50%, 80%? The 'consensus of scientists' is over these mostly 'duh' aspects, while the 'climate change' hysteria is something else.
Humans are contributing 100% of the warming. CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation. Solar radiation hits the planet's surface at a spectrum of frequencies. Most of the visible spectrum goes right through the nitrogen, oxygen, and CO2 in the atmosphere. This heats up the surface. The heat will radiate back into space as infrared radiation. With higher concentrations of CO2, the more infrared radiation is absorbed by the CO2, further heating up the atmosphere. Thusly, we can predict how hot the surface can be with different concentrations of CO2. It's plain heat transfer physics. Humans can measure all other sources and contributions to what can make the atmosphere hotter. None of them are driving the measured temperature increases. It's CO2.
CO2 is not a driver in farming productivity, regarding your make plants grow comment. Over the past few centuries, farming productivity has increased due to irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, soil reclamation, genetic engineering, so on and so forth. The additional CO2 isn't going to improve productivity whatsoever, and increased warming in the atmosphere and hydrological cycles will only make farming technology ever more necessary. Crops will need to be genetically engineered to be productive in hotter, drier climates.
Levels of CO2 in the deep ancient past, 500m to 400m years ago, were higher, but solar output of the sun was also less in the ancient past. Solar output increases by about 1% every 100m years. CO2 concentrations on order 4000 ppm, like it was in the ancient past, today will mean the end of life on the planet as we know it, with about a 40 °F increase in average temperatures. If the human species survives long into the far future, 100m years from now, CO2 concentrations will have to be drawn down to <200 ppm to have a survivable climate. It is currently at 410 ppm or so.
There are people that sound like "alarmists" because they care about you and everyone else on the planet. There are 8 billion people on the planet. Every increase in CO2 mean very negative consequences for equatorial regions on the planet, just bad consequences for the near polar latitudes, and will drive the world wide population down by hundreds of millions if not billions if the CO2 concentration level isn't drawn down. People do not react well to heat. The hydrological cycle is changing for a lot of places, so, there will be both heat stress and water stress. Just a horrible combination.
There probably will be some technological solutions to the heat, like always living indoors including underground, and "always indoor" cities with air conditioning of some form, near closed cycle water usage. It will happen in places like the USA Southwest, western Sahara all the way to Vietnam. But most will simply collapse and migrate because humans can't live in weather where it is always above 100 °F. There will be more fascist run cultures. Some nations will dissolve. Some areas will depopulate. It will be a worldwide migration to the poles, assuming crops can be engineered to be productive at high latitudes.
I live in Houston. In the summer, the Gulf waters are about 84 to 87 °F in August. Over 30 years, it has gotten hotter. You can feel it when you get in, and I remember it was not as hot in the past. So average water temps are probably ranging from 86 to 89 °F now in August. During a prior climate thermal maximum about 55m years ago, CO2 was at about 500 to 1000 ppm. You can model how hot the Gulf of Mexico will be with that level of CO2 concentration. It will be about 100 to 105 °F. Those temperatures will mean the death of everything, or lifeless for 6 months, except for the brine shrimp maybe. Assuming life was not driven away or killed off due to fertilizer runoff de-oxygenating the water before then.
Last year Apple’s Supplier Clean Energy Program still purchased credits equivalent to 360,000 metric tons of carbon emissions to “address a small increase to its carbon footprint".
But, to me, the biggest tells are the politics around on around this. If it were a real crisis, people would be desperate to join forces and make compromises to get things done. For example, even if nuclear power isn't perfect, it would be way better as a compromise than what the climate alarmists are projecting. It seem, the point isn't to actually solve the stated problems (purposefully?). Then there is all the dirty politics and canceling around anyone who disagrees, when the best way to handle such situations in an actual crisis would be to go the other direction, and go head-to-head in debate with the best minds on both sides. In other words, actually work to convince as many skeptics as possible, rather than alienate them.
re: CO2 - have you not seen the earth-greening stuff from NASA? Yes, you're correct that the primary drivers of food production (in very recent history) have been those techniques (many of which are harmful), but we were actually getting close to dangerously low levels of CO2 for plant-life. The point is that going up a bit might not be so bad. We're still way on the low end of the scale. Sure, we don't want it to be 2000ppm or something like that.
Keep in mind, that you're talking about weather changes, not climate. The temperatures we're talking about are a couple degrees. People will be fine with a couple degrees difference. If weather patterns dramatically change, yes, certain areas might get considerably hotter (or colder). But, much of this is based on models which may or may not be accurate or bear out. (I've heard one astrophysicist say that his primary fear is tipping us into the coming ice-age more quickly.)
Yes, there is a lot of technology which can be applied to such changes, and whether humans are causing it or not, the one certainty is that it will change, and we'll have to adapt. Fortunately, so far at least, the models and extreme predictions have been horribly wrong. But, either way, many of the technologies being developed are positive, if we don't cause too much human suffering via the politics.
You think that heat transfer physics is too complicated and therefore skeptical of it, while what will convince you is the wisdom of the crowd, where you would believe it if everyone does something about it. That's backwards.
Climate modeling is plain heat transfer physics. That is eminently predictable. It's the application of its principles which makes a nuclear power plant possible, and all the same physics principles applies to the planet. Global climate is deterministic based on the physical properties of the sun and the Earth's air, land and seas. It's being done properly, it is continuously checked in both static and dynamic ways, it's continuously validated to historical data, all done by a wide breadth of people. If there is a thing to trust, it is the application of physics.
What people will do when given information about something that will happen 10, 20, 50, 100 years from now? That's quite difficult to predict, and as the pandemic has reminded us, people will believe and do whatever they want no matter how irrational. People will keep on doing things that will actively hurt them. The oyster beds here in Gulf near Houston are being fished out. Texas' department of natural resources is banning oyster fishing to preserve the resource. Oyster fishermen are protesting it even though they know full well that they will eventually fish the oysters out of existence. They know what they do will mean the end of their livelihoods yet they do it anyways.
Repeat this with nearly everything. Plain everyday advice such as investing in retirement funds giving people a safe retirement after 30 years? A shocking amount of people with the means don't do it because something something 30 year timeline. Nearly everyone that works has the means to do it, but don't. A rather large fraction go the opposite direction and just rack up the debt. Rationalism isn't at play there. Or rationalism in the sense that saving now will improve one's future, and as such, people should do it. If there is a thing to distrust, it's a crowd of people.
So, people not joining together to address global warming that is in the future isn't proof that global warming isn't harmful or doesn't exist. It just proof that rationality and unity isn't our forte.
I've seen the maps both from 10 years ago and nearer to the present, but I see it as a net negative, not a positive. The greening is dominated by industrialization of farming in China & India (this is troublesome) and the North American great plans, both Canada and the USA, and to a lessor extent, by greening of tundra and higher elevations perhaps. Higher CO2 concentrations are surely helping that. But if you look a little more closely, you will notice that for regions from 10 to 40 deg latitude, both north and south, there are areas that are browning. The Sahara, Sonoran deserts are growing. Western Australia is browning. East Africa from Somalia to South Africa is browning.
Water is more important than CO2 for efficient farming. India's and China's farming boom is fed from the Himalayas and existing aquifers. Global warming means less snow and ice to melt in the Himalayas to feed those agricultural economies and to replenish the aquifers. It's going to be race to engineer crops to be productive in hotter, dryer climates.
I think you assume too much to say CO2 is dangerously low. All those farming efficiency techniques will work at 275 ppm, which was what human civilization lived with for about 10,000 years. Planet wide farming production will be more productive at 275 ppm than it is at 420 ppm and definitely better than at 600 ppm, because there will be more consistent melt-water from higher elevations. Crops will be more productive at lower temperatures, with less risk from heat waves.
Humanity should really think of what CO2 concentration it should have. It's an easy form of geo-engineering. 30 years ago, the wrong question was asked: what is a tolerable increase in CO2 concentration and temperature increase. People of the day said 450 ppm and 4 °F or so. If the question was what average temperature, CO2 concentration is the best for farming and life, I would say about 260 ppm, about 5% lower than the preindustrial average. It would make the Sahara, Arabian peninsula, Iran to Pakistan greener and more productive. Western USA, western Mexico, western Australia would be more productive. The snow line on mountains would decrease in elevation, making rivers more constant, more bountiful.
The models have been right on. The average surface temperature predictions from the 70s and 80s has tracked quite well to the present time.
I am talking about climate. Average temperatures of the planet. We're on track for about 4 to 7 °F of warming by 2100. That's my guess based on our current commitments to stop burning fossil fuels. We will hit about 600 ppm, easily. This will likely mean some areas of the planet that are livable now, will be quite dangerous to unlivable during summertime, likely from the Sahara to Pakistan. There's going to be domed, pseudo-domed and underground cities in this locations, assuming they want to stay.
The heatwaves that are 20 to 30 °F higher will happen every year, and only get hotter as time goes on. No places on the planet will be colder than it is today let alone 40 years ago. The math of having hotter average surface temperatures makes it basically impossible.
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx
"Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2307/3237261
"Despite increasing temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age (ca. 1850), wildfire frequency has decreased as shown in many field studies from North America and Europe. We believe that global warming since 1850 may have triggered decreases in fire frequency in some regions and future warming may even lead to further decreases in fire frequency."
I think it has just been WAY overly simplified to fit their models and narrative. Again, I think the calories and weight gain/loss is a good parallel. It seems pretty simple and straight forward, the problem is just that reality doesn't work that way.
What the pandemic has shown us, is that governments will do nearly anything to try and control people and achieve their ends (heh, I don't think that example worked in your favor). They got nearly everything wrong... the experts told us and were censored... now they've been largely proven correct.
Yes, people will often act in selfish, short-term ways. But, the use of this example is again problematic. In economics, this is referred to as time preference. People might not understand the mechanics, but they have gut-feel their money is being devalued... so better to spend it now than to save for the future. Do you have grandparents who skimped and saved their whole life, only to leave your parents enough to maybe go on a little vacation or buy a used car? The problem is like fish in water, most of us aren't even aware there are other schools outside Keynesian economics. We've allowed the government and wealthy class to steal our money for several generations now. It isn't supposed to be that way. cf. https://saifedean.com/poe
Or, maybe it is that deep-down, they have a sense they are being played, so their behavior doesn't reflect the urgency of the narrative. I've been putting out calls on social media to anyone with ocean-front property around here (Vancouver Island, Victoria BC in my case) to unload these properties at pennies on the dollar, so they don't lose their shirts. So far, no takers.
Yes, that's a bit of a joke, as we know even the ocean-rise predictions are in terms of millimeters over a person's lifetime, but that is also a bit of the point. Even if the climate is going where the models predict (let's leave aside our ability to have any impact on that for the moment), technology rapidly advances to help address the impacts, and countries that might be most impacted might not exist centuries down the road anymore, anyway. The timescale is massive, and the predictions incredibly uncertain. Who is going to majorly uproot their life over this kind of thing? This movement would have a lot more success appealing to people's actual concerns for the environment.
What if CO2 is following warming, rather than the other way around?
No, the models haven't been right on. In the 70s, it was fear of ice-age (which was probably more accurate, like I previously mentioned). They just keep adjusting them to fit the narrative (or picking certain ones out to highlight, as they vary widely). For example, look at the 'radiative forcing' ranges of the models, (even in the IPCC report footnotes). And, that's just the atmospheric gasses, not all the other potential factors.
"The radiative forcing since preindustrial times by well-mixed greenhouse gases is well understood. However, there are major gaps in understanding of the other forcings, as well as of the link between forcings and climate response. Error bars remain large for current estimates of radiative forcing by ozone, and are even larger for estimates of radiative forcing by aerosols. Nonradiative forcings are even less well understood. The following recommendations identify critical research avenues that should be persued immediately with high priority."
Is it possible for the delta temperature to rise so steeply? Absolutely, especially for localized regions of the planet. Is it possible for the global average temperature to rise steeply, yes. Here is a plot of global average temperatures using instrument data of the recent past:
The large jumps are obvious pre-1975, but if you look close for post-1975 years, the global average temperature is stair-stepped: 2016-2017, 1997-1998, 1976-1977. So, depending on where you start, these jumps represent 50% of the warming occurring in recent years over 10 to 20 years prior. For localized regions of the planet, these jumps can be much more pronounced, and you can end up with what were seeing in the North Atlantic.
The second tweet seems to making a steady state assumption of the atmosphere heating the oceans in a linear fashion. That's a great assumption over 10, 20, 30 year time frames. Year to year? Their will be dynamic effects. Like the first tweet, it's a nonlinear system wherein the oceans don't absorb heat from the atmosphere in a linear fashion. This is why El Nino years are hot and are the source of these big jumps in global average temperature. So "4sigma" anomalies don't have to follow one for one between ocean temps to air temps.
In the conclusions, the authors state: "In 1950, the <CF(t)> value of 4.03 ppm in Table 2a is 1.29 % of C(t) and 11.48% of the increase, DC(t), of 35.10 ppm since 1750. After 1950, values of the two components of C(t) begin to increase rapidly, and this increase continues through 2018. This rapid increase, however, is not triggered by the greenhouse effect and global warming associated with either the 1950 value of 4.03 ppm for CF(t) or the relatively small increase in the annual change, DCNF(t), of 31.07 ppm in the non-fossil component, which is 88.5% of the DC(t) value of 35.10 ppm. This DCNF(t)value of 31.07 ppm in 1950 results from the annual redistribution of CO2 among its reservoirs, primarily a net release of CO2 from the oceans due to increases in temperatures from solar insolation in 1950 and afterwards."
They are claiming the net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere stems from increased solar insolation increased ocean temperatures, which don't hold as much CO2 when water temperatures are hotter. "The "1950 and afterwards" is doing a lot of work as the solar insolation was at a maximum in the 1950s and have been on a slow decline since then. So what has been driving ocean temperature increases and CO2 increases in the atmosphere since then?
Nice correlation of temperatures and solar irradiance from 1880 to 1950. After 1950, it's diverging. So, solar irradiance has been steady of decreasing over the past 70 years and ocean temperatures should be holding steady to cooling, but ocean temperatures have been increasing ever since. What's causing that?
No, the models have really been right on:
Left plot is in Fahrenheit and right plot is in Celsius. Black line is the average of the various global climate models. Blue envelope is the range and uncertainties of the models. After the vertical dash is the "forecast". Before the dashed line is the comparison to historical data. With 2023 and 2024 being El Nino years, that red line will jump up above the average again. Yes, you should be worried that not everything is modeled in this models. From a risk perspective, there are looming assumptions that have to be modeled, that are currently not, that can make things worse than current projections.
In the 70s, there were models that predicted cooling. The reason for that is not that the physics implementation was bad, it was the input assumptions of what will happen in the future that was bad. Some people projected solar irradiance to go down faster while CO2 levels held steady. That would have resulted in cooling. Some people projected particulate pollution to get worse. Pollution in the high atmosphere prevented sunlight from hitting the ground. That would have caused cooling. Then, there were people who modeled the correct CO2 concentrations with time, modeled that pollution would be cleaned up, and their predictions came out like the above.
What if CO2 is following the warming? Well, everyone is free to go measure the gas properties of CO2, N2, O2, various isotopes, develop a physics model with solar irradiance, surface conditions, etc, and run some simulations and compare it to existing data. We have the Earth, Venus, Mars and Titan for the models to be validated against.
Yes, this is why I used the retirement investment analogy. People only live in the here and now and most will not do anything to improve the collective good of society or even themselves if the timescale is long enough. And people don't need to uproot anything. They just need to electrify, be more energy efficient, and buy renewable energy plans. For the vast majority, that little amount is too much.
People feeling duped about this is perhaps an emotional response. It's bereft of any data. It's all feelings, perhaps about something they don't want to do or admit. In a battle between physics and feelings, physics always wins.
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2020/02/16/the-climate-change-alternative-we-ignore-to-our-peril/
If that is the case, it kind of messes up all this atmospheric & sun-energy coming vs going calculations. If this warming also releases the CO2, then maybe the levels are rising despite the small amount of additional impact we're having via fossil fuels.
(Where this really 'jumps the shark' for me, is they are building carbon-capture plants in Alberta - and advertising it. This really illustrates the scale problem. If a carbon-capture plant can make any meaningful impact, the impact was negligible in the first place. One has to wonder if these people have ever taken a cross continent flight. The concept that 100s of years of all humanity using fossil fuels in accumulation is more believable until one runs into something like this.)
This is what I mean when I'm saying the overall system is much more complex. Kind of like 1000 calories of broccoli doesn't equal 1000 calories of Twinkie. The models are just way too simplistic.
The above article would say it is coming from changes in the earth's core. Certainly the massive shifts in earth's climate history weren't due to CO2 production.
As a lay person looking at both sides of the debate, this seems like different groups arguing over what inputs are doing what, and which things they are including (or not) in a super-complex system, rather than straight-forward simple physics, as we're being sold.