I would be interested to see your source of data for that statement.

The energy of the sea and wind are just kinetic energy on Earth. Use of it, any of it has to result in reduction of the kinetic energy of Earth, it manifests in slowing the rotation of the Earth, which in turn manifests in throwing us out of orbit around the sun, like a spinning football braked in mid-air, it has to change direction, even if it is infinitesimally, it is irreversible, and cumulative. That, is just Engineering.

If you doubt that the Earth is slowing down, look at the history of leap seconds inserted in atomic clocks. They are always inserted, never taken out. A year is now around 30 seconds longer than it was in 1970. Conventional science explains this as resulting from friction between the moon and Earth, but if that was true, the rate of leap seconds insertion would be constant, and the orbital trajectory of the moon around earth would be changing, to fall into line around the Equator of Earth, with velocity accelerating, but it isn't, which means there is no measurable interaction between the relative rotations of moon and Earth.

So the only explanation remaining for our slowing rotation is our use of its kinetic energy.

Another force balanced in our orbital trajectory is the solar pressure on the planet. That is balanced with centrifugal force.

If we somehow increase the reflectivity of the planet, say by geo-engineering, to reflect some sunlight away from Earth, we increase the solar pressure, which is another force working to throw us out of orbit.

Which is why I doubt your information that 10 years of global warming disappeared with a volcanic explosion.

It does not make sense, volcanic dust is not reflective, otherwise we would have seen many planets thrown out of orbit, for the reasons above.

There is no physical explanation of how global temperature could somehow drop due to volcanic explosion. Volcanic dust absorbs the heat of the sun, just like land, after all, it is just land thrown into the air in particles. If anything, the heat thrown out from the core of Earth would increase global temperature.

I am telling you all of this hard physical logic as a practicing systems Engineer of thirty years, you can choose to believe it or not, if you don't have my experience to see the logic, then you have the choice of whether to believe it or not. I don't have that choice.

Now my opinion, formed from application of formal Systems Engineering tools, to analyse the problem; It is a mistake to think the planet will be just fine without us, I believe.

When we realise what capital actually is; stored energy, we should understand that we have been steadily taking the energy out of the planet in many ways, not just kinetic, by operating always on capital, and that is what is manifesting in extreme weather including phenomeon we never saw before, such as heat domes.

It also manifests in pollution, which in turn kills many species of life on Earth, thousands upon thousands of species, again, removing further energy, becausse of course there is energy in life.

What all this means is that we now have an energy deficit with our planet, which tallies with our financial debt.

We owe our planet the energy, to be repaid, as far as I can see.

Compare world debt counters, with energy consumed counters, and you will see that they proceed hand in hand, and the vast bulk of our energy still comes from the Earth, not from the sun.

So it seems to me, using all of my experience as Systems Engineer involved in globally applied systems of thirty years, that we can't reduce the population of humanity, otherwise we will not have the workforce needed to repair the damage done by that population.

The only way humanity can be powered, to do that repair, is solar, because that is the only source of energy, and the only way humanity can be funded efficiently enough to do the work, is by money going free, just as the energy of the sun is received for free.

That is my 100% certainty opinion, resulting from several years studying this problem including at PhD candidate level.

Again you can choose to believe it or not, you have not led the same life as me, so hey-ho, but you should think deeply about the conseqences of being wrong.

I wish you a very merry Xmas in any case!

N.B. I just did some research on the Mount Pinutabo eruption and effects. Sure enough, it does appear to coincide with a step change downwards, in global warming, looking like maybe ten years worth.

But I still don’t understand how a volcano could have caused a drop in temperature. There is an explanation given in some of the research papers, but it is contested, and does not make sense to me. I do not see how the thermodynamics add up. Could this not have coincided also with a change in human economic activity? I am sure any air traffic over that area at least would have been affected. We know now that this is a major factor, we found out a lot at the beginning of Covid. There was a brief recovery of the environment when the human world was locked down, and air traffic is still much reduced, but we won’t know the long term effects for a few years yet, I guess. Hey-ho, it does not change my opinion of the only solution, connect to the sun, and then you will have all the funds needed, from the only non-extractive source, for folk to spend all their time planting trees.

Otherwise, even if armies were employed planting trees, that industry would be funded from the same old extractive economy, cancelling out any benefits. More trees, but at cost of more pollution isn’t really a fix.