You started off really well imho, by talking about the energy of the sun going into the ocean, as it does on land also, but then, rather than sticking to the analysis of that logic, tracing it through, you jumped to things like politics, which is extremely ambiguous, full of misinformation and arguments, completely muddying the water.

So I am inclined to try to complete the more deterministic analysis you started with;

The only way to convert the energy of the sun to things other than heat, is to do just that. This is what solar power does, it converts the energy of the sun to things other than heat.

An example of something that can be created to remove the heat energy from sun most effectively is hydrogen. Creation of this by electrolysis from sunlight converts 33KWhrs of potential heat energy from the sun to a kg of hydrogen, regardless of efficiency.

And look, aerospace at least needs hydrogen, after we move from fossil fuels, which we will do when there is economic incentive to do so.

The economic incentive is building all the time, its the unmonetised product already created from solar, its worth more than a trillion already in each of the bigger more developed countries, building up from around 2005. I can show how to work that out, using the demographic vs consumer energy consumption data for any country.

So when we move completely to solar by monetisation of that valuable economic product created historically, as necessary to recover the energy value in money, we will have switched, from temperature increase to temperature decrease.

This will most naturally be done on a domestic and community basis, more or less all at the same time. A couple of years at most, is all it would take to make that switch, which actually could be started tomorrow.

So it isn't "Baked in" at all, its something we could turn around tomorrow, but the further into energy debt to the planet we go, the more difficult it will be to make recovery. Which is why we should start it sooner rather than later.

Your conclusions seem to imply there is no point in ever starting.

If we go by those, then nothing will be done, to stop the destruction, stop the temperature rise.

Hence why I say you are wrong.