You write some of the best stories I've seen on this subject Ricky, thanks for another strong post.
On whether or not there is direct corelation, there might not be, as far as conventional science goes, but in Systems Engineering sense it looks pretty cut and dried to me.
As you probably remember I am never done banging on about why conventional science has to accept that energy should be signed, to indicate whether it adds to Earth or is subtracted from Earth. Obviously the latter is negative, whilst the former is positive. Solar is the only energy positive.
This is really important to clarify that C02, is not a cause but a symptom, of mathematically negative energy use.
When we do this, and follow the outcomes in each case, we find multipliers acting in the direction of the sign. War is a negative multiplier of mathematically negative energy use.
If we were entirely positively powered, there would be no cause for war, no shortage of resources to fight over, because we would be creating new resources from energy added to Earth, then those resources also add to Earth.
When we use solar energy to do anything, the base effect is temperature reduction, putting the energy of the sun to use as anything except heat, has to causee temperature reduction. Plants obviously do this, but desertification (Again caused by our activity), has reduced the capacity of nature to offset our activity of heating. Our net activity is destruction. Profit is monetisation of destruction - it is an energy con.
Money is energy, always. We might recognise that the value in money is energy. When money makes money, energy is gained. That energy came from one or the other parties in the transaction. The losing party then has to recoup the energy they lost from their contacts, by another transaction for profit. This propagates through all supply chains and actually all humanity.
It eventually comes back to the planet, which is the only party that can physically provide more energy out than it got put in. It loses far more to heat than is ever acknowledged in the profit of the transaction. We consider what we put out vs what we get back, but we never ask what it cost the planet to provide what we gained..
This is the first base of temperature rise, before mutlipliers like war, and CO2.
When we create things like hydrogen directly from solar energy, at any efficiency, we reduce a little of the heating effect of sunlight.
Hydrogen is fuel that can keep all planes in the air, all cars on the road, all ships in the sea, all spacecraft in space, it potentially does even more than fossil fuels ever did. And the only "waste" products from consuming it (Apart from obviously heat), are water and oygen - both clean.
Those things are positive multipliers - they are things that help us put to use even more sunlight, by just helping us to live.
Further it even converts to something called "Solein" (Check it out on Google, if you haven't already).
Solein is human consumable food, created entirely from the energy of the sun. Right there we should see that by this we could reduce our load on the conventional food chain, allowing it to recover. This is another positive multiplier.
Consider the scenario of aircon in a desert place, powered entirely by solar, so as to provide an artifical temperate enironment for plants to grow there.
This would be out of the question if negatively powered, it would cost the planet far more than it could ever gain.
But done by solar, the worst case energy loss is still not the same damage as is done if we don't use the solar energy for anything at all, because if we put any of it at all to use, then what we use goes to something other then just heat.
If we did succeed in creating the environment for new plants to grow, those in turn would use yet more solar energy, again adding to the cooling effect. This is another positive multiplier.
See how it works? :)
I wrote about it in more detail in the story below:
https://eric-bott.medium.com/the-energy-polarity-multiplier-framework-fb4215b55862
Another reason it is really important to sign energy, is to understand what happens when we mix money that should be separately issued for creation of product by mathematically positive energy, with money that monetises only product created from mathematically negative energy (Money issued as debt) - they literally subtract from one another, resulting in less money in circulation than there should be.
This is a really subtle effect, but relentless, manifesting in unstoppable inflation.
On one hand we have 20 to 30 percent reduction of utilities energy business since around 2005, lost to domestic and community solar. But no money is issued on the product created from solar, because there is no party that demanded anything in return for the KWhrs received from that source.
The Earth demands at least some KWhrs in return for the KWhrs it gives out, but the sun demands nothing. Hence why money as debt is incompatible with the energy of the sun.
Proft, is incompatible with the sun, because we can't con the sun to give out more than we put in, it gives what it gives for free - it is immune from the energy con of profit.
As long as we don't issue the money required to reflect that energy creating all that new, additive economic product, money that can only represent extracted / negative eneryg product, whilst the latter scales down, and the formaer scales up, has to come to represent nothing - its effective energy content is reducing to nothing.
A lot of folk, those most invested, won't like to hear this. But its the hard truth, and also the truth that profit is hard wired to temperature rise.
Until that is accepted, we have to consistently get all estimates of timescales of temperature increase wrong.
Meantime the negative multipliers will keep cascading and stacking up, until the money needed to empower us, all of us, to start getting busy producing hydrogen as a "Waste" product from backing up our energy supplies with it.
I just hope it is realised before all remaining value in money is lost.
Btw war is obviously an orgy of fossil fuels consumption and heat generation.
I warned when the Ukraine war started, we would see an almost immediate exacerbating effect on temperature rise, and was right. We can see also theat the war in Palestine is having an almost immediate effect.
We literally can't afford wars any longer in terms of energy, it just is not survivable.
