Physics confirms that there will be a warming force, but two things are important. First, the sensitivity of the climate to carbon dioxide which physics confirms is not what is used by the IPCC models. The climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide is much smaller than the assumed sensitivity incorporated for political reasons into all (but one) of the three dozen odd computer models on which the whole Manmade Global Warming theory rests.
That phony sensitivity is the reason all the models (but one) consistently and vastly over-estimate future warming. It is the reason all the models (but one) miss the last two decades of flat temperatures, and completely fail to account for the three decades of serious cooling after World War Two.
The second important thing is that the IPCC and the Global Warming Theory deliberately do not take into account all the strong natural forces that control the climate — solar dynamics, Milankovitch cycles, circulation dynamics, and so many more — natural forces that easily and do often overwhelm the small warming from the one part of carbon dioxide we add to every ten thousand parts of atmosphere.
[While we are at it, let’s put your “545 gigatonnes of CO2” into proper perspective. Think of the last time you saw a college football stadium with a hundred thousand people in the stands. Your 545 gigatonnes of CO2 is exactly like adding ten more people to that crowd. In other words, it is like adding next to nothing. That is what another hundred parts per million of CO2 to our atmosphere is like, it’s like next to nothing.]
Physics calculates that another 200 parts per million of CO2, or about double what we have done in the last century, might raise the global temperature another degree or two. Unless natural forces overwhelm that warming and cause cooling, as they have so often done in the past.
Search the IPCC models; you won’t find natural cycles. The IPCC and the Global Warming Activists focus almost exclusively on manmade factors, completely downplaying natural forces. If you accept the IPCC science assumptions, then you are completely at a loss to explain the huge swings of global temperates over the last ten thousand years, or ten hundred thousand years, which occurred with relatively stable carbon dioxide levels. What caused all that, if not natural forces?
Oh, and that one odd climate model? It’s a Russian model which has done a much better job of tracking the actual flat temperatures of the last two decades. How, you might ask? By rejecting the exaggerated sensitivity of the climate to carbon dioxide built into the other models, and using only the sensitivity calculated by physics, which is only a quarter to a third as strong.
Now your turn to explain why you promote an agenda which seeks to control almost every aspect of our society’s activities, almost none of which has anything to do with the climate? How will adopting the control aspects of a totalitarian socialist form of government control the climate? Can you cite any science that supports the idea that the climate can be controlled in the first place?