We have used the specific heat capacity of air to calculate the temperature rise created by that amount of energy. It is a simple concept. Specific heat capacity is the amount of energy, in joules, required to increase the temperature of 1g of the material in question by 1 degree Kevin (or C). If we supply X number of joules to "air" with a specific heat capacity of 1.01joules per gram per degree K, we increase the temperature by X divided by (1.01 X mass of air in grams). We are not talking "proportional", or "a bit more heat", we are talking about a direct calculation.
No, as you mentioned a direct increase in heating only adds a small amount to the heating effect as a balance. It doesn't store up.
I am saying that we are currently stuck on the concept that CO2 is responsible for "global warming" when in fact there is at least one far more likely and easy to calculate cause. That being the case, why are we stuck on the AGW concept? You will also note that the IPCC AR4 actually states that AG gases are "very likely" to have contributed "most" of the temperature increase. "Most" is defined as more than 50%. So even they have not the confidence to state categorically that it "is" responsible, and only attribute potentially as little a half the warming to it! The rest is attributed to land use, solar radiation etc (see another point below).
Well you should bring this up with them then if you feel it would be a big enough factor. I disagree, but they might not. I find it unlikely that it is a factor though and they havent picked it up?
Yes, but it's not relevant. A lump of coal is primary energy, but so what? It might stay as primary energy (buried coal) for the rest of eternity. That being the case it has no bearing on global warming, solar radiation or the price of cheese. By the way, the heat produced is not "proportional" to the primary energy contained in the rock, it IS the primary energy in the rock. It is measured in joules because thats the only current unit of energy (calories etc. are old hat!). So a piece of coal when burnt releases 5 joules of energy. If it is in the ground it is "valued" at 5J of primary energy. But in the ground it is neither heating nor cooling anything (releasing or absorbing energy in any form) and therefore has no impact on the discussion.
It does, because the figure I was talking about was Primary energy usage per year. Energy that is used from primary energy sources every year. It is relevant, especially as I was comparing energy with energy.
You seem to not grasp the concept here, but I'm not sure how to explain it any better.
If incoming = outgoing, then any addition to one side of the equation has an impact. If both incoming and outgoing are huuuuge, then a small addition to either side will still cause an imbalance. The imbalance is the only thing that is important, and the impact of that imbalance is the same no matter how large or small the incoming and outgoing.
For example;
+1 - 1 = 0 = no change
+1000000 - 100000 = 0 = no change
+2 -1 = 1 = an increase of 1
+1000001 - 1000000 = 1 = an increase of 1
The size of the equilibrium is not important, it is the size of the change that matters. We know the size of the change (or at least Wiki thinks we do!), and we can easily calculate the effect that change will have.
No, I don't think you get it. Adding a tiny amount of heat to very large amount of energy is additive and a very small variation when considering the equilibrium as you are saying. You cant calculate the size of the change, because you are not taking into consideration everything that absorbs heat.
anyway: 1000001 - 1000000 = 1 = an increase of 1 = increase of FA! Like heating of the atmosphere from the thermic heating effect of burning fossil fuels.
I asked for experimental evidence. You have simply stated that "it does". You have also stated that other gases have effects for thousands of years, a statement that will be even harder to back up with experimental evidence because it is totally theoretical. However, I'll ask again. Please point me to some experimental evidence that 350ppm CO2 has an effect in the atmosphere. I am genuinely interested because I have only seen "high concentration" data of actual effects, with the "low concentration, real world" theories extrapolated from them.
The existence of the greenhouse effect? Not exactly empirical, but evidence. I cant point you to it, but I am sure it exists. I think Arherrienus first figured it out in 1780-something?
You are correct, I haven't included ice melt energy, nor water temperature rise. I have only included air. But equally I have not included other sources of local heat such as energy released from an extra 6 billion humans metabolising vegetation that would otherwise have stored incoming solar energy for decades or millenia.
Oh please... When did that ever happen? Oil deposits are not made from land based vegetation, they are algae die off from two major geological periods only! Fossil fuel deposits are not cumulative over long periods.
For overall temperature, why would you leave out the elements that actually make a huge difference? Like water and ice?
So for every square meter of ground that is not growing a plant, nearly 100% of the solar energy is converted to heat. Now consider how much land area has been cleared of vegetation (not to be replanted with other vegetation). All the energy in that vegetation has been released as heat (OK, so some trees have been made in to houses or tables, but you get the point) and all the energy arriving there is now creating heat, rather than new plants. Even farmland that is "fallow" between crops has the same effect.
There are a few things in here:
Lighter coloured areas tend to reflect radiation. Trees tend to increase cloud. yes, the albedo has changed. But whatever comes in must go out, and an enhanced greenhouse effect will result in greater warming.
