What is the radiation balance of the Earth?

More energy is coming in than is going out. The difference is about 2.5 x 10(14) Joules per second.

Consider the total energy output of 1,000 people in their lifetimes. That much net energy is added to the environment every second.

Or the output of four A-bomb explosions added net every second.

The calculation comes from Church et al in GRL, 9/11/ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL0...

To translate from joules into imaginable illustrations, I used this chart I found online.

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/johnf/scales.rev.txt

Without the calculation of joules per second, it is easy to see the effects of increasing amount of retained energy simply in sea level rise which is due primarily to thermal expansion. We know that there has not been an increase in incoming energy and yet we know that the oceans are warming.

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/...

There are some idiots running around this site who have nothing to say other than insult scientists. But when we look at actual scientific research, the answer to your question is very clear. There is more energy coming in than going out, and the difference is substantial; it's enough to raise average sea level by 3 mm per year.

it's not balanced, hence the warming.

"The exact amount of the energy imbalance is very hard to measure, but it appears to be a little over 0.8 watts per square meter. The imbalance is inferred from a combination of measurements, including satellite and ocean-based observations of sea level rise and warming" see-link

Remind MAXX how many square meters there are over the planet (hint: 5.1x10^14 = 510,000,000,000,000 sq. meters.) Using that number an the 'tiny' unbalance you'll get the equivalent in Atomic bomb equivalent. It's a lot of energy, albeit only a tiny fraction of what the Sun puts out.

the link has a number if in/out radiation estimates.

I doubt that the energy imbalance could be measured directly. Even a fraction of a Watt per square metre could would turn Earth into either a ball of ice or fiery inferno in a few years.

Using Baccheus' figures, the imbalance is about 486mW per square metre, primarily determined by thermal expansion of the ocean.

Rio and Alph's references back up Baccheus answer.

Hansen has 0.58 watts per square meter imbalance. It's all in the same ballpark, but not enough precision for MAXX's head to explode.

EDIT..MAXX is so predictable, playing on the tiny imbalance per square meter in Alph's answer. Again, no reference for his claim of imprecision of NASA's numbers. Must have been a class clown in earlier years.

Over time they have to balance exactly, if more heat comes in the earths temperature rises with a corresponding rise in outgoing radiation, so balance, look up CERES that will tell you, presently I believe the difference is so small as not to be considered significant.

What is extremely interesting is there is not a lot of difference between heat radiated out from the tropics compared to more polar regions and also not much difference between night and day, which makes me think that most of the outgoing radiation is from the top of the troposphere and not directly from earths surface.

Well its not in equilibrium, its not balanced, its a "steady state". Why you ask? Because it applies to both a open and closed systems. The variables can have constant and changing values. Yes you can use the equilibrium theorem to explain the imbalance. In other words just having a net input and output doesn't really tell you much now does it?

http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/~dmb53/DaveSTELLA/climat...

Its refreshing to see proponents asking real questions again. How many years has it been now?

ed: Don't take my word for it because it doesn't work quite the why you an other protagonist think. This link provides you with all and more than the necessary information : http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/135642main_balance_trifold...

Sometimes I almost think there is actually intelligence on this planet. You left out some very pertinent constraints some are minimal others aren't. I just accept alarmist for what they are.

the difference between the energy the earth get and re radiate

Baccheus - YES, PLEASE tell us what your source was for your four A-bomb explosions added every second comment. I know what your source was and it's not too impressive.

You might also want to mention how many A-bombs worth of energy the Sun sends us every second, if you know. Oh, and you may want to explain to Joe Joyce that you have misrepresented this information as something related to the question he ask.

-----------------------

Joe Joyce - I just ask for the same thing you did from Baccheus, how is that 'railing?' Would you be interested to know where Baccheus got his 'four A-Bomb' analogy and why it has no relationship to your question? Just ask, I'll be happy to tell you. And you notice Baccheus never provided his source --- right? Why do you think that is?

-----------------------

Joe Joyce - The answer to your question, as Alph pointed out, is that nobody knows. The speculation from NASA is 0.8 Watts per square meter. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBa...

But as NASA says in the article, it's hard to measure and their guess, [and it's only a guess], was "inferred from a combination of measurements, including satellite and ocean-based observations of sea level rise and warming" --- in other words it's no better than pure speculation.

And Alph you say: "It's a lot of energy, albeit only a tiny fraction of what the Sun puts out."

Yes, it is very tiny compared to what we receive from the Sun, so tiny that the margin of error could easily be bigger than the NASA 'calculation.' They say it's about 0.8 Watts per Square meter --- please keep in mind that the Sun provides about 1,361 watts per square meter at the top of the atmosphere. That means the 0.8 figure only represents 0.00059 of what the Sun sends us.

With the inferred (not measured) figure from NASA being so low compared to total wattage from the Sun, there is no way they can know if there is any imbalance at all. And they have admitted by their statement that if it exist at all, it's very tiny indeed.

-----------------------

S - The imprecision of NASA's number is admitted right in the article. They say it's "inferred from a combination of measurements, including satellite and ocean-based observations of sea level rise and warming" --- you would have to be a TRUE BELIEVER to think 0.8 couldn't get grossly distorted from that long series of inferences --- and your post with Hansen calculating it at 0.58 proves my point. That's a big difference and from two sources that are both huge AGW promoters. That means we have no idea what it is or if it even exist.

-----------------------

Over time, it is balanced. Sometimes it is warming, sometimes it is cooling. Right now it is cooling.