It's actually about 60,000 tonnes per year.

1360 W (solar constant) * pi * 6380000^2 (radius of earth squared) * 60 * 60 * 24 * 365.25 (seconds in year) / 3E8^2 (c^2) = 61000 tonnes. Marginally lower if you subtract albedo losses. If it's off by about a factor of four, the surface area of the earth might be used instead of the area of the earth's disk.

Science is sometimes just interesting, and our current understanding of the science overwhelmingly points towards anthropogenic greenhouse emissions being responsible for a quantifiable and observable degree of warming. Yes, the figures turn out to be much smaller than the dust gain and hydrogen/helium loss. But it's still an interesting calculation to perform, regardless of whether armchair physicists scream conspiracy or "green religion" nonsense.

If you do want to do the calculation, the chemical energy loss isn't the figure you should be using. It's already well understood that the direct heat output from burning fossil fuels is a very small proportion of the heat budget. It's the difference between the solar energy input and radiative energy output that you need to use - the radiative forcing as it is known.

That's about 1.6 W/m^2 right now. Times the surface area of the earth, that's about 8.2E14 W. Over a year, that's 2.6E22 J. Divided by c^2, that's about 290 tonnes. I'm not exactly what figures were used (whether different estimates of the forcing were used, which contributions to the forcing were counted as "global warming", whether variables such as El Nino, La Nina and solar variations were taken into account, and over what timescale), so there may be something I did differently. But yes, the calculation does give tons.

That you think a team of Cambridge University physicists didn't "try [math] sometime" because your arm-waving armchair explanation disagrees with their calculation is truly an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Your post is indeed insightful. It sheds insight as to why climate change denial is so widespread here on slashdot.

Raising the surface temperature by 1 C isn't the same thing as raising the temperature of the entire earth by 1 C.

The calculation doesn't involve the volume, mass, or internal temperature of the earth - it's a straight radiative forcing calculation. Current estimates of the radiative forcing (difference between the solar energy* we receive from the sun and the energy we radiate into space) are about 1.6 W/m^2 from memory. Over the whole earth that's about 2.5E22 J over the course of a year. Divide by the speed of light squared, you get close to the right answer (I get about 280 tonnes, but I might be missing a minor correction factor or they might be using a lower estimate for the radiative forcing).

*Per unit time, per unit area

I wouldn't necessarily applaud them for this - operating under the laws of a specific country may well be a case of having their hands tied.

However this is the right way to go about applying government censorship, if there is such a thing. Let those in the censoring country see a "your government has banned this tweet" message, and letting everyone else see "The X government has banned this Tweet, but here it is because you're not in X" will shed light on what was being censored, will shed light on the censorship itself, and both the attention and the trivial nature of defeating censorship will let those in the relevant country see it anyway.

That is something that arguably can be applauded.

Why not? The Pepsi I mix it with tastes flat otherwise.

[ducks]

That range isn't an uncertainty, it's an ambiguity.

Because of overlaps with other contributions, saturation effects at some wavelengths and other non-linearities, the answers to the questions "How much of a greenhouse effect would CO2 provide on its own" and "How much would the greenhouse effect reduce if we removed all CO2" are different. The net forcing is very well characterised, both from known absorption characteristics and spectral measurements - it's the feedbacks to the system which contribute the uncertainty.

Not necessarily.

As someone on Vodafone in Australia, this should immediately have started ringing alarm bells.

No way they'd have the problems fixed in 24 hours.

I'd have thought 3D televisions were by definition - in 3D mode they have a left image and a right image. Send different sources to the left and right channels and the TV won't know the difference.

All you have to do is instead of having two pairs of glasses each with a left and right filter, have one pair with two left filters, and another with two right filters. Surely it's been done before.