Far more powerful. If CO2 was so powerful a greenhouse gas then why are we not experiencing a runaway greenhouse effect? CO2 has been increasing yet not global temps.
If A is bigger than B, but B is changing and A is not, which is more likely to be the cause of a change in C?
Yes, solar output is huge. But it's not *changing* enough/in the right direction to change climate the way it's been changing. It's been (at least over the medium term--30-50 years) pretty constant. While temperatures and CO2 have both been going up.
In other words, no, it's not the sun.
The sun produces 1367 watts per sq meter (approx) everything else pales in comparison.
Alph is correct CO2 does produces 3.7 WM2 for a doubling and we are long way from a doubling, so it is pretty insignificant.
The Sun sends more than 200 times the amount of energy in a single day than worldwide electricity production for a year (based on 2009 worldwide electricity production figures).
You can see the calculation here: https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/in...
-----------------------
Please read up on greenhouse gases. It's not the energy output of humans that is relevant, it's how the sun's energy is retained due to increase greenhouse gases.
Post your question in astronomy. This is the global warming section and you question is out of place here.
You should post this in another forum, it has nothing to do with global warming.
EDIT: Kano is comparing two different things--the number he gives for a CO2 doubling is averaged over the surface of the Earth; the value of the solar constant he gives is not, and should be decreased by a factor of 4.
Does human activity come anywhere close to the total influence of the Sun on the Earth? If you believe so, please refer me to the evidence or reference of energy outputs.
