Talk:Earth's energy budget

message: The conclusion of this section is "thereby demonstrating no net gain of energy by the Earth." In that case why would anyone believe there's global warming? The only reference for this section is to three biologists. Biologists! This section's diagram is helpful for gaining intuition, however. I ask whoever wrote this section to either delete or otherwise explain its mystifying conclusion. Page Notes (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Energy Budget" Section 

message: It might not bother anyone, but this article AND NASAs illustration are claiming the "back radiation" was 340.3W/m2. Even though the term is stupid, it is obviously identical with the GHE or radiative forcing by GHGs and clouds. The magnitude of this GHE was commonly assumed to be about 33K or about 152W/m2. This figure works even in the context of the NASA chart, as 288 - ((398.2 - 152)/398.2)^0.25 * 288 = 32.6K. (Note that 398.2W/m2 "emitted by surface" could only hold true if emissivity was precisely 1, which of course it is not by far) Ok..
With 340.3W/m2 the "new" GHE grows to .. 288 - ((398.2 - 340.3)/398.2)^0.25 * 288 = 110.2K (!!!). Does it not hurt in the brain, when spreading such fake facts? Leitwolf22 (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A greenhouse effect of 110K? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Earth's circumference which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: The article states:
"Photosynthesis has a larger effect: photosynthetic efficiency turns up to 2% of incoming sunlight into biomass"
This is a little confusing.  I think this is peak photosynthetic efficiency, not average efficiency.  And the article linked quotes various numbers for "typical efficiency," ranging from 0.1 to 4.3%.  
", for a total photosynthetic productivity of earth between ~1500–2250 TW (~1%+/-0.26% solar energy hitting the Earth's surface).[11]"
A dubious value.  This number is not in the reference quoted; that's a back-calculation from the total production of cyanobacteria divided by the estimated fraction of the total that is produced by cyanobacteria.
The reference was  But the citation is not the actual source of the quoted figure (much less the calculation), but cites it as coming from the following source:
*Waterbury JB, Watson SW, Guillard RRL, Brand LE. Widespread occurrence of a unicellular, marine, planktonic, cyanobacterium. Nature. 1979;277:293–294
I don't have access to this; can anybody check this reference and give the correct source? 
Because the cited reference wasn't actually a source for the data in the article,  I cut the reference, and instead put in two citations to two different values: Anastassia M. Makarieva, Victor G. Gorshkov, and Bai-Lian Li "Energy budget of the biosphere and civilization: Rethinking environmental security of global renewable and non-renewable resources", Table 1, p. 283; Ecological Complexity, 5, 2008. Retrieved March 31, 2019. and J.M.K.C. Donev et al. (2019). Earth's energy flow, Figure 2 and associated text, Energy Education. Retrieved March 31, 2019.
Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photosynthesis 

message: The article's quality score was upgraded from 'Start' to 'C' since it now provides a reasonably complete overview of the subject, its sections are manageably sized, progression of key concepts seems logical, and most content is well-referenced with up-to-date numbers and figures.  Improvements could perhaps be made in some places with more technically accurate and consistent use of the energy & power related terms (e.g. thermal energy, heat, flow, flux, etc).   Some remarkable findings regarding the north/south hemispherical behaviors are described  in more recent studies and seem worth keeping an eye on.   These could warrant inclusion within a new section nearer the end at some point.
WikiProject Oceans was added since that is where more than 90% of the extra energy from the ongoing heating imbalance is stored.  I also assigned initial importance/priority ratings of 'High' with respect to stated goals of the Climate change, Environment, and Ocean projects.   That is especially bolstered by scientists' statements on the "imperative" priority of the subject (see final section of article) ... and so a 'Top' rating could also be appropriate.  A 'Low' rating was assigned relative to WikProject Energy since the project goals are directed mainly towards subject matter that encompasses the harness of its use by humans.
Bikesrcool (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-class assessment and importance assignments 

message: It is a significant, though often made error, that IR radiation from the surface is the only source of IR from the atmosphere. Absorbed IR in the atmosphere is themalized (transferred to kinetic energy of the molecules) by collisions where it is mixed with thermal energy transferred by sensible heat and condensation. Collisions also result in the reverse, vibration excitation of other ghgs. Proportionally each of the thermal energy transfer mechanisms power the back radiation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Halpern (talk • contribs) 16:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what is your suggestion regarding a possible change to this article, User:Joshua Halpern? EMsmile (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Major mistake