[Paul Ward]

OK I did a few sums of my own.

The Solar Constant is about 1367 W/M2. The area of the earth is 150 000 000 km2. So in a year:

1367 x 150 000 000 x 1000 x 1000 = 2.05 exp 17 W falls on the earth.

This is 3.6 exp 3 x this amount in Joules or 7.38 exp 20 J.

IF the earth was a equally illuminated sphere from a perpendicular light source - which of course it isn't.

In your calculations, you claim that the world energy generation for 2005 is 4.40 exp 20 J. I have followed your source, but cannot find this figure.

Your figures therefore give an anthropogenic energy release approaching or exceeding the solar constant.

"please explain what happens to the energy generated by mankind."

It is ultimately radiated out into space. Why do you assume that it is perfectly preserved on earth and used to melt ice?

Fossil fuels came from solar energy in the first place, so if your hypothesis is correct, a time of fossil fuel formation - the Carboniferous - should be followed by a a time of cold and ice formation ( energy arriving is locked away instead of being used to heat the earth). In fact it should happen immediately (say 150 years in the terms of man's release of energy in substantial amounts) and not in geological time frames. In fact the Carboniferous lasted for 60 million years.

As originator of this hypothesis (or at least publiciser in this forum) it falls to you to explain why anthropgenic energy production should NOT escape the atmosphere and be used to melt ice.

Your figures for melting of the Arctic ice sheet seem to assume that it is a constant entity that is melting. It is not. It forms and melts and re-forms. The decrease is less to do with melting as to do with non-formation compared to previous years.

You seem to assume that somehow external energy from the sun enters a dynamic open system and can readily leave, but anthropogenic energy is at the same part of a closed system and cannot leave.