Interesting way of putting it, thanks for the explanation

AFAICT, you are probably wrong. Here is some points as to why:

> daily energy reaching the earth's surface from sunlight

... which is exactly the same as the amount of energy radiating off, in a state of equilibrium. But here comes the problem, if we add heat, e.g. from fission, we are not in an equilibrium anymore, are we?

Skeptics of anthropogenic climate change make that claim all the time: Absolute numbers are huge, so they do comparisons like

- 99.998% if Carbon does not take part in Carbon Cycle, or

- heat radiation from the sun is more than X by a scale of Y.

But in balance, so any addition without compensation can compound to be fatal to human life on earth.

After increasing the temperature by storing energy, then radiation off the surface and air layers will increase. But the heat build up is strongest at ground level, yet radiating to space is hardest from that layer. So the effectiveness of heat dispersal in a layered, in-vacuum geoid is not ideal.

> Not only[addition by me] by humans adding more heat under the existing blankets.

Volker Quaschning hat an article, in german, on that. A comparable, unfavourable look on heat introduction instead for a post-co2 energy generation, was also cited in minkorrekt podcast (german, too).

But that that is a small factor, too. I did back of the envelope calculation, and - if every of the 8 billion humans increases their consumption to western standards, - their energy from unlimited fusion or unlimited fission, earth still boils.

It might be 2-5 % of the effect of greenhouse gases, by heat introduction is real and at scale deadly, too.

With water, wind and solar, we have no added heat, since moving gases and fluids evoke heat anyway, which just is not converted to electricity in between. And solar changes the albedo of the place where the panel was placed to a reflectivity of that of a green meadow, which might be worse than some kinds of coating, but usually is better then other roof tiling [citing needed, do IR/VIS-white-painted roofs exist?].

TL;DR: Smaller problem by a few orders of magnitude, but unless dangerous geoengineering takes place[1], still unsustainably cooks mankind.

[1]: Please don't. IPCC report says "keep the idea of geoengineering out of media, for it is not a solution but pandora's jar"

Seriously? Everything on earth's surface is radiating thermal energy into space. In such a massive amount that you'll feel a distinct temperature drop in a cloudless night. If you want to radiate more heat into space (at a global level), you'd have to start by removing the clouds, or the greenhouse gasses.

Curious: for the latter I get 7e21 J, using Wikipedia's normal-insolation figure of 947 W and its Earth albedo of 0.3. That's an order of magnitude greater. I'm probably missing something, do you have a source?

(Of course my figure would only increase the difference you're pointing out.)

Indeed we are 2–3 orders of magnitude away from the point where our energy output itself non-negligibly, globally heats the earth. And if we kept growing, an incandescent Earth would not be too far off. There are hard limits.

This does not take into account that the planet was in balance before human activities has started impacting it. Plus earth reflectivity is decreasing due to human intervention e.g. deforestation.

See other replies above. Thermal energy emissions pale in utter insignificance compared to the solar heat flux. What matters is things that control what happens with that solar heat flux, aka greenhouse gasses.

If that was actually a problem you could use geoengineering to make the planet more reflective overall, letting you use more nuclear power.

Silent downvotes do very little.