Htydjtk

So I'm very far from a climate scientist but I've always wondered, why don't things like electric heaters, lightbulbs, etc, contribute to climate change, or even things like the accelerated decay of radioactive materials -- human caused factors. I'm fairly sure it's due to the equilibrium being very stable to relatively small factors that we humans contribute and it can simply radiate away into space, but I honestly have no idea.

A simple calculation I did just now after thinking about it in some more depth put it this way: If every human had 100x 100W fluorescent lightbulbs (5% efficiency) each and were to leave them on for a year. I feel this maybe an overshoot by a few order of magnitudes but my aim is to account for other heat sources that take the average over the humans average
We'd have Power output as heat:
$$E_{heat} = 0.95 * 100 * 100 * (60*60*24*365) * (7.5 * 10^9) = 2.2 * 10^{21} J year^{-1}$$
Then with maybe a too simple $E=mcDelta T$ equation

The atmosphere has a mass of about $5.15×10^{18}$ kg (Wikipedia)

specific heat capacity of air:

SHC of air 0.716 https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html

$$E_{heat} = M c Delta T$$

$$2.2 * 10^{21} = 5.15×10^{18} * 716 * Delta T$$
$$=> Delta T = 0.6K / year$$

Small amount for what I feel is still a gross overestimation of 100x 100W lightbulbs per person as an internal energy output, but why isn't this a factor especially as the world becomes more energy hungry? Is it 'heat neutral' I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would. And why large nuclear energy sources human accelerated don't play a large effect.

The power involved does not represent a significant fraction of the total energy budget, so it can normally be ignored. Assuming (per Wikipedia Solar Energy) that the energy received on earth from the sun is about $3times 10^{24} text{J/year}$ and total energy production on earth is (per Energy Consumption) about $6 times 10^{20} text{J/year}$, worldwide energy production would represent a value of 0.02 on this chart.

There's a huge amount of fudge there. The value really represents energy consumption, so the heat output of production will be greater. At the same time, production from water/solar/wind are counted, when they do not produce additional heat (since it's already counted in the solar figure). But the figures would need a 50x boost to even reach a 1 on the chart.

The forcing due to CO$_2$ is much larger. For example "business as usual" is RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway) which will give 8.5 W/m$^2$ extra heat due to greenhouse gases in the future. Over the whole surface of the Earth, that is $4.10^{15}$ W or $10^{23}$ J/year.

With that calculation using heat capacity, that would create very a rapid rise in temperature of the atmosphere, year after year. It is not the proper way to analyze the effects of an extra forcing. Instead, one should look at steady state. Currently, the surface of the Earth radiates about 400 W/m$2$. An additional 8.5 W/m2 means a 2 % increase. Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann $T^4$ law, this would in steady state give a 0.5 % rise in temperature, about 1.5 degrees. (Very crude back-of-the envelope estimate)

Almost all household consumption of electric energy produces equivalent heat, and this does contribute to heating the planet, no matter how the electric energy was produced.

Similar thing is true for many (probably most) industrial use of electric energy - most of it dissipates into heat and turns into internal energy of atmosphere and Earth crust. This too contributes to heating the planet.

Whether this effect on warming is substantial when compared to warming due to rising $text{CO}_2$ is not obvious. We can compare the two effects by comparing their contribution to net energy dumped into atmosphere in the form of heat.

For radiation, increasing $text{CO}_2$ at current rate is reported to provide around 3 W (2016$^*$) of power per squared meter of Earth's surface more than in balanced radiative equilibrium state, thus $4.8text{e}22~text{J}$ per year (this number increases in time as concentration of $text{CO}_2$ increases). On the other hand, the net energy production per year (2015) is estimated to $5.5text{e}20~text{J}$ and this energy eventually ends up heating the planet too.

Comparing the two powers, human energy production has around 1% of effect of the greenhouse gases emissions, not substantial, but still a noticeable effect. In time, the importance of energy production will probably somewhat increase (if $text{CO}_2$ emissions are lower than today).

Decreasing impact of energy consumption is very hard, especially in developing countries that play catch-up to the developed countries. Certainly it is much easier to convince people to limit/stop burning coal and fossil fuels and use other sources of energy, than to limit/stop consuming equivalent energy in electrical devices.

$^*$ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing