How do you know that most of the increased energy does not go to increasing wind speed, ice melting or some other energy sink in the Earth system.

Then what massive heat source, pray tell, is causing the surface to actually warm?

There are interesting examples of GHG-forced warming from the past that demonstrate – unequivocally – that radiative physics works as expected. The best known of these events is the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM. As a class, these episodes of extreme GHG-forced warming are know as hyperthermals.

Mockery aside, and assuming without prejudice that you’re a genuine skeptic: Scott Denning understands that Science cannot know anything with absolute certainty, only with greater or lesser confidence. Here is his more contextualized answer to your question:

..we expect climate to be warmer in the future than in the past because we know that greenhouse gases absorb and then re-emit thermal radiation. As people around the world burn more and more fossil fuels, concentrations of greenhouse gases increase, so that solar energy accumulates under the extra absorbing gas. Scientists expect accumulating heat to cause warming temperatures because we know that when we add heat to things, they change their temperatures.

Science, Mr. Harris, is a method of evaluating competing hypotheses by how well they explain the available evidence without contradicting what is already known with high confidence, and there is a rigorous process for doing so. You are proposing that “the energy being added to the Earth System by increasing CO2 is [not] manifest in a surface temperature increase” because “most of the increased energy [goes] to increasing wind speed, ice melting or some other energy sink in the Earth system”. You have not adequately supported your hypothesis, and you’re wasting your time and ours arguing here in any case. If you wish to be taken seriously outside a conference organized by pseudo-skeptics, you’ll need to submit your arguments for publication in more credible refereed venues, such as Nature Geoscience or Geophysical Research Letters.

Keep in mind, though, that Science is superior to other knowledge systems largely because it’s a way of trying not to fool yourself (“The first principle is you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool” -Feynman). It relies on intersubjective verification to counter ubiquitous self-deception. If you can’t persuade your referees of the merit of your ideas, then it’s highly likely that you’re fooling yourself. If you’re unwilling to accept that, then you are no scientist, nor are you a genuine skeptic.

Continue, please!

However, measurements consistently show that it has not cooled, but has instead warmed.

Now, answer the question posed to you, Tom Harris:

What is causing the increasing trend in surface temperature?

He answered that we do not. So stop with your mocking answers.

So, this means that, if a significant portion of the increased energy went into wind speed rise at the surface, the surface could actually cool by forced convection.

The Japan Meteorological Agency is one such group, and they have just released their updated monthly data for October.

So October 2015 was 0.19? warmer than October 2014 by JMA’s estimate. If GISTemp has the same corresponding rise then its October 2015 anomaly will be 1.05?. That’s 1.05? of global warming compared with the average of the 50s, 60s, 70s (and 1980).

I wonder what will happen eventually.

How do you know that the energy being added to the Earth system by increasing CO2 is manifest in a surface temperature increase?

In a word, Mr. Harris, “science”. It’s the only way we have of knowing anything about the Universe that’s better than divination with a sheep’s liver.