Leo, I said:

“It comes down to this.
The physics + mathematics = 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. Agree or disagree?”j

That is the heart of climate science: the basic physics and mathematics of CO2 which is repeatable and demonstrable in a lab. The 4 Hiroshima bombs per second is anthropogenic: it’s the *extra* CO2 we are releasing into an otherwise balanced carbon cycle. Yet you write:

“You have strayed a long way from the fraudulent assertion that global warming is human caused, which you seem to forget is the topic of discussion.”

Perhaps you just like saying “fraudulent” a lot, and just cannot comprehend what we are discussing? I have not strayed from discussing the topic at hand: CO2’s basic radiative forcing IS the topic at hand. It is this simple. If we can trust what we are seeing in the lab, then the 4 Hiroshima bombs per second is the result. If that’s the result, then where is the extra heat going? This seems to be the question you’re stuck on, and who is Joanne Nova that makes you doubt the work of countless physicists in the lab?

Read this by NASA. Global warming should really be called "Ocean warming", because that's where the majority of the heat ends up.

//Expansion seems simple, but measuring it is a challenge. “Over 90 percent of the heat trapped inside Earth’s atmosphere by global warming is going into the oceans,” Willis said. Temperature data from 19th-century ship, compared to a set of 3,600 buoys measuring ocean temperature today, confirms that the ocean – especially its upper half – has warmed since 1870.//

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2201/

Got a conspiracy theory about NASA's 3,600 buoys? Quick, time to rush off to WAWT or some other denialist echo-chamber! ;-)

Understood, Max, you refuse to acknowledge that there is no scientific basis for the assertion that global warming is human caused, and have no justification for your refusal.
You are just another dishonest fraud-backer.

Leo's modis operandi is always to invite posters to present "the science" - and when they do, he ignores it and says: "...there is no scientific basis for the assertion that global warming is human caused..."

Followed promptly by a response - such as "You are just another dishonest fraud-backer."

It's the same thing time and time again...as the years roll by...Leo has no argument, just lame hackneyed lines followed by a generous dollop of ad hominem.

You say someone supplied the science which shows a measurable effect of human emissions on climate?
Please direct me to the post which conveyed the information, Poirot. How I missed it, I do not know.

///You say someone supplied the science which shows a measurable effect of human emissions on climate?
Please direct me to the post which conveyed the information, Poirot. How I missed it, I do not know.///
Your poor comprehension, maybe? Did you even watch the youtube that *shows* CO2 trapping heat?

On the other hand, since you have such "high" respect for "science" (high respect for tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy websites more like), how about you propose an alternative scientific theory that explains these photos? Or are the photo's the result of a conspiracy as well? ;-)

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/glacier-retreat

Dude, these are photo's.
Dude, the radiative properties of CO2 are demonstrated in science labs all over the world.
Dude, peer-reviewed climatologists happily and readily admit that nature emits WAY more CO2 than we do every year. Then it gobbles it all up again! It's called Autumn and Spring. Or did you miss "An Inconvenient Truth"?
Dude, we're adding MORE to that system by burning fossil fuels. As a visual aid, I'm quite happy to admit that nature emits an elephant of carbon each year, and we only emit a bag of feathers. But nature can also only an elephant a year, and those bags of feathers soon become so heavy they can smother us all!

No heating since 1997? Sorry dude, but if you're going to quote denialist meme's at least quote them correctly or you sound like a goose. It's "there's been no warming since 1998", because 98 was the year of the hottest El Nino event the world has ever seen. And that's retarded, because 2005 and 2010 and 2014 DID beat 1998, so try again!

But right now you've got some pretty pictures to look at on the link above. I wonder if you're honest enough to do so?

D'oh! Elephant metaphor messed up by typo. I meant to say nature can only absorb an 'elephant' of carbon every year, but somehow 'absorb' got left out when editing.