cont
To remind you of Carter’s demolition of the failed climate fraud:
” Many different lines of evidence can be used to test the Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (DAGW). Here are five pieces of evidence, all of which are based upon real world empirical data.
1. Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.
Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.
2.
In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice.
3. If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature.
In fact, the opposite relationship applies. Hypothesis fails.
4. The IPCC’s computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of +2.0̊C/century.
In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to overestimate the climate sensitivity). Hypothesis fails.
5. The same computer models predict that a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the creation of an atmospheric hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions, and enhanced warming also near both poles.
Given that we already know that the models are faulty, it shouldn’t surprise us to discover that direct measurements by both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the absence of surface warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the predicted low latitude atmospheric hot spot. Hypothesis fails, twice.

So far, no evidence has been presented to disprove the null hypothesis.
https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/failure-of-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-hypothesis/

Leo

Temperature:

Satellite inferred temperature has continually had to be tweaked through using computers as satellite orbits can change, and instruments decay. There are variations in the temperatures inferred from one satellite to another. Christy and Spencer have had to alter the way they calculate temperature from satellites a number of times. As they tweak their computer programs the temperature measures go up.

A number of scientist explain the situation on short film clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX7aWsxe9yw

Quote:

"To provide perspective, we know the Earth is warming because we can measure it. Most of the heat (93%) goes into the oceans and we have sensors measuring ocean temperatures that show this. We also know about warming because we have thermometers and other sensors all over the planet measuring the temperature at the surface or in the first few meters of air at the surface. Those temperatures are rising too. We are also seeing ice melting and sea level rising around the planet. "

From:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates

Null Hypothesis:

"The following cases are examples where sufficient evidence has been presented and the null hypothesis can be rejected.

Climate change: that human influence has not changed Earth's climate.
Evolution: that species are not changed by natural selection to fit an ecological niche.
Given that the null hypothesis has been rejected it now falls to those who would wish to deny the evidence for global warming or evolution to present their counterarguments. The burden of proof is on them. The prior alternative hypothesis becomes the next default null hypothesis."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

In your world Leo, ice clearly expands through the application of warmth; in response to your claim that temperatures are not increasing.

More irrelevant garbage from the flea, whose lack of understanding of science disables him from making any relevant contribution.
Carter showed that the assertions of the IPCC, on human contribution to global warming, completely fail.
The flea wastes our time with a reference to Wikipedia bearing no relevance to Carter’s demolition of the IPCC assertions.
The flea agrees that he is an unqualified, incompetent ignoramus, don’t you, flea? So what else can we expect?
Until you are able to refer us to science which shows any measurable human effect on climate, as you have failed to do, you have no starting point, and whatever you post is irrelevant.
Why not buy a dictionary, flea, and start to learn English? Without it you completely lack comprehension

Leo
It wasn't a wikipedia reference ... and your the one that accuses lack of comprehension.
You really are funny!
In the context of where science is at; the IPCC is old news, Carter even older news. Powell et al assessed 24,000 articles published in peer reviewed journals in 2013 and 2014.

Trying to verbalise me is hardly a constructive comment ... "The flea agrees that he is an unqualified, incompetent ignoramus, don’t you, flea?" Just an inane comment.

You might like some Chemistry, the American Chemical Society has produced a series of quite short articles about greenhouse gases:

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases.html

Also:

http://youtu.be/H4YSwajvFAY

I often laugh when recalling your reference about Arctic sea ice extent expanding last year, it provides the perfect example of a denier argument that showed no understanding and was 100% wrong. Being such a perfect example, I have used it elsewhere, thank you for providing the reference.

The flea responds to agree with my accurate description of him, and to report no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
Just concede that there is no such science, flea, and that the IPCC remains discredited by Robert Carter’s science.
The flea mentions the Arctic sea ice fraud, so here are some facts on that:
“Government agencies like NOAA, NASA and NSIDC start their sea ice graphs in 1979, in order to make it look like there is a linear decline in sea ice.”
“I combined the DOE and IPCC graphs, to show what government agencies are up to. They start their linear graphs at the century maximum sea ice extent.”
https://realclimatescience.com/government-arctic-sea-ice-fraud/

Arctic sea ice is the flea’s favourite fraud. He continually promotes this dishonesty

Leo

1979 happens to be the year when satellites first began to be used to assess sea ice in the Arctic. No conspiracy in regard to that. A number of studies have shown how sea ice and volume were higher before 1979.

I noticed in your reference there was a clipping from the New York Times of 1958 stating the thickness of sea ice was around 7 feet, no passenger ship, or cargo ship would be able to steam through such thick sea ice.

The article was right in sayng that children of that time could have the opportunity to travel by ship on the Arctic Ocean. A yacht sailed the the two routes of the fabled North West passage last year. An indication in 1958 that the Arctic Ocean sea ice was predicted to break down.

What a rubbish reference Leo.