What evidence do you have to support that assertion? Take a gander at this: CHANGING CLIMATE Going to depths for evidence of global warming Heating trend in North Pacific baffles researchers
Or this: The Fiery Face of the Arctic Deep
Or this:Oceans are heating due to hot spots rotating in the earth's core.
CO2 doesn't increase precipitation. And if it were to increase precipitation (through so-called greenhouse warming) the temperatures would be too high for the snow to stick around all summer.
What do base that assertion on. Check this out: Heavy Rainfall Has Increased as Temperatures Have Risen Bringing Threat of More Damage in Future
If you accumulate enough snow during the winter, it will stay all summer and reduce the surface and air temperatures, i.e., you have an ice age.
The assertions of the "man causes global warming" crowd include the notion of greenhouse gases. They are false. The change of 100 parts per million of CO2 doesn't make the atmosphere suddenly able to defy thermodynamics. Pseudoscientists say that it does. Pointing to greenhouse gas assertions of the global warming shills in order to prop up a volcanic / natural change model means the model is false. Have a nice day.
Your 1st link:
A change of 5 thousandths of one degree centigrade..
Compared to measurements made in 1985..
I find the temperature difference inconsequential, it can be accounted for simply by more accurate measuring equipment in the last 20 years..
Link #2:
While the Mid Arctic Ridge is more active than in the past, it is still the most inactive of all the ridges.. It states that right in the article.. ( extremely slow expansion of 1 centimeter per year.. )
The only increase in activity has been the vulcanism, which as I understand it, is the basis of your "globally warming oceans" theory..
This is evidence of nothing, it is a local phenomenon that may be affecting the arctic, but affects little on global terms..
Link #3:
Not sure who Gary Novak is, other than what it states.. ( He is a biologist, not a geologist or oceanographer.. )
His scientific opinion is just that... His opinion..
Link #4:
Quotes from the article:
these analyses represent a small fraction of the land surface and a very small part of the planet, so a global picture cannot be formed at this stage.
------------------------------------------------------
At this stage, it is not clear what proportion of the observed warming and any associated increase in rainfall intensity is due to natural variability or to anthropogenic influences such as land-use change, biomass burning, ozone depletion and increased levels of greenhouse gases. Attribution of cause and effect is unlikely to be a simple task.
-------------------------------------------------------
GCMs can simulate the continental scale behavior of the climate system but small-scale features like thunderstorms are not well resolved due to limited computer power.
-------------------------------------------------------
Due to limited computer power, models with such fine detail can only be run over small regions.
-------------------------------------------------------
A number of RCMs have been used in enhanced greenhouse simulations, but few have been analysed for changes in heavy rainfall.
-------------------------------------------------------
All of this points to one conclusion..
Computer modelling sucks..
Your last link is from the BBC:
I'm sorry, when it comes to Global Warming the BBC is totally crackpot and dishonest.. One of the biggest scaremonger News sites on the Web..
Minus 10 points for loss of credibility..
A lot of "conjecture" mixed with caveats to CYA by the authors of these articles.. and some "misinterpretation" on your part..
Of course, to be honest, I was purposely looking for contradictions, loopholes, outright exaggerations and lies at every one of the links you posted..
I probably should consider my analysis "biased"..
At any rate, thanks for some interesting reading..