The Coming and Going of Glaciers: A New Alpine Melt Theory

The oceans aren't warming at depth.

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 Big Chill - transcript

Ping

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.

You make solipsistic arguments without any factual basis. You make statements that, "The oceans aren't warming at depth" without providing any factual basis. I give you specific references showing that you are factually wrong. You are not being intellectually honest. Have a good day.

Kabar; re post #41:

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..

At the time of the Roman Empire, for example, the glacier tongue was about 300 meters higher than today," says Joerin. Indeed, Hannibal probably never saw a single big chunk of ice when he was crossing the Alps with his army.

Hannibal’s invasion was in 218 B.C., that was during the Roman Republic, not the Empire. Polybius and Livy’s accounts both state that Hannibal encountered ice. Must have fluctuated again by the time of the Roman Empire.

But even so he was no luckier; progress was impossible, for though there was good foothold in the quite shallow layer of soft fresh snow which had covered the old snow underneath, nevertheless as soon as it had been trampled and dispersed by the feet of all those men and animals, there was left to tread upon only the bare ice and liquid slush of melting snow underneath. The result was a horrible struggle, the ice affording no foothold in any case, and least of all on a steep slope; when a man tried by hands or knees to get on his feet again, even those useless supports slipped from under him and let him down; there were no stumps or roots anywhere to afford a purchase to either foot or hand; in short, there was nothing for it but to roll and slither on the smooth ice and melting snow.

The definition of a glacier is snow left over from the previous year. This account describes what it is like to try to climb a glacier without crampons.

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..

The idea that you can dismiss anything reported by the BBC re global warming is specious reasoning at best. The article in question is just a transcript of a discussion by various scientists who have different opinions about global warming including the possibillity that we may be on the verge of a new ice age. This runs counter to the current conventional wisdom on the subject. Unless you have some legitimate criticism of the substance of what the members of the panel said and their scientific credentials, your views are just that, an uninformed opinion. I do indeed find your opinion as biased as the the global warming nuts. We need to deal with facts, not emotion.

Minus 50 points for lack of credibility.

Minus 50 points for lack of credibility.

Minus 100 points for copying my "slam" line.. LOL..

Actually, none of your references are worth anything, because you're making an obviously ridiculous claim that a volcanic hotspot, which obviously will heat water, means that the entire ocean is heating at depth.

That doesn't follow.

It isn't logical.

It isn't intellectually honest.

The oceans get colder and more contaminated the deeper one goes. The global warming demagogues got exposed as pseudoscientists when they claimed that the atmosphere would retain lots more heat; when cornered, they claimed the oceans were stuffing heat into the depths (since the surfaces hadn't warmed); that was shown to be another baseless fabrication -- and that was done under grants that it was hoped would detect heat.

Well said.

In addition to your nice points, I'd add that the global warming demagogues used to claim that because of all the smokestacks, exhaust pipes, AquaNet, and anything else they could point at with fingers of blame, the world would heat up, the icecaps would melt, and all the coastlines would disappear under dozens of feet of water.

Now, the claim is, seven inches in the next 100 years.

That's .07 a year, which is essentially unmeasurable. In the past five years, the rise should have been .35 inches, which is possibly measurable. And by 2010, it should be .7 inches. Nothing has shown up. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

Of course, their dodge was that most of the rise would happen near the end of the period.

It's back to the Mayan priests claiming that the Moon was going to be eaten, but that they'd do everything they could to prevent it. Then, if the prediction turned out in error, they could claim that their rituals averted it. Otherwise, they'd get credit for the correct prediction.

Global warming is the new Lysenkoism.

The Little Ice Age:
How Climate Made History 1300-1850
by Brian M. Fagan
Paperback Floods, Famines, and Emperors:
El Nino and the Fate of Civilizations
by Brian M. Fagan The Long Summer:
How Climate Changed Civilization
by Brian M. Fagan

The Deep, Hot Biosphere
by Thomas Gold
foreword by Freeman Dyson

Actually, none of your responses are worth noting. You have no facts, just opinion.

bookmark


The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850 by Brian M. Fagan Paperback	Floods, Famines, and Emperors: El Nino and the Fate of Civilizations by Brian M. Fagan	The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization by Brian M. Fagan