There's lots of ways global warming could lead to colder winters.[0] For example, the temperature differential between Arctic and mid-latitude air normally keeps the polar vortex contained. As this differential decreases, however, the polar vortex becomes less contained. As such, the maximum latitude reached by the jet stream increases with the Arctic's temperature. This creates colder weather in some places. [1] [2]

As unintuitive as it sounds, global warming can lead to colder temperatures. It is up to people who disagree with this theory, not its proponents, to prove their case.

[0] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/does-cold-weather-disprove-...

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455715/

[2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/tellusa.v68.3233... [pdf]

Thanks I'll give that a read and come back to you.

That would be true is their was not already well defined explanations.

This article from January talks about SSG and how it will affect the polar vortex in North America. (It's paywalled so using the google URL)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.nationalgeographic.com/dist...

" The polar vortex is coming—and raising the odds for intense winter weather In the stratosphere over Siberia, temperatures recently jumped nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit, shoving the polar vortex off its North Pole perch."

This article is very good at talking about what we know from SSG. It has nothing to do with carbon.

https://eos.org/features/how-sudden-stratospheric-warming-af...

You have to be trolling. I just read those articles you sent me and they agree with what I am saying. Carbon causes slow and gradual warming but their are still natural cycles that 'cause the snow that skepics get so worked up about'.

I said co2 does not cause cooling. Nothing you provided even mentioned that. The only thing was from the first article 'scientists are looking into it' related to co2 causing cooling.

Rising CO2 puts more energy into the atmosphere. That means more extreme weather. This has been understood since at least 1980.

Here’s a report from the American Petroleum Institute from 1980 that correctly projected the economic impact and timing of current extreme weather events.

https://mk0insideclimats3pe4.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/upload...

In some other comments you say the science is still an open question.

The projections in this report have been refined and confirmed repeatedly by dozens (if not hundreds) of independent research groups for the last 40 years.

At this point, I cannot imagine more definitive evidence that the science is settled.

Thanks I'll need to sit down to read that one

'That means more extreme weather. This has been understood since at least 1980.'

The article you provided spoke nothing of extreme weather. It only spoke of average temperature rise.

Temperature rise is not in dispute.

I like the more energy in the atmosphere theory, this would mean events like the suns poles flipping last year or solar events causing ionisation of the poles would also have the same affect increasing energy. Or even that magnetosphere of the earth has decreased by 6%. Which blocks cosmic rays and solar storms. Leading to more clouds being seeded.

It is not proven co2 causes extreme cold weather. It's a hypothesis.

This was on HN a while ago, and should give you some idea of the complexity involved: https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/polar-vortex-co...

Note that it is from January 10th.

Climate change leading to temperature extremes in both directions is an open question within climate science. There are some theories suggesting this is the case and there are skeptics of that theory, but if you've proven otherwise then you should probably submit your research to them.

I agree,

I feel the burden of proof is in the new theory, rather than - here is a hypothesis, prove its wrong.

It's pretty clear in the small scale studies co2 concentration affects temperature in the direction or warming in the long term and the short term affect of cooling because less energy makes it to the surface. (Similar to clouds or smog/ smoke blocking light)

But a causing extreme cold weather events..

> the short term affect of cooling because less energy makes it to the surface

That's absolutely not true, and I've never even heard climate change skeptics argue that.

This article is referring to the effect of a class of compounds called "aerosols," which does not include CO2. Aerosols do prevent some fraction of solar energy from reaching Earth's surface, but this is separate from the effect of increased CO2 concentrations.

Keep reading.

Aerosols are human emitions, carbon heavy pollution being a order of magnitude bigger than the others. The carbon heavy aerosols turn into co2.

When I was in China I experienced this first hand , it was super hot summer weather very very high pollution. Over night their was freak rain the must of cleared the air because it was the bluest sky's I have ever seen. This tropical weather suddenly because the coldest I have ever been. The pollution acted like a blanket trapping the warmth. With that blanket gone, I had to rush to the store and buy a large winter jacket.

I reread your comment and we may be disagreeing on terms.

[Edit] removed an article

Also, when an obvious market failure kills dozens of people, “free markets fix everything” is not correct.

Godmode2019,

I suspect we're strongly agreeing. My point is that Texas didn't assume the 'weather' would ever be bad. So when it got cold they ran out of natural gas to run their electricity system.

The reason I bring up methane is that's the raw fuel they need to power their generators. And my proposed solution is to require the energy infrastructure (here the natural gas infrastructure, which is required to power the electricity infrastructure) to be designed to handle bad weather. As you said 'weather' means in gets both hot and cold.

I didn't mean to be negative.

I just get bothered when see co2 makes things cold, its almost absurdist joke ie the one thing to nullify a hypothesis is now incorporated into the hypothesis to strength the argument.

I don't know anything about Texans, I don't even live in America but American politics trickle down

If you're question is 'why can increased CO2 lead to colder weather in Texas?'

There's a huge difference between describing average temperatures (what people describe as 'global warming') and describing the temperatures on any specific day.

Previously, a strong jet stream air current trapped cold polar air far north of Texas (which is say 30' North latitude). As the pole's warm, the jet has become pone to weakening allowing cold polar air to move very far south e.g. 90'N to 30'N in Texas, which sits east of the rocky mountains in the US.

Effects like this are why a lot of people are using the term 'climate change' more frequently. Because an increase in CO2 means more than just an average higher surface temperature. Weather changes and instabilities will grow more common, with a bias to warmer events over all.

Think of it as the 'variance in the weather' is growing along side the mean weather (temperature) is going up.

Yes, as an American I'll agree our politics has plenty of instabilities as well.

I get the idea I just dont think its a strong argument.

If you don't mind can you read this article about SSG (which is what caused this weather event, noted in January)

https://eos.org/features/how-sudden-stratospheric-warming-af...

It's not "co2 makes thinks cold", but there is a real possibility your previous statement that a "trace element" can't affect the jet stream is certainly up for debate.

A large factor in the strength of the jet stream is the temperature differential between polar regions and lower latitudes. It's well known at this point that polar regions are warming the fastest, so there is a smaller differential, and the hypothesis goes that this can weaken the jet stream, leading to more events where the polar vortex dips down much further than normal.

This is a great article explaining that hypothesis: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/18/texas-pow... . Note the author of the article actually thinks the evidence for that hypothesis isn't very strong, but believes it's certainly possible and that its proponents are arguing in good faith.

Paywall.

I would like to read it

Don’t confuse climate with weather