1. For every 1C rise in air temperature you have increased the potential of the atmosphere to hold 10% more water vapor. The water vapor does not stay in the atmosphere and will precipitate back out as rain or snow. Areas that are relatively cold could have undergone enough atmospheric warming to allow for water vapor to precipitate back out in the form of snow during the winter. Have you heard the term, it is too cold to snow? Antarctica is the coldest continent on our planet and is also a desert due to its low annual precipitation. Should this area warm sufficiently then more moisture will be held in the atmosphere to precipitate back out.

Areas that were already warm enough to support precipitation may warm enough to damage ground cover and thus begin to lose their soil moisture content. The rising air creates a high pressure zone that helps to block moisture laden low fronts from moving into the area. A drought or dryer than normal conditions begin to ensue in the area.

The Jet Stream also applies to 1., 2. and 3. as at least a partial explanation. The Jet Stream and its location develops due the temperature differences between the lower and higher latitudes. The Arctic region has experienced the greatest warming when compared with the other regions of the planet and this has an impact on the temperature differences between the higher latitudes and the lower latitudes. This effect begins to weaken the Jet Stream, cause it to meander more and become fixed over regions for longer periods of time. This will set up areas of colder temperatures when the Jet Stream dips down lower in latitude over a region and allows colder air masses to spill further south. At the same time another part of the Jet Stream will become fixed in higher latitudes and allow for more warm air masses to move in from the lower latitudes. What we are seeing now is that areas of Europe and Siberia may be experiencing unusually hot and/or dry conditions while the U.S. and Canada are seeing colder and/or wetter (snow and rain) conditions. This is due to the Polar Vortex splitting and moving in over a region further south than usual and for longer periods of time than usual as the Jet Stream weakens and begins to meander. There are ongoing studies concerning this and so all the information needed is not yet at hand. This is what happens in a rapidly changing, in geological terms, climate. .... Chances are, we ain't seen nuttin yet! The thrill rides are still to come.

This is my understanding of the situations and any corrections and/or additional information from the better informed than I would be appreciated. Opinions do not matter. The Science would be appreciated.

The first two can be explained easily. A warmer atmosphere will absorb more water. This can lead to more droughts and rain. It can also lead to more snow. In those areas which are too warm for snow, the excess moisture will come down as rain.

It is my understanding that extreme weather events happen when there is a larger difference between the temperature in the atmosphere and on the ground. And this occurs more often during periods of cold. {sorry, no link, just my recollection of what I have read.}

Yes, a warm atmosphere will absorb more water. It will only translate to an extreme weather event when the surface temperature is much colder. Warmer atmosphere and ocean surface temp does not necessarily translate to more hurricanes. I know this answer goes beyond the scope of your question. Still, the warmist crowd is quick to jump on any natural disaster and blame it on global warming. That doesn't do must for their credibility.

I find it too convenient. I have noticed this year that it has rained more in Seattle where it rains a lot (I lived there for 2 years) and it has rained very little here in LA where it typically is short of water. Based on long term cyclical trends which aren't very precise, we are in a period where drought should be expected.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs117-03/fs117-0...

I have a similar chart for LA but can't seem to find one to link to. It is roughly similar. You can see that the variation is similar with obvious periodicity and without obvious trends which is probably why it is hard to find on the net (maybe I am too cynical there). I notice AGW alarmists have numerous links where they tailor the data to fit their arguing points using only very recent results to try to suggest a trend.

1. AGW causing both more snow and less snow (or just AGW causing more snow in the first place)

That is easy. A very cold climate gets very little snow, because very cold air can only contain a very small amount of moisture. Such a climate could warm enough to get more snow, and still be below freezing.

2. AGW causing both droughts and floods

AGW causes droughts because the amount of additional water vapor is less than the amount of potential water vapor. Absolute humidity goes up and relative humidity goes down, resulting in less clouds and rain. It causes floods because the extra amount of water vapor can condense rapidly.

Before I discuss contradiction 3, I will discuss another contradiction raised by Raisin Caine.

4. Two scientists make contradictory predictions.

Unless two scientists are making contradictory predictions about climate sensitivity, they are actually making predictions about the effects of global warming. The idea that such failed predictions somehow disprove AGW is plant food, not science.

3. How global warming can cause local cooling--that is, how a specific area can be cooler in a warmer world than it would have been in a cooler world (even some "warmers" have trouble with this one)

I hope that Raisin Caine, who has accused me of not correcting my fellow warmers, is paying attention.

There is zero evidence that AGW can cause local cooling, except in Antarctica, where a negative feed back caused by melting ice diluting sea water has been causing a slight expansion of sea ice.

The best explanation for why we still have cold winters is not because of AGW, except in the sense that the effect of global warming on cold weather is very small, certainly not statistically significant.

http://jcmooreonline.com/wp-content/uplo...

And yes, as far as I know, a few areas on Earth's surface have cooled. But that is just natural variablity that happens anyway. Regional variability is not new. It happened during the Medieval Warm Period and in 1934.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/...

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/ar...

You think my issue is with the contradiction. It is not. If you were saying this location is going to have a drought and this location is going to have a flood a priori, we would not be having this discussion.

You, instead, have two scientists make seperate predictions. One predicts a flood in England due to AGW, while the other predicts a drought.

Then you do a post hoc analysis claiming a successful prediction.

This is not science, this is crap. Now sure you can sell this to the gullible or someone willing to disregard their reasoning ability, just like you can sell palm reading (which uses the same methods) to many. BUT, if you think you are going to convince someone who understands the scientific method that this is acceptable, you are wrong.

The contradictions can be explained by the fact of climate being related to MANY variables...and inasmuch as AGW is much more a POLITICAL issue, than a scientific one.

Quote by Timothy Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Local climate depends on mountain ranges, and prevailing air flow and ocean currents.

AGW can change air flow and ocean currents.

So different places might see increases/decreases in weather events.

None of their predictions come true Chris Hayes thinks Sandy was worse because of rising seas . He is confused There was a high tide at the time .