That's not how it works, overall warming increases energy into the atmospheric system, some of that energy materialises into stronger storms, with stronger winds, larger snow storms, more hail, and colder conditions, all the result of more energy in the system 

Most storms are formed from warm waters, which give storms energy, they move into areas unleashing massive hail/snow/wind storms releasing all that energy

It's far more complicated than just local conditions at anyone time

This is difficult to believe. If the N and Co reflects sunlight, it also wont let it escape the planet creating the greehouse effect, wich in turn rises the planet temperature and melts the poles raising the ocean levels.

I am gonna wait for more conclusive analysis, this sounds fishy to me. Also, what happens during one solar storm and what happens the rest of the time are not the same. This requires more investigation.

Melted Greenland ice flows into the the North Atlantic, diminishing the Gulf Stream's ability to warm Western Europe.

Humans naturally produce methane, therefore it's not a pollutant. Lol.
Actually cows and other livestock are a big problem when it comes to climate change. They flatuate and combine to release an unbelievable amount of methane which is a much more effective greenhouse gas than co2.

The way I've always liked to put it is "Global warming doesn't mean local warming".

Just to elaborate a bit more. Global warming has varied effects. The net impact in terms of humidity is an increase - air gets more humid. But dry areas, like deserts, will get drier. There will be parts of the world that will see their average annual temperature drop by a few degrees over the next few years... but when you average it over the entire earth, there will be an increase. And an increase of one degree in temperature is much larger than you might think.

The atmosphere consists of about 5x10^18 kg of air. Air has an approximate specific heat (when dry - water vapour has a higher specific heat, which means the number coming out at the end is probably a lowball estimate) of 1 kJ/kgK. As such, as a very rough estimate, a 1K (equal to 1 degree celsius) increase in temperature would increase the energy in the atmosphere by about 5x10^21 J. To put this into perspective, that's roughly the total energy use that the United States would see over a 54 year period if energy use were kept completely constant for the next 54 years.

To put it another way, it's the total energy released in all nuclear tests and all nuclear bombs detonated combined... more than 2000 times over. That's how much energy it takes to heat the atmosphere by just one degree celsius. And that's not even factoring in the oceans, which absorb a ridiculous amount of energy (There's 5x10^18 kg of air, but there's over 10^21 kg of water, and water absorbs energy better than air does, having a higher specific heat).

You need to learn about perturbation theory, I think.

The climate was built (to use a slightly inappropriate term) to handle the methane put out by animals. It wasn't built for extra CO2 or methane or other gases put out by human civilisation.

And you say that methane isn't a pollutant because it occurs naturally? So how do you explain, for instance, OIL? When there's an oil spill, it's a case of massive pollution. But oil occurs naturally on the earth. Carbon dioxide is completely natural, but elevated levels of CO2 cause the oceans to become more acidic, polluting the oceans in a nasty way.

global warming was debunked many years ago and even the sheeple should have realised it after the so called climate gate.
that's the reason why the IPCC has changed the specific name "global warning" into the arbitrary word"climate change" as the climate is changing almost all the time(even 10 seconds of sun rays on a rainy day are a climate change)
even people like lord monckton(former high ranked british politician) or Vaclav Claus(tschech president)
have proven long ago that global warming is a fraud.
Unlike Al Gore Vaclav Claus is neither a liar nor an amateur-he is a real
scientist and he wrote a book about this scam and why Al Gore was given the nobel piece price.

it is very easy to prove that co2 does not work the way we are told.
just buy 2 visible ballloons or condoms.
buy 2 thermometers
buy 1 co2 cartridge
fill one balloon with air and put the thermometer inside the balloon.
fill the other balloon with pure 100% co2+thermometer.
expose both balloons to the sun for 1 hour and then take a look at both thermometers.
You will see that both balloons will have almost the same temperature.

the climate change is based on the lie that 0.01% manmade co2 inside our atmosphere will heat up planet earth up to 5 degrees.
how should this be possible if 300% co2 (compressed co2) can't heat up a balloon 5 degrees.

Co2 is a climate gas but it does not work with quantities.it is more like a color.
imagine an object with a white surface exposed to the sun-if you paint this surface black the object will become
warmer.But you can paint it black a thousand times more-the temperatur won't increase.Even a million black layers won't increase the temperature significantly.

another proof:steam is climate gas number 1.As the world is full of water every single rise of temperature will produce more steam.According to the global warming theory(more climate gas= warmer)
more steam will heat up the atmosphere,a warmer atmosphere will produce more steam.More steam would heat up the atmosphere more and more and more.
If it would work like that planet earth would be in a perpetual state of heating up-but that's not how our climate works.Sometimes we have more steam,sometimes less.

I was being sarcastic.  Obviously, nature never intended for millions livestock to live in concentrated areas.  Their waste is more impactful than most believe both on air quality and local water/soil quality.

I never intended to challenge anything u said because I concur with it.  I studied air quality in college, I have a degree in environmental engineering.

@Xsysx

Call me crazy but I'm more inclined to believe climate scientists(who dedicate their lives to the science) as opposed to politicians.

There's quite a bit wrong with this post.

Firstly, you should look up the definition of climate and understand the difference between weather and climate. 

Vaclav Claus is a politician not a scientist.  So is Al Gore which is why both should be ignored when having a discussion about this.  By the way Vaclav believes global warming is a 'communist conspiracy'.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idKceFvO7AM

Believe it or not, the earths atmosphere is more complex than a ballon.

Are you comparing black paint with CO2?  One is a gas and the other is a solid.  I don't follow your logic with the layers of paint argument.

Hence weather, ever wondered why it rains?