> Do you think that a weakening current with more water in the atmosphere (atmospheric rivers) will lead to more or less snowfall? Not being sarcastic, it’s just that if both things are true it would indicate that the prediction in this article is wrong.
Depends on where you are. The center of Africa is all desert. If they start getting a lot of rain, and the PNW gets less, the overall amount of rain falling can increase while the west coast of the US falls apart. Weather isn't uniform, and the climate in various locations is going to change. Some places will likely change for the better while others change for the worse. The issue there is that the places that are great now, but will be worse have a lot more people living in them than the places that are bad now and will get better.
> Unrelated, what are your thoughts on the carboniferous period with 800ppm CO2 and 0 degrees difference in average temp.
I don't know much about it. A good way to frame climate stuff in general: Normally things sit at some equilibrium and experiences a slow change to some new equilibrium due to some natural process. Like the most recent ice age ending. The reason man made climate change specifically is dangerous is we can change one aspect of the current equilibrium faster than all the factors can move to match it. That's why you'll hear people say "We could go carbon neutral today and the Earth will continue warming for decades." It's because we are changing one variable of the equation faster than the others can adjust, which has only happened historically during massive die-offs and extinction events. If we want from 200ppm to 600ppm over 200k years, the consequences would likely be pretty much unnoticed for most animal species. Doing it in 100, not so much.