"Google something like "have winters been milder due to climate change". They have. Warming caused instability in the jetstream has created some severe cold snaps, but that doesn't negate that winters overall have been warmer. Plus heavier snow falls are a consequence of a warmer atmosphere holding more moisture, and warm air streams flowing into cold fronts."
To say Winters have been milder is a generalisation. though that is what models claimed and most scientists expected would be the global result of GHG warming.
In practice, unexpected effects like the shifting Jetstream and other as yet unverified causes are actually producing severe cold snaps in certain regions.
To explain this by saying these regional events are merely local "weather" influenced by climate change is self serving.
In practice, there is no point in claiming "average global winters are milder." because there is no such thing as an average global winter. Likewise there is no such thing as an average global temperature. They are mathematical contructs. Arguably useful for suggesting trends but otherwise useless.
The Earth's climate is not an average. It is widely and continually changing. That is what Humanity must deal with. Not theoretical "Global averages".
The models need seriously to improve their predictions based on regional effects.
Otherwise what use are they ... except to be hijacked by alarmists and vested interests.
This is a separate question than determining what are the actual causes of changing climate.
To make the sole focus that of reducing global CO2 emissions which will somehow miraculaously prevent all these regional changes, ignores and replaces the need for practical regional mitigation and preparation.
Existing models require input of various parameters including estimated CO2 emissions. If they produce predictions that are unreliable or wrong, they are not fit for purpose.
Their role is to predict the results and trends of climate change to inform government action. In many cases this is disruptive action.
It is pointless to retrospectively adjust those parameters and then claim the models were mathematically accurate, when their actual predictions were wrong.
It is academia divorced from the real world.
"We'd like greater regional long term trend clarity, but that's not to say that useful guidance for regional planners isn't available."
All my experience with bureaucratic thinking and planning is it's motivated primarily by arse saving.
Bureaucrats will always assume the worst case scenario, then add more layers of protection until any practical action is enveloped in immovable sludge.
On the rare occasions they seek a new career it is often as authors of toaster instruction manuals which include gems such as "Do not insert your fingers in the toaster when it is turned on." !
