The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) has released an assessment report titled ‘Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate,’ with a focus on North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands.
The official Press Release claims:
Global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases, according to the report. Many types of extreme weather and climate event changes have been observed during this time period and continued changes are projected for this century. Specific future projections include:
Abnormally hot days and nights, along with heat waves, are very likely to become more common. Cold nights are very likely to become less common.
Sea ice extent is expected to continue to decrease and may even disappear in the Arctic Ocean in summer in coming decades.
Precipitation, on average, is likely to be less frequent but more intense.
Droughts are likely to become more frequent and severe in some regions.
Hurricanes will likely have increased precipitation and wind.
The strongest cold-season storms in the Atlantic and Pacific are likely to produce stronger winds and higher extreme wave heights.
As pointed out by Prometheus, some of the conclusions from the report were not included in the PR:
1. Over the long-term U.S. hurricane landfalls have been declining.
2. Nationwide there have been no long-term increases in drought.
3. Despite increases in some measures of precipitation (pp. 46-50, pp. 130-131), there have not been corresponding increases in peak streamflows (high flows above 90th percentile).
4. There have been no observed changes in the occurrence of tornadoes or thunderstorms.
5. There have been no long-term increases in strong East Coast winter storms (ECWS), called Nor’easters.
6. There are no long-term trends in either heat waves or cold spells, though there are trends within shorter time periods in the overall record.
Roger Pielke Sr exposes the bias in the report on his Climate Science weblog:
Since this assessment is so clearly biased, it should be rejected as providing adequate climate information to policymakers. There also should be questions raised concerning having the same individuals preparing these reports in which they are using them to promote their own perspective on the climate, and deliberately excluding peer reviewed papers that disagree with their viewpoint and research papers. This is a serious conflict of interest.
Yet again, the CCSP report process presents biased information of the diversity of conclusions in peer reviewed studies of the climate system.
NOTE: THE TERM SCHIZOPHRENIC IS USED TO DESCRIBE THE CCSP REPORT IN THE CONTEXT AS DEFINED BY THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, WHICH IS DISTINCT FROM THE MEDICAL DISORDER:
“(in general use) a mentality or approach characterized by inconsistent or contradictory elements.”
But of course, everyone knew that already, didn’t they!?