Using the gas law you calculate the increase in energy available for storm creation in the atmosphere 100 years from now - about 1% based on a temperature rise of 1.8 degrees.
You then say that storm magnitudes follow a probability distribution and this distribution remains the same, independent of the rise in energy, except for a possible exception regarding water - which you consider later. Since the distribution remains the same one can pretty much expect a linear relationship between storm magnitude and energy level, i.e. storm magnitude shouldn't increase by much more than 1%, on average. Finally, you consider water and conclude that it does not near its critical point in the energy range under consideration.
If I can follow the argument virtually any real scientist concerned with atmospherics can. The idea that they couldn't, or didn't is ridiculous. I don't have to e-mail anyone.
I'm glad you don't suffer from greed or bias.
Here's page 6 of the NSF report. I don't notice they've tempered their speculative musings by any reality constraints. Their report is essentially a speculative statement on global climate and weather that includes extensive mention of local systems, with no caution whatsoever that the global climate can't be significantly different than what's already been experienced. If the global climate isn't significantly different, all the various local climates won't be either.