When the IPCC and other climate scientists make their predictions about future temperatures and sea level rises, they do so using a series of 'Representative Concentration Pathways' (RCPs) which work out the likely level of emissions into the future based upon assumptions about government policy, technological change, economic activity and a range of other factors. These estimations about likely level of emissions are then fed into climate models to make their predictions.

These RCP fall into four main categories being RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 each of which make increasingly pessimistic assumptions about the future emissions levels and therefore temperatures.

The following numbers are based on the most recent IPCC report. The first number is the predicted increase in temperatures in degrees centigrade over pre-industrial levels and the second number is the predicted rise in sea levels in millimeters:

RCP2.6.... 1.6....32mm
RCP4.5.....2.5....47mm
RCP6.0.....2.8....61mm
RCP8.5.....4.3....82mm

Clearly the RCP8.5 is the most pessimistic and yields the most dire warnings about the future. Whenever you see 'we're-all-gunna-die' headlines about temperature or sea levels, it usually is quoting numbers from models using RCP8.5. It is estimated that, over the last 5 years over 10,000 papers have been written based on RCP8.5 and how that would affect humans and the environment.

For at least the last 25 years that I recall, people falsely called sceptics have been saying RCP8.5 is too pessimistic and its predictions therefore wrong. But the alarmists love dire warnings and therefore claimed RCP8.5 was the most likely outcome. And of course, the media loves bad news so they likewise loved RCP8.5

WELL..... in April the IPCC and the scientific community final came clean on RCP8.5 and have admitted that its predictions are not only too pessimistic but completely implausible (their word!).

Consequently RCP8.5 will no longer form the basis of any predictions in subsequent IPCC reports and, its assumed, climate modelers will remove it from their models.

Meaning that future scary headlines and predictions will be a little less scary and therefore a little more realistic.

The whole climate scare continues to unravel.

WTF?

As per always mhaze shoots off a premature rambling from a source that, if fact and once again only demonstrates his lack of comprehension skills and lack of Scientific literacy.

I wonder if mhaze is getting his Scientific understanding from Trump?

When it was originally published in 2011, RCP8.5 was intended to reflect the high end – roughly the 90th percentile – of the baseline scenarios available in the scientific literature at the time.

A “baseline” scenario is one that assumes no climate mitigation, explains Dr Chris Smith, senior research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria. He states “RCP8.5 was developed as a no-climate-policy scenario, often called ‘reference’ or ‘baseline’ scenarios. These are used to benchmark the actions of climate policy.”

The RCPs were succeeded in 2017 by the “shared socioeconomic pathways”, or SSPs.

The scenario assumed a world without climate policy and was designed to explore the consequences of high levels of greenhouse gases and global warming. It was not, van Vueren says, a “best-guess scenario” of what the future held in store.

However, in some research papers, RCP8.5 was characterised as “business as usual”, suggesting that it was the likely outcome if society did not pursue climate action.

This was “incorrect”, says van Vuuren, noting that RCP8.5 “is not a likely outcome”. He adds: “It’s never been a likely outcome.”

I liked Peter Ridd pointing out that the Greenland ice sheet completely melted seven thousand years ago with natural climate variability. He holds the view that witch burning will ever be a popular pastime.

Lethal heat is the new witch.

The 'scare' is unravelling but the billions of taxpayer money poured into the pockets of these globalist grubs and China continue to send our nation bankrupt, destroy the environment with so called ' renewables' and allow filthy Greens/Teals to be funded as part of this treacherous cult. Saint Greta might have moved on now to be a useful idiot for Hamas but Australia's debt is now 1.2 billion with this lying cult still controlling the abc and much of mainstream media.

Further, now that mhaze is using the IPCC as his source what else does the ICPP say?

IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report stated that human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850–1900 in 2011–2020. Continued greenhouse gas emissions will lead to increasing global warming, with the best estimate of reaching 1.5°C in the near term in considered scenarios and modelled pathways.

In relation to SSP5-8.5:
SSP5-8.5 is considered less plausible because of:
The rapid decline in the costs of renewable energy technologies makes continued reliance on fossil fuels less economically attractive, reducing the likelihood of sustained high emissions.

Increasing adoption of climate policies worldwide, including commitments to net-zero emissions and carbon pricing, are steering global emissions away from the highest pathways.

Global emissions have not followed the trajectory required for SSP5-8.5, and there is evidence of plateauing or declining emissions in some regions.

Seems like Science is working the way Science works - what a surprise.