As I’ve frequently noted, the misuse of RCP8.5 is pervasive. While there are some legitimate uses of high forcing levels in exploratory research, that is not what I am referring to here. Below, an example of RCP8.5 being put to use in a consulting sales pitch, which then finds its way to a Reuters news story about the real world, taking the misuse of RCP8.5-as-BAU into broader circulation. Posted here just so I have it …

I came across this in a Reuters news story today:

I pretty much knew what I’d find if I decided to look a bit deeper. So I did, and I was right. From the referenced report by the consulting group Verisk Maplecroft:

Somehow they were able to puff those numbers up to 67cm to more than 2 meters. Here is what the latest IPCC report actually says about SLR to 2100:

At least the motives here are clear: “Our internationally recognised risk indices pinpoint global corporate exposure to climate change, natural hazards, water issues and regulatory challenges down to the asset level. Our experts have a deep understanding of the growing physical impacts of climate change and shifting stakeholder expectations. Using our proprietary data and bespoke advisory services, we can help you”