Climate researchers have formally moved away from an extreme warming scenario widely cited for years in major media reports after scientists concluded the projections no longer align with global energy and emissions trends.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Climate scientists working through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and associated modeling programs have formally abandoned one of the most widely cited extreme warming projections after concluding its assumptions no longer reflect real-world developments.
The model, known as Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5, or RCP 8.5, had frequently been used in climate studies and media reporting to project severe temperature increases, mass migration, food shortages and catastrophic environmental changes throughout the 21st century.
In April, researchers involved with the IPCC concluded that RCP 8.5 and similar temperature pathways “have become implausible,” citing changes in energy production, emissions trajectories and global environmental policies.
The decision effectively removes RCP 8.5 from future mainstream climate modeling under the CMIP7 international climate framework, which is now phasing out the scenario ahead of the IPCC’s seventh major assessment cycle.
Although scientists originally designed RCP 8.5 as a high-end or worst-case projection, critics argue it was repeatedly presented to the public as a likely future outcome rather than an extreme hypothetical.
Media outlets frequently relied on the model to support alarming climate forecasts.
The Guardian previously described RCP 8.5 as a “business-as-usual path of high fossil fuel consumption and carbon pollution” while publishing stories warning of severe economic collapse linked to global warming.
Additional reporting from The Guardian cited the model in stories projecting unprecedented drought conditions in North America, while another article warned of escalating “killer heat” tied to Australia’s climate future.
Roger Pielke Jr., senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, criticized the lack of public acknowledgment surrounding the model’s withdrawal.
“The Guardian, which ran many dozens (hundreds?) of stories premised on RCP 8.5 projections over fifteen years, has run nothing [on RCP 8.5’s withdrawal],” Pielke wrote in a May 9 analysis.
The New York Times also relied on RCP 8.5 in a 2020 feature titled “The Great Climate Migration Has Begun,” which projected tens of millions of migrants moving toward the United States due to agricultural collapse and extreme temperatures in Latin America.
“The New York Times has been perhaps the most prominent English-language home for promoting news stories based on studies that rely on RCP8.5. They’ve said nothing about its retirement,” Pielke stated.
RCP 8.5 projected global temperatures could rise by approximately 4.8 degrees Celsius by the year 2100, according to earlier IPCC estimates.
Updated projections associated with newer modeling pathways now estimate approximately three degrees Celsius of warming under current trajectories, according to revised IPCC-related research.
Pielke said the original scenario relied on assumptions that no longer match global energy developments.
“RCP8.5 assumed the world was moving towards coal at breakneck speed and every other energy source was going down,” he said. “None of that has any relevance for the real world, where coal is declining and solar is booming.”
The AEI scholar said the widening gap between model assumptions and observed trends ultimately forced the scientific community to move away from the scenario.
“The practical reason is that it is time for new scenarios on the CMIP and IPCC schedule for the IPCC 7th assessment report,” Pielke said regarding the timing of the shift. “The substantive reason is that the gap between the extreme scenarios and reality has become too large to deny.”
Despite years of high-profile climate reporting based on RCP 8.5 projections, relatively few major news organizations have publicly addressed the model’s removal or reassessed earlier coverage.
“Some of us have been talking about this for almost a decade. The fact that it took so long is a big problem,” Pielke said. “There will be significant consequences as the world unwinds from the extreme scenarios.”
“Science is self-correcting but sometimes that process takes too long,” he added.
Original article
Comments