RCP8.5 — LLMpedia

RCP8.5
Name	RCP8.5
Type	Climate scenario
Created	2011–2013
Institutions	Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Region	Global

Contents

RCP8.5 is a high-emissions climate scenario developed for use in climate modeling and assessment. It has been applied in assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in studies involving institutions such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Met Office Hadley Centre, and research groups at Columbia University, Princeton University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The scenario has been used in analyses that inform discussions in forums including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the G20 Summit, and the World Economic Forum.

Definition and Characteristics

RCP8.5 was defined within the family of Representative Concentration Pathways developed for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report and characterized by a radiative forcing level of about 8.5 W/m2 by 2100, used by groups such as Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Key features include high greenhouse gas emissions trajectories, intensive fossil fuel use, and limited deployment of mitigation technologies, studied by research centers including Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Stockholm Environment Institute, and Resources for the Future. Modeling efforts by teams at University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, Yale University, and University of California, Berkeley employed integrated assessment models similar to those used at IIASA and OECD to represent socioeconomic drivers and energy system pathways. Scenario inputs often referenced historical datasets from National Centers for Environmental Prediction, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, and observational programs like the Global Carbon Project and the Keeling Curve measurements at Mauna Loa Observatory.

The RCP framework was produced through collaborations among institutions such as International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, World Bank, United Nations Environment Programme, and national laboratories including Argonne National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, drawing on prior scenarios used by bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. RCP8.5 emerged in protocols used by modeling centers including National Center for Atmospheric Research, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, and French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission for experiments archived in repositories such as the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project and used in impact studies by organizations like World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International, and The Nature Conservancy. Policymakers from entities including the European Commission, United States Environmental Protection Agency, and national ministries of energy have cited model outputs from RCP8.5 in assessments, scenario planning, and risk analyses.

Simulations driven by RCP8.5 forcings run on climate models developed at Met Office, GFDL, Max Planck Institute, and CSIRO show large changes in temperature, precipitation, sea level, and extreme event frequency, which have been analyzed in sector studies involving World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, and agencies such as United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Projections include increases in global mean surface temperature, shifts in patterns studied by researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and impacts on cryosphere components monitored by Antarctic Treaty System programs and the Greenland Ice Sheet Project. Implications for ecosystems have been explored by teams at Smithsonian Institution, Natural History Museum, London, and Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, while socioeconomic implications have been incorporated into risk assessments used by International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and insurance firms such as Munich Re and Swiss Re.

RCP8.5 has been the subject of debate involving researchers at Harvard University, Stanford University, Princeton University, and policy analysts in ministries and legislatures including the United States Congress and the European Parliament. Criticisms focus on its characterization as a business-as-usual pathway, its assumptions about population and energy intensity, and its use as a default by media outlets and scientific journals such as Nature and Science. Debates include contributions from think tanks like Brookings Institution, Cato Institute, and Center for Global Development, and have featured commentary in outlets such as The New York Times, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, and Financial Times. Dialogues at conferences including COP21, COP26, and meetings of bodies such as the Royal Society and the American Geophysical Union have addressed the scenario’s appropriate role in research and policy.

Use of high-end scenarios like RCP8.5 has influenced risk framing in communications by institutions such as the United Nations Environment Programme, European Environment Agency, and national academies including the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society. It has affected policy discussions in cabinets and parliaments, strategy documents from International Energy Agency, and corporate risk disclosures guided by frameworks such as Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Media coverage by organizations like BBC, Al Jazeera, and Reuters has shaped public perception, while NGOs including Greenpeace and 350.org have used projections in advocacy. Legal and regulatory debates involving courts and agencies in jurisdictions such as California, European Union, and United Kingdom sometimes reference worst-case model outputs.

RCP8.5 is one member of a suite that includes lower forcing pathways studied alongside others developed at institutions like IIASA and OECD, and contrasted with scenarios informing the Paris Agreement goals and assessments by IPCC Working Group I, Working Group II, and Working Group III. Common comparators include scenarios with stabilization targets and technological change inputs used by International Renewable Energy Agency, Rocky Mountain Institute, BloombergNEF, and research teams at Imperial College London and ETH Zurich. Comparative analyses often cite outcomes from integrated assessment models developed at Princeton, Stanford's Energy Modeling Forum, Potsdam Institute, and Paul Scherrer Institute to evaluate mitigation pathways and policy options.

Category:Climate change scenarios