@RogerPielkeJr points out the reliance of climate alarmists on implausible RCP 8.5. In this thread, I'll show how Canadian govt report Our Changing Climate nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrca… abused scenario to mislead on sea level rise, which is offset in most places in Canada by isostasy 
@RogerPielkeJr 2/ in most of Canada, especially Arctic, land is rising due to continuing isostatic rebound from last Ice Age (only ~12000 years ago) plus locally (Alaska-Yukon) from Little Ice Age. Only area of isostatic subsidence is Nova Scotia. (Also in East Coast US).
@RogerPielkeJr 3/ The 5 mm/year scale in above legend is approximately equal to global sea level rise (eustatic) expected in 21st C under RCP2.6 (44 cm) or RCP4.5 (53 cm), but works out to about 25-50 cm less than alarmist RCP8.5.
@RogerPielkeJr 4/ the difference becomes important in calculations of what is observed locally ("relative sea level"). In many locations where projected relative sea level would be negligible under RCP2.6 or RCP4.5, relative sea level rise will be a purported issue under RCP8.5.
@RogerPielkeJr 5/ without even looking at the Canadian government report, you can guess which scenario they used in their figure: RCP 8.5 and only RCP.5. This subterfuge enabled them to include Vancouver and St Lawrence River areas as areas of concern for local sea level rise, when, under more
@RogerPielkeJr 6/ realistic scenarios RCP4.5 and RCP2.6, neither is really an area of concern for local sea level rise - as local isostatic rebound is more or less keeping pace with eustatic sea level rise.
@RogerPielkeJr 7/ the first figure on local isostasy is taken from the Canadian government report. The scientists are well aware of the inter-relationship discussed here. Nonetheless, they chose an implausible and extreme scenario, presumably to enhance alarmism.
@RogerPielkeJr 8/ by way of comparison, in 2016, Cdn and US governments, at urging of NGOs, adopted new lake level management plan. June lake levels in 2019 were 81 cm above 1954-2016 average (post-dam). But Cdn govt has zero interest in actual damage and no intention of lowering lake level
