Some notes/queries on RCPs

So from my understanding. RCP 8.5 was the "worst-case scenario" proposed in 2014 at P*ris.

RCP 1.9 was the "aspirational goal" of the conference and that limited C02 emissions to below 1.5 by the end of the century. At this point we have been at 1.5 for more than a year but we aren't yet considered to have breached 1.5 because we haven't been at 1.5 for long enough yet. All signs point to us staying at 1.5 for the requisite period. As far as I'm aware.

RCP 4.5 was considered the intermediate option. With substantial but not stringent mitigation.

RCP 7 is the baseline scenario with no mitigation but also not increasing output.

RCP 8.5, again, was their worst case which involved increasing C02 output. One commenter mentions that this scenario involved predicting everyone going back to coal?

We are currently at 427ppm C02 which is below the predictions of RCP 8.5. As far as I can tell this ppm could fit from RCP 2.6 (next one after 1.9) up to RCP 7. There seems to be a split between those that think current estimates for C02 emissions match 4.5 and 7.

The big problem with this is that the RCPs take C02 in isolation and simply pretend that other GHGs don't exist. At least from what I can tell? Also of note is that much like everything official, it did not even remotely account for positive feedback loops and various complex climate systems we're increasingly coming to understand have massive implications for climate collapse. As well as whatever other complications are still entirely unpredicted by us. Again, from what I can gather.

Now onto this graph

This graph details C02 equivalents (C02E) - which is a measure of C02 and other similar gasses which contribute to global warming in a similar way. These gasses, like methane, have different warming affects but also different degrees of longevity in the environment. So CH4 stays for only 5 years but has a more pronounced warming effect. This figure, C02E, accounts for all these discrepancies and essentially translates all these other gasses into their equivalent impact to C02 to give us some very useful data. This is why the graph is higher across the board even before 2014.

If my understanding is correct how did Paris account for other gasses? We've always known methane, especially, was a big contributor coming from cows and melting permafrost. How could they predict the associated level of warming from various degrees of C02 output without ever accounting for other greenhouse gasses? Did they literally just decide to predict what was happening with C02 and leave it at that?

According to this graph we are essentially heading for mid century warming by 2030, well in excess of the predictions of RCP8.5. RCP 8.5 has sea level rise at an average of 0.3 meters by 2050. Which is goodbye Holland. As well as all the other complications from dead insects and ocean life and wet bulb temps and natural disasters.

Again, am I right? I want to be able to back myself up when I inevitably get told that the methodology is flawed in some way or another.

Please correct anything that seems wrong, I know I'm late to the thread so any insight is appreciated.