Contrast this with the 2012 effort. The appendix then did lay out two scenarios, starting with an SLR baseline of 12 to 65 cm over 50 years, then applying a fudge factor based upon theoretical but unverified empirically SLR acceleration over that period from the midpoint that made for a range of 27 to 45 cm. Finally, concatenating the 50-year assumptions to last through 2100, it came up with 50 and 100 cm. Those the CPRA membership then accepted.
Then Edwards enters office in early 2016 and in Nov., 2016, with essentially an all-new CPRA appointed by him, it went with scenarios of 100, 150, and 200 cm. Note that while in 2012 the ratios of final to initial scenarios were 1.85:1 and 2.33:1, in 2017 these inflated to 2.33:1, 2.38:1, and 2.44:1 -- keeping in mind the 2012 comparisons are 50-year to 88-year, meaning that had the initial range been calculated on a 88-year basis those come out much smaller, approximately 1.06:1 on the low end, 1.28:1 on the high end, instead of only somewhat smaller (not forgetting that both sets have the fudge factor built in, the necessity of which remains unproven).
In other words, while the 2012 CPRA in its forecasts ratified two figures not much larger than an initial range adjusted to 2100 values, the CPRA of 2017 approved three figures much higher than those of the initial range. The question remains: why did the new political appointees assign scenarios substantially relatively higher than their previous counterparts, when the science throughout did not change?