Yes WG1 said the models were unreliable over the short term. Warming was roughly equivalent to the RCP 2.6 or 2.6 w/m2 increase by 2100..
WG2 and WG3 appear to have used RCP 8.5 or an increase to 8.5 w/m2 within the same time frame.
'Box TS.6 | The New Representative Concentration Pathway Scenarios and Coupled Model Intercomparison
Project Phase 5 Models
Future anthropogenic emissions of GHGs, aerosol particles and other forcing agents such as land use change are dependent on socio
-
economic factors, and may be affected by global geopolitical agreements to control those emissions to achieve mitigation. AR4 made
extensive use of the SRES scenarios that do not include additional climate initiatives, which means that no scenarios were available
that explicitly assume implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or the emissions
targets of the Kyoto Protocol. However, GHG emissions are directly affected by non-climate change policies designed for a wide range
of other purposes. The SRES scenarios were developed using a sequential approach, that is, socioeconomic factors fed into emissions
scenarios, which were then used in simple climate models to determine concentrations of GHGs, and other agents required to drive the
more complex AOGCMs. In this report, outcomes of climate simulations that use new scenarios (some of which include implied policy
actions to achieve mitigation) referred to as RCPs are assessed. These RCPs represent a larger set of mitigation scenarios and were
selected to have different targets in terms of radiative forcing at 2100 (about 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5 W m
–2
; Figure TS.15).
The scenarios
should be considered plausible and illustrative, and do not have probabilities attached to them. {12.3.1; Box 1.1} (bold added)
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf
Forum
Pages: 
