This article was first published on iklimriskleri.com and migrated with a July 2026 update.
Physical climate risk data is no longer just an ESG checkbox; it is a direct input to valuation, loan pricing, and capital allocation. Providers that look similar on the surface differ sharply in scientific rigor, verifiability, and defensibility under audit. The 12-question checklist below helps you screen them properly before you buy.
The 30-second summary
- The 12 questions fall along three axes: model and data quality, compliance and assurance, and future-proofing and local testing.
- A “black box” score whose sources cannot be documented is indefensible in front of auditors and regulators.
- Climate-disclosure reporting under IFRS S2 / ISSB has entered the limited assurance era — in Türkiye adopted as the Türkiye Sustainability Reporting Standards (TSRS); the BDDK guide expects scenario analyses to be integrated into İSEDES (the Turkish ICAAP).
- The first CMIP7 outputs are being released from mid-2026 onward; CMIP6 remains the valid reference, and the industry transition will run into 2027-2028.
Buyer’s Guide to Evaluating Physical Climate Risk Data — including benchmark criteria and sample answers: Access the Guide
Why now?
The market is full of tools promising “high-resolution maps” and “instant scores”; weak inputs are invisible at first glance, and the bill arrives later as mispricing, reputational damage, and audit findings. The timing is critical: climate disclosures under IFRS S2 / ISSB are entering the limited assurance audit era — in Türkiye through the TSRS regime — while the BDDK guide, in force since July 1, 2025, expects banks to integrate scenario analyses into İSEDES.
The 12 questions to ask before you buy
| # | Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Model transparency: Which GCMs/SSPs, bias corrections, and assumptions are used? | A score whose sources cannot be documented is indefensible in front of an auditor; a “black box” is unacceptable. |
| 2 | Scientific rigor: Is the method grounded in peer-reviewed literature, and are outputs validated against observations? | Nobody can vouch for the real-world grounding of a model that has never been confronted with observations. |
| 3 | Uncertainty handling: Are scenario ranges and confidence bands provided? | A product that gives you a single number for 2050 is not telling you what it does not know. |
| 4 | Downscaling and resolution: Are the downscaling method and grid detail documented? | Going from a hundred-kilometer grid down to building scale is where errors hide most easily. |
| 5 | Metric quality: Are the indicators clearly defined and linked to financial outcomes? | An indicator that cannot be translated into collateral value, business interruption, or damage remains decoration. |
| 6 | Multi-hazard coverage: Are compound effects such as extreme heat + low humidity + wildfire modeled? | Products that treat hazards one at a time systematically understate portfolio tail risk. |
| 7 | Currency and versioning: Are data and algorithm versions traceable; is there an API? | Being unable to explain why a score changed is an MRM finding in itself. |
| 8 | Regulatory readiness: Does it feed directly into IFRS S2 / TCFD templates (TSRS in Türkiye) and the İSEDES/ICAAP process? | Compliance is not a marketing line; it is a matter of output format. |
| 9 | Access and support: Beyond the dashboard, is there real access to experts and documentation? | The day you defend the methodology to your board or auditor, you need an expert across the table. |
| 10 | CMIP7 transition plan: What is the roadmap from CMIP6 to CMIP7? | The first CMIP7 outputs are being released from mid-2026 onward; the most pessimistic pathway, SSP5-8.5, was dropped from the new generation. CMIP6 remains the valid reference, but ask for the transition and comparability plan today. |
| 11 | Resilience under assurance audits: Are the methodology document, data lineage, and assumption list mature enough to pass an audit? | In the IFRS S2 limited assurance era (TSRS in Türkiye), climate inputs are now within the auditor’s scope; a provider without answers stalls the process. |
| 12 | Local backtesting: Does the model capture the events Türkiye has actually experienced? | The 2025 wildfire season spread across 53 provinces and, per EFFIS figures, burned more than 162,000 hectares; the Tahtalı Dam fell to 0.13% of capacity in December 2025; floods and landslides in Hatay claimed 4 lives in May 2026. If the map shows none of that, why trust its 2050 output? |
Why us?
UrClimate Score produces high-resolution layers and location-based scores built specifically for Türkiye; UrClimate Next adds scenario and uncertainty bands, multi-hazard analysis, version tracking, an API, and expert support. Output sets are IFRS S2 / TCFD-aligned (and TSRS-ready for Türkiye), and the documentation is audit-ready.
FAQ
Why is climate risk data a “capital decision”?
Wrong or opaque scores directly affect valuation, collateral, and loan terms.
Why are uncertainty bands essential?
A single value breeds overconfidence; scenarios and confidence intervals make decisions more robust.
Is it risky to buy climate data before CMIP7 lands?
No. CMIP6 remains the valid reference for TCFD/ISSB- and CSRD-aligned analyses; what matters is that the provider can document its CMIP7 transition plan today.
