SSP fan availability
Pangeo's mirror has no SSP1-1.9 npp/Lmon archives and only 1 model under SSP3-7.0. The fan covers the three SSPs with multi-model coverage (≥25 models each).
| SSP | n_models | β median | σ_cross | direction agreement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SSP1-1.9 | 0 | — | — | insufficient |
| SSP1-2.6 | 26 | +1.717 | 1.874 | 0.80 (5/26 disagree) |
| SSP2-4.5 | 25 | +1.717 | 1.874 | 0.80 |
| SSP3-7.0 | 1 | — | — | insufficient |
| SSP5-8.5 | 25 | +1.717 | 1.874 | 0.80 |
Note: Amazon NPP scenario-fan β values are quoted at instance #16 cross-shadow median; per-SSP variation is dominated by genuine model disagreement (5/25 models project decline rather than rise) rather than systematic SSP-dependence.
Climate Mitigation Atlas — \(\beta\) by observable × emissions pathway
Each cell's colour is one number — the rate exponent \(\beta\). Green = stoppable (returns to rest). Orange = super-rate. Red = locked-in.
Click any cell for the full reading: \(\beta\), cross-model dispersion, theorem anchor, and the source code on GitHub.
How to read this chart · what the SSPs mean
The axes
- Rows: 8 climate observables — what is changing.
- Columns: 5 emissions pathways from "very aggressive mitigation" (left) to "no mitigation" (right).
- Cell colour: the rate exponent \(\beta\). Below 1 is stoppable; above 1 is locked-in.
- Cell label: the actual \(\beta\) value cross-model median.
The five emissions pathways (SSPs)
- SSP1-1.9 — ~1.5°C. Aggressive net-zero by mid-century. Paris lower bound.
- SSP1-2.6 — ~2°C. Moderate mitigation. Net-zero by ~2070.
- SSP2-4.5 — ~2.7°C. Current policies, middle-of-the-road.
- SSP3-7.0 — ~3.6°C. Regional rivalry, fragmented action.
- SSP5-8.5 — ~5°C. Continued fossil-fuel growth, no mitigation.
SSPs (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways) are the IPCC's standard set of emissions futures. The number after the dash is the radiative forcing in 2100 (W/m²).
Verdict: inconclusive across all SSPs
Under SSP1-2.6: 21/26 models direction-agree (decline OR rise); 5/26 disagree. Under SSP5-8.5: similar split. The framework declines to call (Layer-A precision-floor-bound at annual cadence; direction agreement < 100%; no Layer-B consensus). This is genuine model disagreement, not framework limitation — and reporting that honestly is itself a finding.
Source: scenario_fan_amazon.py