Climate scenario selector v1.0 · based on NSW DCCEEW guidance
An interactive working of the NSW DCCEEW guidance Selecting climate scenarios — key criteria and principles (June 2026) on choosing Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs).
This tool is a starting point, not the rulebook. It reproduces the selection criteria only and returns suggested minimums. It is not a substitute for the full guidance or for professional judgement — always read it alongside any result you rely on: Selecting climate scenarios — full guidance↗
Work through the four criteria yourself, or load a worked example — it shows the scenarios and rationale the guidance states for that application, with the four answers preloaded.
The four questions follow the guidance's logical sequence — setting the context, time horizons, risk appetite, model uncertainty. As the guidance notes, you may adapt the order to your context, decision type or stage of analysis: adjust any answer via the step tabs and finish the flow to run your variation through the recommendation engine.
Load a worked example
Summary of criteria and suggested minimum requirements (Table 5)
Additional scenarios or sensitivity testing may be required where exposure, uncertainty or consequences are high.
| Key criterion | Purpose | Suggested minimum requirement |
|---|---|---|
| Decision context | Purpose of the decision and type of climate risk (mitigation, physical, transition or hybrid) |
Mitigation: use SSP1-2.6 as the primary scenario. Physical or hybrid risk: use at least 2 SSPs, including one higher-emissions pathway (SSP3-7.0 or SSP5-8.5). Transition risk: use SSP1-2.6 or SSP2-4.5 as the primary scenario, with sensitivity testing. |
| Time horizon/ asset lifetime | How long the decision influences exposure, performance or future adaptation options |
2021–2040: use one SSP for screening-level analysis or short-lived decisions and assets. 2041–2060: use at least 2 SSPs spanning lower to higher emissions. 2081–2100: use 2 or more SSPs, including one associated with a higher-emissions pathway. Post-2100: include SSPs associated with high- or very high-emissions pathways and test for long-term lock-in risk where relevant to the decision context (e.g. sea-level rise). |
| Risk appetite/ consequence | Severity and reversibility of impacts if assumptions are wrong |
Where consequences are severe or irreversible, or where a high level of protection is required, SSPs associated with higher-emissions pathways are typically included. The use of a single scenario is typically not acceptable where failure could result in irreversible damage, harm or loss of life. |
| Model uncertainty | Uncertainty arising from differences between climate models |
Use multi-model ensembles by default. Do not rely on the ensemble mean alone. For high-consequence decisions, prioritise physically plausible worst-case outcomes and use model spread to bound (book-end) the range of plausible risk. |
Based on your four answers. This is a suggested starting point, not a complete or limiting set — add scenarios or sensitivity tests where exposure, uncertainty or consequences are high.
Decision profile
Projections: NARCliM2.0 is the endorsed climate projection dataset for NSW Government use (NSW Treasury 2026; Table 13).