You make good points. I considered that the increase in aerosols for that projection might have influenced the net-zero date, but I see from the 1900's comparison graphs that they have a lesser relative effect.

I think you're looking at the CO2 output only graph, i suspect perhaps in aggregate they provide net zero for 2050.

In P12 Box SPM.1.1, and P14 note 25 (explicitly), both state net zero for that date.

It's also possible the graph doesn't align to the notes due to an error.

Ah, you are correct. This isn't clear from the table on P13, the 'total warming' note underneath makes that ambiguous.

I would note though that SSP1-2.6 also describes a net zero by 2050 followed by negative emissions, but still sees a temperature increase by 2100.

The (b) table doesn't seem to show a reduction in temperatures even under the most optimistic case.

SSP1-1.9 shows the total observed temperature increasing (the lighter part of the bar), something like +0.4°C. The darker part is warming to date.

The two optimistic scenarios describe net zero by 2050, followed by net negative emissions into 2081-2100.

 

However your general point that warming can still be managed is likely correct.

Basically cheating by not growing it in the soil.

Using water they can take some of the nutrients out of the ground, then pipe that to a hydroponics greenhouse where they grow without soil.