Doubling CO₂ raises equilibrium temperature by more than 3 °C.
Would doubling preindustrial carbon dioxide eventually warm Earth by more than 3 °C under the contract’s fixed conditions? This is long-run warming, not a forecast for a particular year.
No recorded prices yet. Trading prices appear once pools are live.
The single AI dot opens that round's saved record. Each dot is one recorded reading, thinned to hourly for readability; the underlying samples are every few minutes. The line between two dots is not a measurement. How the AI estimate is made.How to read this chart
Weekly AI estimate
The average of three models reading the same evidence. It is an estimate, not proof the hypothesis holds, and it does not set the pool price.
- Range
- 8–57%
- Verdict
- Undecided
The panel's confident binary this round Undecided the models did not all agree
Market definition · YES, NO and evidence rules
This is the frozen contract wording. Read the YES and NO tests, the evidence requirements and the undecided cases before taking a position.
Canonical title
Preindustrial Charney climate sensitivity exceeds 3 °C.
Exact hypothesis · technical wording
The global mean surface-air temperature increase at equilibrium after atmospheric CO2 is held at twice its preindustrial concentration exceeds 3 kelvin, with preindustrial ice-sheet geometry, vegetation distribution, land use, other greenhouse-gas concentrations and external forcing fixed. Water-vapour, lapse-rate, cloud and sea-ice feedbacks respond; carbon-cycle and ice-sheet feedbacks are excluded. This is actual equilibrium sensitivity, not transient warming, a model ensemble mean or an effective sensitivity inferred by assuming today's feedback pattern never changes.
Each round reads the evidence that was public at a stated cutoff. Later evidence goes into a later round; the market itself has no expiry date.
How the evidence cutoff is fixed
A round only counts evidence published before its own cutoff time, and the round's number is that timestamp. So a round cannot borrow a later cutoff, and an earlier round's judgment cannot be reused for a later one. The hypothesis wording, the resolution criteria and the methodology identifier were hashed into the market account at creation, which is what stops any of them being edited afterwards.
Resolution criteria
YES: Two independent multi-line assessments combining instrumental energy balance, paleoclimate and process constraints place the 95% interval for this exact quantity wholly above 3 kelvin, explicitly accounting for state/pattern dependence and dependence among evidence lines. NO: The same eligible assessments place the 95% upper bound <= 3 kelvin. A best estimate on one side, an uncertainty interval crossing 3, seasonal or volcanic feedback alone, or one model simulation is UNDECIDED. The boundary is a convention, not a scientifically established danger threshold. Reference sources: IPCC AR6 WGI chapter 7 (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/). Evidence policy: use public primary research with methods and uncertainty, plus the named reference sources below. A preprint can inform the estimate but cannot alone meet a terminal criterion; require a peer-reviewed primary result and an independent reproduction using non-overlapping observations or independently prepared samples, unless this is a mathematical proof or the specific criterion instead requires independently implemented calculations. Report data provenance, exclusions, calibration, statistical model and systematic uncertainty. Independence means different data acquisition, not two papers reanalysing the same sample. For a quantitative terminal test, both independent results must meet the stated threshold; disagreement or an interval crossing the boundary means UNDECIDED. Use the final corrected version public at the signed round's evidence cutoff (UTC); exclude later evidence until a later eligible round. Every report in a terminal round must use the same cutoff, covered by the verified signed context and enforced by the configured terminal protocol; a different cutoff requires a new eligible round, never reinterpretation of a signed report or mutation of an immutable binding. This market has no calendar expiry. Retracted findings cannot supply a terminal result. If a named source disappears, use its DOI/publisher or an archived identical version, then an equivalent primary publication applying these unchanged definitions; if none is accessible, remain UNDECIDED, never substitute a different test. Missing data, failed replication, a null search outside the specified domain, or an untested alternative is not automatically NO. These are instructions for evidence assessment, not an automatic truth oracle: scientific interpretation and systematic-error judgment remain. Settlement follows the configured platform mode: terminal mode requires one valid round with all three frozen models returning the same explicit YES or NO and criterion_met=true; any UNDECIDED, failure or disagreement leaves it unresolved. Legacy proposal/challenge mode requires its recorded review process. Model agreement does not prove scientific truth. Invalidity is not NO and this text does not authorize a refund or cancellation: only a cancellation rule disclosed before exposure, if the configured contract supports it, can apply. Otherwise pause new entries and preserve holders' existing rights. Never reinterpret terms after listing.
The definition does not change when an AI estimate changes. Read the listing policy and this market's settlement status.
How each model argued
Three models read the same evidence and did not fully agree. Their average is 0.38.
This round ran under methodology panel-v9. Short excerpts are below; the round 5 page keeps the full answers, sources and raw responses. The current methodology and example requests do not reconstruct this historical round's exact request.
OpenAI UNDECIDED 0.57
openai/gpt-6.1-sol
I interpret the target as fixed-vegetation equilibrium sensitivity, not effective sensitivity or AR6’s broader feedback convention. Evidence modestly favors exceeding 3 K, but the principal multi-line constraints span that boundary and do…
Would change this view: Two independent, exact-target assessments with dependence-aware 95% intervals wholly above 3 K—or both wholly at or below it—would change my verdict.
Anthropic UNDECIDED 0.08
anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5
AR6 gives a best-estimate ECS of 3 K with a very likely range of 2–5 K. That interval crosses 3 K, so it fails the YES condition that the 95% interval lie wholly above 3 K. It also fails the NO condition that the upper bound be ≤3 K. No…
Would change this view: Two independent, peer-reviewed multi-line assessments, each accounting for pattern dependence, that put the 95% lower bound for fixed-boundary-condition equilibrium warming above 3 K would move this to YES.
Full explanation from Anthropic→xAI UNDECIDED 0.50
x-ai/grok-4.7
No eligible multi-line assessment places the 95% interval for this equilibrium sensitivity wholly above 3 K, nor is the 95% upper bound at or below 3 K. IPCC AR6 and Sherwood et al. 2020 center near 3°C (about 2–5 K and 2.3–4.7 K); Cooper…
Would change this view: Two independent peer-reviewed multi-line 95% intervals wholly above 3 K, or a 95% upper bound ≤3 K, would flip the verdict.
What moved the number
This is a new contract, not a migrated position or a continuation of old forecast history. The initial 0.50 is an initialization convention, not an AI forecast or an assessed scientific probability. Reference links are background sources,…
OpenAI estimated 0.57. I interpret the target as fixed-vegetation equilibrium sensitivity, not effective sensitivity or AR6’s broader feedback convention. Evidence modestly favors exceeding 3 K, but the principal multi-line constraints…
This round's saved score, answers and sources →Live panel did not return all three estimates (OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI failed or gave an unusable answer). A round is only live when all three are valid, so this round is a placeholder at the previous score rather than an average of two.
This round's saved score, answers and sources →OpenAI estimated 0.65. The evidence modestly favors sensitivity above 3 K, particularly because actual equilibrium warming can exceed effective sensitivity. However, the retrieved multiline assessments retain substantial uncertainty across…
This round's saved score, answers and sources →AI estimate scheduled: an independent three-model panel reads the published definition and evidence every week. New positions are still closed for this market, so the estimate is here to read, not to trade against.
The evidence packet · 4 entries
What the panel was shown when this round ran. A row with no source link is a description only, and the panel is told so.
IPCC AR6 WGI chapter 7
ContextAuthoritative assessment of ECS, uncertainty and effective versus equilibrium feedbacks; its vegetation convention must not silently replace this contract's fixed vegetation.
Source linkRequired positive observation
SupportingTwo independent multi-line assessments combining instrumental energy balance, paleoclimate and process constraints place the 95% interval for this exact quantity wholly above 3 kelvin, explicitly accounting for state/pattern dependence and dependence among evidence lines.
Description only · no source link recordedRequired contrary observation
ContraryThe same eligible assessments place the 95% upper bound <= 3 kelvin. A best estimate on one side, an uncertainty interval crossing 3, seasonal or volcanic feedback alone, or one model simulation is UNDECIDED. The boundary is a convention, not a scientifically established danger threshold.
Description only · no source link recordedEligibility and unresolved outcomes
MethodEvidence policy: use public primary research with methods and uncertainty, plus the named reference sources below. A preprint can inform the estimate but cannot alone meet a terminal criterion; require a peer-reviewed primary result and an independent reproduction using non-overlapping observations or independently prepared samples, unless this is a mathematical proof or the specific criterion instead requires independently implemented calculations. Report data provenance, exclusions, calibration, statistical model and systematic uncertainty. Independence means different data acquisition, not two papers reanalysing the same sample. For a quantitative terminal test, both independent results must meet the stated threshold; disagreement or an interval crossing the boundary means UNDECIDED. Use the final corrected version public at the signed round's evidence cutoff (UTC); exclude later evidence until a later eligible round. Every report in a terminal round must use the same cutoff, covered by the verified signed context and enforced by the configured terminal protocol; a different cutoff requires a new eligible round, never reinterpretation of a signed report or mutation of an immutable binding. This market has no calendar expiry. Retracted findings cannot supply a terminal result. If a named source disappears, use its DOI/publisher or an archived identical version, then an equivalent primary publication applying these unchanged definitions; if none is accessible, remain UNDECIDED, never substitute a different test. Missing data, failed replication, a null search outside the specified domain, or an untested alternative is not automatically NO. These are instructions for evidence assessment, not an automatic truth oracle: scientific interpretation and systematic-error judgment remain. Settlement follows the configured platform mode: terminal mode requires one valid round with all three frozen models returning the same explicit YES or NO and criterion_met=true; any UNDECIDED, failure or disagreement leaves it unresolved. Legacy proposal/challenge mode requires its recorded review process. Model agreement does not prove scientific truth. Invalidity is not NO and this text does not authorize a refund or cancellation: only a cancellation rule disclosed before exposure, if the configured contract supports it, can apply. Otherwise pause new entries and preserve holders' existing rights. Never reinterpret terms after listing.
Description only · no source link recordedPast estimates
Every weekly estimate, newest first
| Date | Estimate | Range |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 10, 2026 09:36 PM EST | 38% | 8–57% |
| Nov 09, 2026 09:13 AM EST | 41% | no live reading |
| Nov 02, 2026 09:13 AM EST | 41% | no live reading |
| Oct 26, 2026 10:13 AM EDT | 41% | no live reading |
| Oct 19, 2026 07:01 PM EDT | 41% | 7–65% |
Discussion
Start a threadNo threads yet. Argue about the evidence, the panel, or whether the hypothesis is worded fairly.
Anyone can join the discussion. Sign in with a wallet to keep your threads together.