Round 1
One saved weekly assessment of Preindustrial Charney climate sensitivity exceeds 3 °C., kept as it was published. It is an estimate from three models reading the evidence, not proof the hypothesis holds, and it did not set any price.
- Published
- Oct 19, 2026 07:01 PM EDT
- Estimate
- 41%
- Range the models covered
- 7–65%
- Confident binary
- No unanimous verdict this round.
- Methodology
- panel-v9
- Round hash
8860ceac471898ca05be9423314171bb62c058b37d87feb18e2a2d4a35446c9d
The hash commits to this round's recorded bytes. It does not prove the wording is sound or that the science is right.
openai/gpt-6.1-sol
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 3 K; neither supplies the required pair of independent 95% intervals wholly on one side. Their sensitivity definitions also require reconciliation with fixed vegetation and fully equilibrated feedbacks. The stated resolution criterion is therefore unmet.
What would change this view: Two independently acquired, definition-matched multiline assessments with 95% intervals wholly above or below 3 K would resolve the main uncertainty.
anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5
The best published multi-line assessments put the 95% range for ECS well across 3 K. AR6 gives a very likely range of 2–5 K and a best estimate of 3 K, and Sherwood et al. 2020 gives about 2.3–4.7 K at 95%. Neither the YES criterion (interval wholly above 3 K) nor the NO criterion (upper bound ≤3 K) is met. I did not run a live search, so this rests on the AR6 and Sherwood et al. assessments as I recall them.
What would change this view: Two independent peer-reviewed multi-line assessments, each accounting for pattern dependence, that give a 95% lower bound above 3 K (YES) or an upper bound of 3 K or less (NO) for this exact quantity.
No sources recorded for this answer.
x-ai/grok-4.7
IPCC AR6 Chapter 7 places ECS at a best estimate of 3°C with a very likely (5–95%) range of 2–5°C, so the 95% interval crosses 3 K. Sherwood et al. (2020) likewise gives 2.3–4.7 K (5–95%) for effective sensitivity, not a 95% interval wholly above 3 K for this exact equilibrium quantity. Neither the YES nor the NO terminal bar is met.
What would change this view: Two independent peer-reviewed multi-line assessments with 95% intervals for this exact ECS wholly above 3 K would move this to YES.
Round 1: score 0.41
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 3… Anthropic estimated 0.07. The best published multi-line assessments put the 95% range for ECS well across 3 K. AR6 gives a very likely range of 2–5 K and a best estimate of 3 K, and Sherwood et al. 2020 gives about 2.3–4.7 K at 95%. Neither the… xAI estimated 0.52. IPCC AR6 Chapter 7 places ECS at a best estimate of 3°C with a very likely (5–95%) range of 2–5°C, so the 95% interval crosses 3 K. Sherwood et al. (2020) likewise gives 2.3–4.7 K (5–95%) for effective sensitivity, not… The panel disagreed by 0.58, so read this average as soft. The three models did not return a unanimous confident binary, so the market is not decided.
No audit bundle is recorded for this round. A bundle from another round is not substituted for it.