Round 5
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
- Nov 10, 2026 09:36 PM EST
- Estimate
- 38%
- Range the models covered
- 8–57%
- Confident binary
- No unanimous verdict this round.
- Methodology
- panel-v9
- Round hash
d5da1c9bf86410fe4c0e16808a77ae39494acbdbaf7b4a85ae468d225f555f4f
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
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 not provide two independent assessments meeting the specified threshold. Pattern dependence, shared observations and the vegetation mismatch prevent a definite verdict.
What 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/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 second independent assessment places the interval wholly on either side. I did not run a live search, so I did not check for newer work.
What 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.
No sources recorded for this answer.
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 et al. 2024 still crosses 3 K. The boundary-crossing intervals require UNDECIDED.
What 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.
Round 5: score 0.38
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 span… Anthropic estimated 0.08. 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… xAI estimated 0.50. 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… The panel disagreed by 0.49, 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.