← Back to scans

Will the world pass 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels before 2050?

KXWARMING-50 · Climate and Weather · 2026-05-08
71%
Agent
76%
Market Price
-5.0%
Edge
55%
Confidence
Volume: 13,302
Spread: 2.0c
Days to resolution: 8638
Markets in event: 1
Final Rationale
My independent estimate of 73% rests on solid physics: current anomaly ~1.5°C (ERA5) plus 24 years of ~0.02°C/yr trend reaches ~1.95°C, with single-year El Niño excursions of 0.1-0.2°C providing multiple crossing opportunities before 2050. I PARTIALLY ACCEPT the critic's methodology concerns — SQ4 does double-count the market signal and the sub-questions are highly correlated, so I adjust down by ~2pp toward the Monte Carlo result of 61% and the IPCC base rate. I REJECT the resolution-ambiguity challenge as a major driver since the question text explicitly says 'in any calendar year,' confirming single-year resolution. I do NOT defer to the 76% market price given VERY_LOW volume and a 0.98 bid/ask spread — it's essentially noise, and the small convergence is coincidental rather than informative.
Price vs. prediction
How the market moved after the agent's call. Solid blue line is the actual market price; dashed line is the agent's static forecast at $t{=}0$.
$n = 58$ follow-ups
Re-scan Context
This market has been scanned before. Previous predictions:
DatePredictedMarket PriceConfidence
2026-05-01 78% 80% 55%
2026-04-06 68% 81% 45%
1. Planner Opus · Fermi decomposition + tool plan
Tools chosen: kalshi_data kalshi_orderbook article_search web_search wikipedia_lookup code_execution
Sub-questions (Fermi decomposition)
  1. Will extrapolation of current warming trends (~0.02C/year) reach +2.0°C above pre-industrial levels by 2050? (w=0.35)
  2. Do the majority of major climate models (CMIP6 ensemble) project global mean surface temperature exceeding +2.0°C above pre-industrial levels before 2050 under current emissions trajectories? (w=0.30)
  3. Will global greenhouse gas emissions remain on a trajectory inconsistent with preventing 2°C breach before 2050 (i.e., will insufficient decarbonization occur)? (w=0.20)
  4. Does current prediction market pricing reflect a greater than 50% probability of 2°C breach before 2050? (w=0.15)
Planner reasoning
This question asks whether the annual global mean surface temperature anomaly will reach or exceed +2.0C above pre-industrial levels in ANY calendar year before 2050. Key considerations: (1) Current anomaly is approximately +1.45-1.55C as of 2024-2025; the gap to 2.0C is roughly 0.45-0.55C. (2) The warming trend is approximately 0.018-0.025C/year, meaning the trend-based crossing point is around 2040-2055 depending on assumptions. (3) Resolution requires only a single calendar year to exceed 2.0C, not a multi-decadal average - this is a LOWER bar than the Paris Agreement definition. El Nino years can spike 0.1-0.2C above trend, meaning a strong El Nino in the late 2030s or 2040s could trigger resolution even if the underlying trend has not yet reached 2C. (4) IPCC AR6 under SSP2-4.5 shows median crossing of 2C around 2040-2050, with significant probability before 2050. Under SSP1-2.6, crossing is less likely before 2050. Current emissions trajectories are closer to SSP2-4.5 or SSP3-7.0. (5) The temporal dynamics favor YES: with 24 years remaining and the anomaly already at ~1.5C, only modest continuation of observed trends is needed. The key uncertainty is whether aggressive decarbonization could prevent this. Historical emissions trajectories suggest insufficient action to keep warming below 2C by 2050. Reference class: IPCC AR6 assessed ~50-67% likelihood of exceeding 2C before 2050 under intermediate scenarios, rising to near-certainty under high scenarios.
2. Research Parallel tool calls · legacy v2
ToolStatusTimeItemsSummary
kalshi_data OK 2.9s -
kalshi_orderbook OK 0.5s -
article_search OK 1.4s -
web_search OK 60.8s -
wikipedia_lookup OK 3.3s -
code_execution OK 2.7s -
3. Evidence Synthesis Sonnet · 17 items · legacy v2
#StrengthCredibilityDirectionSourceClaimPriced In
1 STRONG 92 ↑ UP web_search 2025 global surface temperature was approximately 1.47°C above pre-industrial levels (Copernicus/ERA5), following 1.60°C in 2024; the long-term warming trend is estimated at ~1.4°C above pre-industrial. Yes
2 STRONG 72 ↑ UP code_execution Linear extrapolation of current warming trends shows 2°C is crossed around 2044 (high trend: 0.028°C/yr), 2049 (mid trend: 0.022°C/yr), or 2054 (low trend: 0.018°C/yr) — meaning the mid and high trend cases cross before 2050. Yes
3 STRONG 85 ↑ UP article_search WMO data (May 2025) indicates Earth will cross the 1.5°C threshold in approximately two years, with the accelerated timeline driven by higher-than-expected temperatures and diminishing aerosol cooling. Yes
4 MODERATE 78 ↑ UP article_search Scientists noted in January 2026 that 2025 was a 'warning shot' and that the past three years suggest warming could be speeding up, with 2023-2025 forming the three hottest years on record. Yes
5 WEAK 52 NEUTRAL article_search December 2025 article raises questions about how much Earth has warmed by examining the pre-industrial baseline, suggesting measurement uncertainty could shift the apparent gap to 2°C. No
6 MODERATE 88 NEUTRAL web_search NOAA reports 2025 global temperatures at 1.3°C above pre-industrial, while ERA5/Copernicus reports 1.47°C — different baselines and methodologies create a 0.17°C spread in current anomaly estimates. Yes
7 MODERATE 68 ↑ UP article_search November 2025 reports indicate the world is on track for 'catastrophic warming' and that the worst climate impacts are 'unfolding decades earlier than expected,' consistent with models projecting >2°C before 2050. Yes
8 MODERATE 80 ↑ UP article_search WMO and UK Met Office (May 2025) forecast an 80% chance of breaking another annual temperature record in the next five years, indicating continued upward trajectory consistent with models projecting early 2°C breach. Yes
9 WEAK 60 NEUTRAL wikipedia_lookup The 1.5°C target Wikipedia article confirms the IPCC uses 1850-1900 as the pre-industrial baseline, consistent with the question's resolution criteria, but provides no direct CMIP6 model output for 2°C timing. Yes
10 STRONG 85 ↑ UP web_search The IPCC AR6 (referenced in question context) found under SSP2-4.5 a median crossing of 2°C around 2040-2050 with significant probability before 2050; current trajectories are closer to SSP2-4.5 or SSP3-7.0. Yes
11 STRONG 75 ↑ UP article_search November 2025 reports state that 'three decades of global climate action have slowed the rise of planet-warming pollution, but it is far from enough,' confirming emissions remain well above a 2°C-compatible pathway. Yes
12 STRONG 82 ↑ UP article_search WMO (May 2025) notes greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise globally despite growth of renewable energy, and the accelerated warming timeline is partly due to continued emissions increases. Yes
13 MODERATE 72 ↑ UP article_search World Weather Attribution research (April 2026) confirms extreme heat events in March 2026 were 'virtually impossible' without human-caused climate change, reinforcing continued anthropogenic forcing. No
14 MODERATE 65 ↑ UP article_search Despite ongoing climate action, global appetite to tackle the crisis is waning according to November 2025 scientific reports, reducing the probability of dramatic near-term decarbonization. Yes
15 STRONG 70 ↑ UP code_execution Kalshi market KXWARMING-50 is priced at 0.76 (76%), with a 7-day trend of -0.05 and 30-day trend of -0.05, suggesting the prediction market assigns a high probability (>50%) to 2°C breach before 2050. Yes
16 WEAK 45 NEUTRAL code_execution The Kalshi orderbook for KXWARMING-50 shows very thin liquidity (yes_bid=0.01, no_bid=0.01, spread=0.98, depth=19153), suggesting the 76% price may reflect limited trading activity and should be treated cautiously. Yes
17 MODERATE 55 ↑ UP code_execution The Monte Carlo simulation produced a probability estimate of 0.61 (61%) for the 2°C breach before 2050, lower than the current Kalshi market price of 76%. No
Information Gaps
  • No direct CMIP6 ensemble model output was retrieved showing the fraction of models projecting 2°C exceedance before 2050 under current trajectories (sq2 is poorly evidenced by primary model data)
  • No quantitative global GHG emissions trajectory data (e.g., IEA, Global Carbon Project 2025 report) was retrieved to confirm emissions remain on SSP2-4.5 or higher trajectory
  • The Kalshi market volume of 74.3 is extremely low, making the 76% price unreliable as a signal — no data on comparable prediction markets (Metaculus, Polymarket) was obtained
  • No information on whether aerosol forcing changes (e.g., from shipping emissions regulations since 2020) may be accelerating warming faster than trend extrapolation suggests
  • No data on El Niño/La Niña forecasts for the 2030s-2040s that could reveal probability of temperature spikes sufficient to trigger resolution in any single year
  • The December 2025 article about pre-industrial baseline uncertainty was not fully retrievable — this could materially affect the gap-to-2°C calculation
  • No specific IPCC AR6 WG1 Table SPM.1 or equivalent data showing probability distributions for 2°C crossing year under different scenarios was retrieved
Key Uncertainties
  • El Niño variability: a strong El Niño in the late 2030s or early 2040s could spike temperatures 0.1-0.2°C above trend, potentially triggering resolution even if the long-term trend has not reached 2°C
  • Rate of decarbonization: an unexpectedly rapid energy transition (accelerated by technology cost declines or policy shifts) could slow warming sufficiently to avoid 2°C before 2050
  • Aerosol feedback uncertainty: if shipping emissions reductions (IMO 2020) have already accelerated warming, the underlying trend may be faster than historical ~0.02°C/yr
  • Pre-industrial baseline definition: different methodologies yield 0.13-0.30°C different current anomaly estimates, which shifts the crossing date by several years in either direction
  • Climate sensitivity uncertainty: if equilibrium climate sensitivity is at the high end (~4-5°C per doubling CO2), crossing 2°C before 2050 becomes near-certain; at the low end (~2.5°C), it is less likely
  • Carbon sink saturation: if natural land and ocean carbon sinks are weakening faster than expected (as suggested by recent research), atmospheric CO2 could rise faster, accelerating warming
  • The resolution criterion (any single calendar year) vs. sustained warming: this is a lower bar than the Paris Agreement definition, materially increasing the probability compared to assessments focused on long-term averages
Market Context
Price: 0.76 · 7d: -0.05 · 30d: -0.05
Volume: VERY_LOW — volume of 74.3 is extremely thin · Depth: VERY_SHALLOW — bid/ask spread of 0.98 with yes_bid and no_bid both at 0.01 indicates nearly no active market making
Reliability: LOW — the 76% price likely reflects limited price discovery due to negligible trading volume and near-zero orderbook depth; should not be treated as a reliable market signal
4. Independent Forecaster Opus · No market price · legacy v2 Did NOT see market price
Independent estimate: 73% (57% confidence)
base rate
74%
60% conf
evidence driven
76%
60% conf
contrarian
70%
50% conf
Spread
6pp
Low disagreement
sq1: Will extrapolation of current warming trends reach +2.0°C by 2050?
72%
Current anomaly ~1.45-1.55°C (ERA5). With 24 years to 2050 and trend of 0.018-0.028°C/yr, mid and high trend cases cross 2°C before 2050. Critically, the question only requires ONE calendar year to exceed 2°C — El Niño years can spike 0.1-0.2°C above trend. Even at low trend (0.018°C/yr), trend reaches ~1.93°C by 2049, and a strong El Niño would push a single year over 2°C. Recent acceleration (2023-2025 forming three hottest years, aerosol forcing reduction) pushes UP by ~10%. Baseline uncertainty (NOAA vs ERA5 spread of 0.17°C) adds symmetric uncertainty. Estimate: 72%.
sq2: Do majority of CMIP6 models project >2°C before 2050 under current trajectories?
65%
IPCC AR6 SSP2-4.5 shows median 2°C crossing ~2040-2050; SSP3-7.0 earlier. Current emissions track SSP2-4.5 to SSP3-7.0. Under these scenarios, a substantial majority (likely >50%) of CMIP6 models cross 2°C before 2050, especially when accounting for single-year excursions. SSP1-2.6 models would not cross. Without direct ensemble data, and given some lower-sensitivity models, I estimate 65%.
sq3: Will emissions remain on a trajectory inconsistent with preventing 2°C before 2050?
88%
Strong evidence emissions continue to rise globally (WMO May 2025). Three decades of climate action 'far from enough.' Political appetite waning per Nov 2025 reports. To prevent 2°C breach (single year) before 2050 would require near-immediate dramatic decarbonization — extremely unlikely given current trajectories. Base rate of meeting ambitious climate targets historically near zero. Estimate: 88%.
sq4: Does prediction market pricing reflect >50% probability?
85%
Kalshi KXWARMING-50 priced at 76%, clearly >50%. Even discounting for thin liquidity, the price is well above the 50% threshold. Monte Carlo also shows 61%. Estimate: 85%.
Show full reasoning trace
base rate: Reference class: IPCC AR6 assessed ~50-67% probability of exceeding 2°C before 2050 under intermediate scenarios. The single-calendar-year resolution criterion (vs multi-decadal) raises this by perhaps 10-15 percentage points because El Niño excursions provide multiple opportunities.
evidence updates: Current anomaly of ~1.5°C with 24 years remaining and trend of 0.02°C/yr means trend alone reaches ~1.95°C by 2049. Acceleration evidence (2023-2025 hottest years, aerosol forcing changes) pushes UP. Continued emissions growth pushes UP. Single-year resolution criterion + ~6-8 expected El Niño events over 24 years creates multiple paths to YES.
combination method: Weighted average across 4 sub-questions, with adjustment for positive correlation (they share underlying physical drivers).
final: Forecast 74%. Main downside risks: rapid decarbonization (low probability), low climate sensitivity, baseline measurement issues. Main upside drivers: trend math + El Niño excursions + lower bar of single-year resolution.
ensemble: {'ensemble_count': 3, 'perspectives': {'base_rate': {'p_yes': 0.74, 'confidence': 0.6}, 'evidence_driven': {'p_yes': 0.76, 'confidence': 0.6}, 'contrarian': {'p_yes': 0.7, 'confidence': 0.5}}, 'spread': 0.06, 'individual_p_yes': {'base_rate': 0.74, 'evidence_driven': 0.76, 'contrarian': 0.7}}
5. Devil's Advocate Sonnet · legacy v2 Market price revealed
Reasoning Flaw Missing Info Asymmetric Evidence
Challenges
  1. SQ4 (does market price reflect >50%) is a degenerate sub-question that essentially double-counts the market signal as if it were independent evidence. Including it in a weighted average inflates the forecast artificially, especially given the market has VERY_LOW volume and VERY_SHALLOW orderbook — the forecaster acknowledges this but still weights it at 85%. This sub-question should either be dropped or down-weighted significantly.
  2. Combination method is unclear: simple weighted average of 0.72, 0.65, 0.88, 0.85 = 0.775, but the final is 0.733. The sub-questions are also highly correlated (all driven by the same physical/emissions trajectory), so averaging them as quasi-independent signals is methodologically questionable. SQ3 (emissions trajectory) and SQ1 (trend extrapolation) are nearly the same question.
  3. The 'single-year excursion' argument is treated as a strong upward driver, but the question wording 'pass 2 degrees' may require sustained crossing rather than a single anomalous year — the forecaster doesn't examine the resolution criteria carefully. If resolution requires a multi-year average or a specific dataset's annual mean, the probability could be materially lower. This is a significant information gap not flagged.
  4. Monte Carlo gave 61% but this was down-weighted in favor of higher estimates without clear justification. The MC result is arguably the most principled estimate and deserves more weight, especially given acknowledged uncertainty in baseline (NOAA 1.3°C vs ERA5 1.47°C — a 0.17°C gap that materially shifts crossing probability).
  5. Baseline measurement uncertainty is treated as 'symmetric' but actually asymmetric for this question: if NOAA's lower baseline is correct, current warming is 1.3°C and 2°C is further away, reducing probability. The choice of dataset for resolution matters enormously and isn't pinned down.
Suggested adjustment: -5pp
Adjust down modestly because (1) SQ4 double-counts the market and inflates the average, (2) sub-questions are highly correlated and shouldn't be averaged as independent, (3) the Monte Carlo result of 61% deserves more weight, and (4) resolution criteria ambiguity (single-year vs sustained, which dataset) should widen uncertainty toward the base rate of ~65%. This is not about market conformity — the market is unreliable here — but about methodological issues in the aggregation.
Market comparison: Forecaster: 73.3%, Market: 76% (but VERY_LOW volume, VERY_SHALLOW orderbook, LOW reliability). The market is essentially noise here and shouldn't drive adjustment. The small divergence is well within reasonable disagreement, and the market should not be used as ground truth given liquidity issues.
6. Aggregator Opus · final calibrated forecast
71% (55% confidence)
My independent estimate of 73% rests on solid physics: current anomaly ~1.5°C (ERA5) plus 24 years of ~0.02°C/yr trend reaches ~1.95°C, with single-year El Niño excursions of 0.1-0.2°C providing multiple crossing opportunities before 2050. I PARTIALLY ACCEPT the critic's methodology concerns — SQ4 does double-count the market signal and the sub-questions are highly correlated, so I adjust down by ~2pp toward the Monte Carlo result of 61% and the IPCC base rate. I REJECT the resolution-ambiguity challenge as a major driver since the question text explicitly says 'in any calendar year,' confirming single-year resolution. I do NOT defer to the 76% market price given VERY_LOW volume and a 0.98 bid/ask spread — it's essentially noise, and the small convergence is coincidental rather than informative.