If Hurricane Helene or Milton are confirmed to most likely be caused by climate engineering/geoengineering/weather manipulation before the end of 2024, this market will resolve to yes. Confirmation beyond a reasonable doubt is not required - a mere consensus of most likely will suffice. Intent behind the weather manipulation does not matter, accidents intended to cause another effect or experiments not intended to create a hurricane will also count. The resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting. Global warming caused by human-driven carbon emissions will not suffice for a yes resolution. However, e.g. cloud seeding experiments would count.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ75 | |
| 2 | Ṁ10 | |
| 3 | Ṁ5 | |
| 4 | Ṁ0 | |
| 5 | Ṁ0 |
The spirit of the market is clear. The obvious answer is "No".
Yet there is something worth pointing out regarding a more distal "cause", and that is regarding the hurricanes' intensity -- I'm sure there is an attribution study that could possibly be done from the accidental geo-engineering we have done that has increased ocean temps: the shipping sulfate rules put into effect 4 years ago:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/08/240812195932.htm:
"Last year marked Earth's warmest year on record. A new study finds that some of 2023's record warmth, nearly 20 percent, likely came as a result of reduced sulfur emissions from the shipping industry. Much of this warming concentrated over the northern hemisphere."
@parhizj To clarify, only events designed to impact the weather will qualify. If pollution ends up inadvertently affecting the weather, that will not clarify. But if a weather manipulation experiment intended to have good or benign effects on the weather goes wrong, or an intentional experiment intended to create a hurricane happens, that will qualify.