Resolution algorithm:
At the end of January 2025, consider the most recently published monthly global temperature anomaly data from NASA, in the Land+Ocean column here, or else wherever they publish data with the same meaning. (It has to be a list of numbers; a sentence in an article saying that a month had a record anomaly does not count.)
If any number for one of the months in 2024 is strictly higher than all the numbers for the months before 2024, the market resolves YES. Otherwise, it resolves NO. If NASA has not published the relevant data by the end of January 2025, it resolves N/A instead.
I may trade in this market.
Edit 11/8: The anomaly has to be higher than the anomaly of every past month, not just the same month of every past year. For example, if the anomaly for July 2024 is higher than the anomaly for every past July, that is not enough for a YES resolution: it also has to be higher than the anomaly for every past January, February, and so on.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ527 | |
| 2 | Ṁ486 | |
| 3 | Ṁ283 | |
| 4 | Ṁ34 | |
| 5 | Ṁ15 |
@StevenK resolves no
Sept 2023 higher than all months in 2024 per
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Monthly_Mean_Global_Surface_Temperature/graph.txt
@Eliza Sorry, yeah, I missed the notification in a sea of other notifications. I had been planning to wait until end of Jan as per the market description, but it seems extremely unlikely that the resolution would change, so I agree with the resolution. (If the market description says end of Jan, there's no expectation to resolve it earlier, though, right?)
(If the market description says end of Jan, there's no expectation to resolve it earlier, though, right?)
My understanding is you absolutely have the right to do that.
Was resolving it before the stated date wrong? Possibly. Would we re-resolve it if the data on record changed before the specified date? Probably. With the 'loans' system in place, the overall effect of leaving it open for another 10 days would have been minimal.
In this specific case I read that in the description, but I also took into account the context of the 2023 edition of this market resolving on 12 January 2024. I decided that the traders asking for an earlier resolution had a pretty good argument. By the time they've pinged you and given up and pinged the mods, I have to decide if it's worth writing "Sorry you will have to ping the mods again in 10 days" or just resolving the market.
Do you want me to unresolve it?
---
The most hilarious possible ending here is we unresolve it and then that website is taken offline in the next 2 days due to ongoing political drama and the market resolves N/A instead.
@Eliza I'm fine with the early mod resolution and don't want it to be unresolved; I was just surprised that people seem to have been expecting me to resolve it before the time that I wrote in the market description, and I wanted to make sure that that's not me misunderstanding site norms for market creators.
@StevenK My own perspective:
I usually try to design markets to resolve as early as possible, based on whatever question I'm asking. But, sometimes that question boils down to: "I really, really, really need to wait until X point in time because that is specifically what I am asking about, not a proxy that resolves sooner." In those cases, I try to justify why I want to wait to resolve until the stated point in time.
I probably should have weighted your "At the end of January 2025" a little higher, my bad.
https://mailchi.mp/caa/the-world-will-cool-off-a-bit-and-other-good-news
"The string of record or near-record monthly temperatures in 2023-24 will be one month shorter (15 months) because September 2024 will surely be cooler than the unusually hot September 2023 (described by Zeke Hausfather as “gobsmackingly bananas” hot). [July and August 2024 might be slightly cooler than the same months in 2023, but the temperatures should not differ much, given the thermal inertia of the ocean mixed layer. Only in September 2024 do we expect to see a perceptible decline in the 12-month running mean global temperature.]"
Rough guesswork using 2016 as a nearby analog (assuming start of La Niña at latest by August and being neutral now relative to the El Nino start year) and filling in rest of year from June afterwards by just shifting over the bins by 1 color (https://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/Tvs.year+month.png)
https://x.com/oz4caster/status/1800154543982088336
It has finally started to dip a bit already compared to last year’s June.
