Resolves positive if the long-run [20 year] global mean temperature average raises more than 2.2°C vs. the 1850-1900 average before 2050
Resolves negative otherwise
https://web.archive.org/web/20220518083042/https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=11178
If the temperature reaches the threshold, then falls back below that level the contract still resolves positive.
The temperature must heat more than the threshold in the title for the contract to resolve positive, to whatever precision measured. So, if a reputable source gives the midpoint temperature increase as 2.21°C, the contrast will resolve positive, but not if the source lists 2.2°C. If the source uses a confidence interval, the contract will resolve based on the reported midpoint.
See also:
Will the climate heat up more than 2°C by 2050?
Will the climate heat up by more than 2.5°C by 2050?
Will the climate heat up more than 3°C by 2050?
Will the climate heat up more than 3.5°C by 2050?
Will the climate heat up more than 2°C by 2100?
Will the climate heat up more than 2.5°C by 2100?
Will the climate heat up more than 3°C by 2100?
Will the climate heat up more than 3.5°C by 2100?
Will the climate heat up more than 4°C by 2100?
1,000
1.00Estimates on here are far too high in my opinion and I'm not yet convinced I should lesson my bet against even though I'm the only one betting this market down. See for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Socioeconomic_Pathways, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/, Figure SPM.3
Currently, likely scenarios see us hitting about 2.0 degrees of warming by 2050. Thus, a 67c price for 2.2 degrees seems far too high.
Can anyone who thinks I'm missing something tell me what I'm missing?