Copernicus has September as hottest on record. It holds the record by 0.05 C, the same as May.

Compare to this range question, where the community gives an 87% chance that any of the top 25 will file by Mar 2024.

Note that fires 6, 7, and 8 were very similarly destructive and this is most likely due to chance, not some magic of that number of buildings being destroyed. Hence a new fire is quite unlikely to stop at places 7 or 8. Quantitatively, fire 7 was only 1.8% more destructive than fire 8, while fire 5 was 18% more destructive than fire 6.

The same goes for fires 3 and 4.

@(Sylvain) The resolution criteria say "date when the first credible article is published", notably *not* the date when the event actually occurred. I assume a live-updating page would count, so OWID or Bloomberg from around March 20 would count. Here's my thinking * OWID's page from March 20 is [ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations](https://web.archive.org/web/20210320003827/https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations) and lists the world total as 101.61 million fully vaccinated. * The only trouble is that this includes a bunch of Chinese or Russian...

@ethulin @admins This can probably resolve quite a while ago. The US alone hit the target a few days ago.

— edited by PepeS

In 2017 solar was about 9% of all renewable power, according to wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power

However, solar grows by about 40% per year - much faster than the 2.5-3% growth of renewable on a whole. That means we can expect 17% of renewable to be solar in 2019 and 28% in 2021. I expect this to push renewable growth way over 3%.

— edited by PepeS

@AlyssaStevens Since the link in the resolution criteria lists the stocks every week, will this be averaged for all 4-5 weeks of September?

If you think there's a 17% chance of Trump winning and you think 538 is calibrated, then by Markov's inequality they can only give more than 96 at any time in 17+4 = 21% of outcomes. Realistically, they will probably only give 96 in 17+epsilon% of outcomes. So why is the community cdf at 66% for an outcome of 96 on this question?