"Significant" is subjective here, but it needs to be a large enough effect that something like opening a window or otherwise increasing air flow could have a notable impact on one's productivity.
I'm talking about "normal" concentrations. Obviously if you put someone in an atmosphere of 100% CO2, that will have a negative effect.
Resolves once there's a well-established scientific consensus.
"Cognition" needs to be defined better. Do headaches count? Does slight anxiety? Short term or long term? A submariner, for example, is expected to adapt to and cope with a lot more than the general public.
This market should resolve to yes. A systematic review and meta analysis has created consensus https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013232300358X
There are compelling papers from the navy that suggest up to 11,000 isn't a problem https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19863319
It's the 2012 Satish paper that suggests it matters
I'm surprised people are so confident this is true
Eg the footnote here makes me think we should have lower trust in Satish https://gwern.net/zeo/co2#fn1
@NoaNabeshima Resolves subjectively based on whether it seems like a realistic concern. >2000 levels are relatively common in buildings, so I'd say that counts.
Here are some more precise markets: