I am open to improving or editing the resolution criteria significantly in the first 48 hours. Feel free to make suggestions for improvements.
Resolution Criteria:
Will there be a scientific consensus (in my subjective opinion) that CO2 levels above >1200ppm are bad for cognitive capacity.
What would a consensus look like: several meta analysis concluding the data shows a significant cognitive decline even at moderate CO2 levels (like 1200ppm). Several rigorous, high powered studies, showing cognitive decline isolated to CO2 levels.
1,000
1.00For anyone interested. 1200-1500 PPM Co2 is great for your grow room and your cannabis plants will love you for it. Raising the Co2 this high allows your plants to grow more. If you have your DLI, VPD and feeding schedule dialed in your plants will explode with 1200 PPM.
Perhaps @Ernie was wrong. It's not the cannabis making people stupid. It's the Co2!
I know it is hard, but it seems like it will be really critical to define “significant“. If you truly mean p < .05, even with a tiny affect size, you should probably be clear about that. That seems extremely likely but uninteresting. He more exciting question, though harder to define, is whether it will be big enough to change people’s thinking about office design
@MatthewRitter Usually we don't have enough statistical power to pick up really small effect sizes. Do you have a suggestion here of how this could be worded?
What is this?
What is Manifold?
Are our predictions accurate?
How do I win cash prizes?
and can't be cashed out. to participate and winners can withdraw sweepcash as a cash prize. You can filter for sweepstakes markets on the browse page.1.00Related questions
What is this?
What is Manifold?
Are our predictions accurate?
How do I win cash prizes?
and can't be cashed out. to participate and winners can withdraw sweepcash as a cash prize. You can filter for sweepstakes markets on the browse page.1.00