Still missing it, the vertical line at the front of the graph represents the last 1000 years. It is vertical because it is time compressed from the inset. The point being equal to the previous historical peaks happend a couple hundred years ago, now we are MUCH MUCH higer than that. We are 100 points above any time in the previous half million years and rising quickly.

This just happens to coorespond to the time frame when man starting consuming coal, oil, and gas as well as balloning the population.

Historic peaks at 275PPM
Current (2005) at 380PPM

>Yes, that being 2000, and the curve is in cyan, but I can't relate the industrial revolution inset to the very steep line on the graph. If we discouunt the black line exprapolation then the height isn't much more than the previous peaks.
>
>In any case, I can't refute that CO2 levels have gone up - they're bound to with so many millions of us burning, so the latest graph peak has a boost from us. Thing is, I'm not so worried about it. CO2 is plant food - positive feedback.
>
>>Look closer, it EXTRAPOLATES all the way to year 2000! That inset is for the past 1000 years, no extrapolation required.
>>
>>>Aye, but if you look at it closely (as I understand it) there's a hell of a lot of exponential stuff going on past the 0 time mark (i.e. today), thus it's extrapolation based on a trend. But the peak of the graph at time 0 is no higher than any of the previous peaks in the 40K years.
>>>
>>>Don't get me wrong - I'm much greener than the average Joe, and have been switching off lights and nagging family members since the 70s. I don't belive in waste. In our ancestors's day, people turned in when it got dark (even in the days of candles very few could afford them); now we're not happy unless we've ceiling and wall lights on, the hall lit, the external porch light on, probably the bedroom so it will be nice and light when we go to bed, etc., etc. - not happy with just enough light to read a book by.
>>>
>>>>My link shows a smaller graph below the main graph showing 400K years, but still shows current situation to be literally OFF THE CHARTS!
>>>>
>>>>Bob
>>>>
>>>>>Well that just hits the nail on the head: "Lies, damn lies and statisitics". Anyone can point to a graph and get the results they want. If you take the "Long look" in Bruce's citation, then it looks like cooling; if you take the short look then it looks like warming. If the presentation had been the other way round (showing the short data 1st then the long) then it would leave the reader with the conclusion that trhe last decade or 2 has just been a glitch and that we're heading for another ice-age (as all the clamouring was back in te 70s). There are scientists today espousinhg the GW theory who were all for the "2nd Ice Age" theory back uin the 70s. If that graph could be extrapolated out several hundeds, or even 1000s of years, then it could show that the last century, as a whole, shows a down trend.
>>>>>
>>>>>>And this
>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux-2.png
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(see I can point to graphs also ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bob,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Take a look at the graph here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Do you honestly see any difference between 'today' and the peaks 130,000, 240,000 and 330,000 years ago? Those dramatic rises in CO2 concentrations were in no way related to industrial pollution. As I've stated before, I'm all for reducing emissions but I hate to see bad science.
>>>>>
>>>>>...