Whatever, the graph makes it look like we're beginning to choke for lack of O2, with all that CO2 displacing it. If it were done to scale then the difference would be hardly discernible.

And, I'll say it again, you won't find me being prolific and wasteful in energy and earth resources for all my apparent lack of concern.

I'll wager half you guys, esp. in the USA, who bleat on about global warming do very little to ameliorate its effects.

>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.
...