The other comment is right, the graph has little to do with the argument that indoor levels are important (and one of our ways of combating climate change has been to make houses have less ventilation, increasing indoor levels). I would like to add that every point on the year over year numbers is higher than the highest averaged numbers. It would then follow that the average will also be higher.
That's not my point. The point is that the article claim that rising CO2 levels are likely based on the graph which will lead to increased indoor co2 which might lead to impaired cognition at the end of the century.
Thats one hell of a long set of assumptions not a single one of them demonstrated scientifically and even if it was true at the end of the century we will be able to deal with CO2 through ventilation just like we improved our indoor climate when we didn't burn open firesplaces inside and got ventilation systems and gas or electricity instead.
Again if this mishmash is considered serious research it's doesn't bode well for our future.
Edit: Instead of just downvoting me, why not show where I am wrong here. I am open to argument, there might have been things I have missed but on the face of it, this is an extremely biased and sloppy research paper and frankly nothing but pure speculation.
