I’m curious about your perspective here. Why would a 120-year chart be more meaningful than a 500-million-year one if the concern is about current CO2 levels being unusually high? Wouldn’t a broader timeline give a more comprehensive view?

Given that Earth has experienced extreme conditions—like being a fiery ball of magma at one point and a frozen ice ball at another—what do you think would qualify as a "normal" average temperature for our planet? 

 I didn't referred the 120 years span to a temperature graph or CO2 levels.
Mine was meant to be a broader discourse, I think I explained myself in the following messages.