The values below 150 have little value since we have always had CO2 except for maybe when earth was created. Look at the 800k view to get a better perspective.
That said I do feel like when people do that it is not a great practice.
That said I do feel like when people do that it is not a great practice.
For financials or percentages, shifting the baseline from 0 can be misleading. For ppm I think it is a good thing.
What we need is a bright horizontal line that says ">50% chance your society collapses in the lifetime of your children", one that says ">50% chance your society collapses in your lifetime", and one that says ">50% chance your species does not survive 100 years." To properly frame the stakes and the significance of the numbers.
That's not far from the default for all of us anyway, isn't it?
Soviet Union fell apart in my lifetime; my parents were born during and just before WW2, got to see the Winds of Change.
I'm not sure about my grandparents, other than one grandmother's funeral anecdote being that she wandered off unsupervised as an infant, which had the people looking after her scared she had been eaten by a tiger because this was in a military camp in the British Raj.
No Ottoman empire, no Austro-Hungarians, and the borders of the Germany I moved to no longer go as far as what's now Калининград.
if anything, for normies, temperature is far less well understood than concentration, especially WRT zero.
Either way, it should never be labeled "bad practice", as it was done here.
What you probably meant is that 33% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is "man-made".
We didn't even get oxygen until 2.4 billion years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event