Similarly, the "global" CO2 number you display as text may be (?) an average of selected ground-based stations.
CO2 varies with altitude, and with time and spatially, of course. The ground-based stations give part of the picture, but there are also various total-column CO2 measurements, prominently from TCCON (http://tccon.ornl.gov/), and remote-sensing measurements (https://co2.jpl.nasa.gov/).
This is why clarifying what you mean by "global CO2" is important. In the light of the sophistication of what's out there, it might be good to think about where you're trying to add value.
Something like ClimateWatch is actually building a strong platform for aggregating disparate data sources around climate change, GHG emissions, climate resilience practices, and multinational legislation. Granted ClimateWatch isn't built by an online community of volunteers, but maybe it is something to look at for further inspiration.
I'm not advocating dinosaur approaches like the AP-1000, but instead new, innovative designs like that championed by ThorCon Power.
"A comparison of all offered sources of nuclear found ThorCon’s power to be 4 to 5 cents per kWh lower than the competition and the only clean source of non-intermittent power that was competitive with coal."
Meanwhile, coal is already on the way out in the US, replaced by... unrealistic? ... power sources.
(Sorry for the delay in responding, busy times...)
If you read the ThorCon material, you'll find that there's nothing controversial about its design. It's all based on the solid ORNL molten salt work. ThorCon is in the process of building a first reactor, which will likely be in Indonesia due to the broken nuclear approach in the US.
"Meanwhile, coal is already on the way out in the US, replaced by... unrealistic? ... power sources."
Most of the true replacement (reliable) power is natural gas, which still produces very significant CO2. Wind and solar will never really be effective replacements without reliable backup power, even with grid storage. The problem is there will eventually be an outlier event where there is too much calm air, and too much overcast, to supply enough electricity. At that point lots of people will die, if it's very hot or very cold. Reliable power is very important.
Climate change will create the first trillionaire.
Help your neighborhood, city, state, build and implement a climate resiliency plan. Support and foster societal practices that are less carbon intensive (more bike stands and less parking spots; support public transporation;). Act within your network to promote more sustainable behavior. Does your work have a carpool system? Does your work __or the business you own__ provide incentives to their employees to ride bikes? Does your work recycle? Do you work in an energy efficient building? Is your house/apartment energy efficient? The "Green" trend should never stop. Optimization and efficiency are key.
Monetarily, divest your wealth from high carbon enterprises. Spread this suggestion and work with your employer to provide investment funds that are low carbon. Don't work in an carbon-heavy field. Work to actively solve the problem. Don't buy that Tesla. Don't own a car if it isn't a necessity. Tell other people about your wonderful car free life. Save money on insurance, gas, oil, tires, brakes....
You don't have to go to a completely plant-based diet. Host a party once a month and only serve vegetarian. That converts N hypothetical meat-containing meals into plant-based meals. Maybe someone likes your tofu dish and starts making it every other week for themselves.
A top-down carbon tax is a very logical economic mover, but it is only one tool in the tool belt. Recarbonization of the biosphere (plants, forest) is a necessity to have any chance of going carbon neutral or negative. Also climate change will not be stopping. We __are__ going to be in a different world and people will be in different places than today. The actions taken now will still mean everything to 10+ billion people.
> The average passenger vehicle emits about 411 grams of CO2 per mile
Now that's only tailpipe emissions, so once you include the emissions from producing the gasoline/diesel, it's more than a pound per mile.
The answer is that only the C in CO2 comes from gas, the O2 comes from the air.
That’s part of the inspiration for Carbon Doomsday. The skulls escalate it more to a Monty-python type of violence and humor. Tis but a scratch!
And in case you didn’t know, No One Gives a Fuck About Climate Change: http://titojankowski.com/no-one-gives-a-fck-about-climate-ch...
Climate change needs more toys
Maybe there’s other open source projects that need development help?
Looks like we have gone from 300 to 400 in 50 years. What number is Doomsday and when are we projected to hit it?
That's what I was expecting to see here, and if that isn't information we have or you want to project, maybe the title shouldn't be so provoking.
No, it hasn't.
Edit: 18 year cooling proven with satellite data https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-per...
Congrats to Luke, Steph, Marty, Purin, Dan, and Phillip on this latest redesign!
The real doomsday would have been a further decline of CO2 levels to the point of global plant starvation. Many plants already died off due to the previously shrinking supply of CO2. 
 Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years (2002). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.022055499
 Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution (1998). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692178/
GitHub repo: https://github.com/giving-a-fuck-about-climate-change
Really this would require some research. There are a lot of models, and I frankly am not sure which are more accurate.
The biggest and most immediate problem is we've put too much carbon in the air to expect the natural carbon sinks of trees, land, oceans, the biosphere, to absorb it before runaway effects start unlocking vast prehistoric amounts of carbon accelerating climate change https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/01/24/5752202.... The sooner we lock up carbon, the sooner we get out of the danger of having much high sea levels, and runaway global climate warming.
Anything else you’re curious about regarding climate change?
Some good info in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2b68JFsnkA&t=10m58s
Pac Man for carbon would be a cool game using the data :D
You haven't used any j characters but they'd be similar to J.
1) The tagline at the top "since 1958" makes it seem like the website is since 1958, instead of the data. Obviously false, but may reduce trust.
2) The graph is good, I like it!
3) In the Data Sources section, it would be very helpful to have a link to the original data. Don't make me hunt for it. I was wondering if this was an average of multiple locations or from a single location.
4) It may be helpful to have a link or explanation about the yearly period of the CO2 level. Something like https://www.co2.earth/seasonal-co2-cycle.
3) We’ll get that added!
4) The yearly up-down is the most common question I get! Cool guesses on why even though they’re wrong — like maybe air conditioning usage? I’m split - is there a way nurture this curiosity/question rather than just giving the answer straightaway?
For the interested, the ESRL Global Monitoring Division (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/index.html) is a more complete treatment of work being done in global greenhouse gas monitoring -- charts, maps and data included.
Longer answer here from Scripps/UCSD: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/06/04/wh...
The world already has enough super-processed, tell-me-what-to-think climate data.
Really, the smallest range on the y-axis should be 10 ppm, no matter how small the time interval. No need to spark general curiosity about noise.
Coinbase is great!!