How I read this is that we are more or less charting the advance of desertification, which we might say is a direct measure of increase of entropy / destruction, or loss of life.
It gets even more concerning when we realise that life comprises two kinds; photosynthetic, and all the others dependent on photosynthetic, for the energy they need to live.
If things were working correctly, ie in a sustainable way, we should see equilibrium between these two kinds of life, both either growing together from an initial state of infancy, or in a state of growth to steady state within other environmental constraints, such as available land area.
The load of non photosynthetic life should never be such that it over emburdens photosynthetic life in such a way that it starts to deplete the latter, because this would indicate a runaway condition - the more photosynthetic life is reduced, the less energy there is to go round non-photosynthetic life, so it would be an accelerating condition, more or less like a battery running out, but this battery would be a primary type cell, the act of discharging it would also remove the means of recharging it.
This is why I model life on Earth in terms of energy as a battery, trickle charged by the sun (I am a long practicing Model Based Systems Engineer, more accustomed to working for money paid by aerospace clients, but now doing this work of analysing what I call the global energy problem because nobody wants to fund it - more on that later).
I don't think many folk will argue that humanity is the unbalancing factor. Our voracious use of a significant portion oil / fossil fuels to release massive amounts of energy "captured" from the sun which would otherwise be heat over millions of years, in only 150 years has to have had a direct effect on global warming, regardless of any blanket effect, since the atmosphere is adiabatic, there can be no blanket effect, it's surprising that climate science appears to be oblivious to this, but not so surprising after we realise the motivation and physical part played by profit.
When money makes money, or when a little energy is expended for a lot more gained back as money, energy had to have been gained, because money is energy always, it always has an exchange rate in markets per KWhr.
In fact physically, money is just an energy carrier, the physical value in money is the energy value.
{Am having to cut this response by Android short but, publish anyway so as to not lose work, will come back to finish by PC, thanks for your patience}