this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
211 points (98.6% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

6812 readers
677 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Unusually aggressive lone star ticks, common in the south-east, are spreading to areas previously too cold for them

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It is demonstrably true that life on a planet alters the conditions of the planet (which then alters the life, etc). Most glaring is the abundance of oxygen in our atmosphere. We don't look for oxygen on other planets because oxygen is necessary for life; we look for oxygen because it's unlikely to exist in high densities without life to produce it.

The sci-fi novel Death's End by Cixin Liu (third in a series) further suggests that life alters the universe rather than just local systems, which was a fun idea. He's a rather long-winded author, but he's easy to forgive.

That said, this is the first time I'm hearing of the hypothesis by name, so I can't be sure what all it says. A quick skim lines up with reality though.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's more that life itself almost evolves an entire planet to best benefit life itself. Or that when life on the planet as whole is threatened, life evolves to address the crisis. For example, in the caboniferous, trees evolved undigestable lignin, and this caused a misbalance in nature as forests grew and died with nothing to digest the dead trees. In time, organisms arose that could digest wood, and the balance was restored.

Here, the problem is greenhouse gas emissions. And meat consumption is one of the biggest drivers of meat consumption. So nature responds by making humans allergic to meat!

The Gaia hypothesis is quite out there because it ascribes a sort of collective will or intention to nature, rather than just the blind machinations of evolution.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago

The hypothesis kind of seems like selection bias to me. It seems more likely to me that in order for life to flourish as it has on earth, it has to (by pure chance) create a self regulating system, as otherwise it will eventually die off. What's interesting (and I hadnt thought about prior to reading the wikipedia article) to me is that it seems possible that the current rapid temperature rise will lead to some organism(s) we don't know or think about multiplying like crazy, and that has some form of cooling effect due to the organism's emissions or w/e. Industrialized humans appear to be the most extreme (in the sense of rapid, persistent change) climate event to happen to this planet since it has had life, but at the very least we're not the first time something fucked up the climate. Maybe we'll just get lucky after all.