Amplifying, Reversible, Feedbacks

Matthew Rozsa discusses how a number of experts are wary of oversimplying climate science or cultivating a "fatalistic outlook".

When these scientists question the usefulness of "tipping point" terminology, they are not discounting the genuine threat posed to humanity by global heating. They all agree that climate change is changing the planet in ways that will harm hundreds of millions of people. Yet how we frame these issues is critical to how we start to address them and experts argue that the idea of a single occasion in which humans cross a barrier from "climate change can be fixed" to "climate change is unfixable" is inaccurate.

Rozsa quotes James Hansen:

The delayed response of the climate system to human-made climate forcing is what makes these issues so difficult to communicate with the public. The time scales are very slow as seen by the public, even though human-forced climate change is occurring very rapidly compared with geological time scales.

Rozsa continues.

This is why it's misleading to frame the climate change crisis in terms of a climax or tipping point — it establishes false expectations about how exactly global warming is harming everyone's lives. It is instead more useful to view climate change as a multifaceted dilemma that will require an equally multifaceted response. ... [T]his still emphasizes that the issue is very difficult to beat — but also ... not an impossible dilemma.

Dilemma refers to a difficult choice. I've seen the word predicament used to describe a problem with no solution. The terms could go together to suggest a situation too overwhelming for humans to grasp with nothing but unpalatable options available. The task seems to be to build resilience so that things get worse less quickly. I can see how refering to "tipping points" might impose a sense of a looming deadline when the effort needs to be ongoing.