Wouldn't you have to define a tipping point before you could categorize the threat? This seems rather sensationalist to me. Hopefully I'm not just conflating your comment with all the other sensationalism in the constant global warming scares, but at first glance is does seem to fit in.
> Wouldn't you have to define a tipping point before you could categorize the threat?
There are quite a few tipping points that are only fully definable in hindsight. Attempting to anticipate them still has value.
For example, I might see latency creeping up on my webserver over several weeks. At some point, that's likely to become a problem, but the exact date/time when I get Pingdom alerts from a downed server may not be something I can determine.
sure, but you can't categorize the threat based on some looming unknowns. You either have an idea of when you'll hit some point and the consequences or you don't - you can't just say "the unknowns are the greatest threat" because they are unknowns and by definition you don't know anything about them
Are there unknowns that are likely huge threats? Maybe, maybe not. Who's to say?
Citation of a climatologist pointing to a known tipping point that says the tipping point is the greatest threat?
I'm certainly not saying tipping points aren't a threat, but who would claim to know the greatest threat inside of climatology? I mean we have dozens of unaccounted for nuclear warheads from the cold war era and you'd have me believe there are qualified people stating they know what the greatest threat is and it's some tipping point that will set off global warming?
ah that's fair - I misspoke - I was intending this entire topic to be around climate sensationalism which is what my first comment was about.
Of course climatologists are pointing to some very serious issues, but they also understand those to be modeled projections and potential outcomes. The most dire models are indeed alarming and of course it is their job to sound the alarm. It's everyone else's job to use their relevant experience to decide just how important those alarms are. If we've learned anything from this pandemic it should be that alarmist models can very well make every headline but still fail to predict the future.
>Studies published in 2000 considered this hypothetical effect to be responsible for warming events in and at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum,[6] but the distinct deuterium/hydrogen (D/H) isotope ratio indicates the methane was released by wetlands instead.[7][8] Although periods of increased atmospheric methane match periods of continental-slope failure.[3][4]
I'm unaware of continental slope failure being commonly attributed to global warming.
