Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Social dynamics can delay or prevent climate tipping points by speeding the adoption of climate change mitigation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Faster social learning can delay or prevent a climate tipping point by accelerating mitigation adoption enough to keep warming below the activation threshold.

desk verdict Decent modeling study, but the headline result hinges on an untested ordering of the social response threshold and the climate tipping threshold. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14096 v1 pith:7Y7MI63Z submitted 2025-01-23 math.DS physics.soc-ph

Yazdan Babazadeh Maghsoodlo , Madhur Anand , Chris T. Bauch This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DSphysics.soc-ph MSC 37N2591D3086A04
keywords social-climatecouplingopiniondynamicsclimatetippingpointssociallearningratemitigationadoptionEarthsystemmodelpositivecarbon-cyclefeedbackbifurcationanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether the speed at which people adopt climate-change mitigation can change the fate of a climate system that has its own tipping point. It couples a social-opinion model, in which people switch between mitigating and non-mitigating based on cost, temperature-related harm, and social norms, to a simple Earth system model, and adds a sigmoid tipping term that releases extra carbon once temperature exceeds a critical value. The central result is that for a given strength of the tipping term there is a threshold social learning rate above which the tipping term never activates: mitigation spreads fast enough to keep temperature below the threshold. Net mitigation cost and social norms have little effect on this when norms are weak, whereas the social learning rate is the dominant control. If true, this shifts attention to the pace of collective behavior change as a lever for avoiding abrupt climate change.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the coupled two-equation system: the social opinion equation $dx/dt = \kappa x(1-x)[-\beta + f(T) + \delta(2x-1)]$ with the sigmoid perceived-cost function $f(T)$, paired with the carbon-balance equation $dC_{at}/dt = \epsilon(t)(1-x) - P + R_{veg} + R_{so} - F_{oc} + R_{\max}/(1+e^{R_0(T-T_c)})$, where the final sigmoid term is the climate tipping element. The mechanism is a race between two sigmoid activations: fast social learning raises $x$ and cuts emissions before the temperature-dependent carbon-release term switches on. The V-shaped risk region in $(\kappa, R_{\max})$ parameter space is the signature of this race and is the object the paper uses to map when social learning can win.

What would settle it

Run the same coupled model with a positive-feedback carbon release that depends on cumulative warming or on a stochastic threshold instead of the chosen instantaneous sigmoid, and check whether the $\kappa$-threshold for no-tipping survives; if no value of $\kappa$ can keep the feedback from activating once $R_{\max}$ is above a realistic bound, the central claim fails for that representation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that sufficiently fast social learning can outpace an oncoming climate tipping point even though the climate and social system feed back on each other. In the model, the climate tipping term $R(T)=R_{\max}/(1+e^{R_0(T-T_c)})$ only becomes active if temperature crosses the critical temperature $T_c$; because the fraction of mitigators $x(t)$ lowers emissions through the term $\epsilon(t)(1-x)$, a high social learning rate $\kappa$ makes $x$ grow quickly enough to keep $T$ below $T_c$. For each strength $R_{\max}$ of the tipping term and each $T_c$, the simulations show a V-shaped region in $(\kappa, R_{\max})$ space where tipping occurs, and a $\kappa$-threshold beyond which the modified model cannot be distinguished from the baseline without the tipping term. The same threshold structure appears in time-to-tipping and peak-temperature plots: higher $\kappa$ delays or avoids the tipping point, low-risk scenarios ($T_c = 3$°C) tip later and over a smaller parameter region than high-risk scenarios ($T_c = 2$°C), and a climate tipping can in some parameter ranges trigger a social tipping to full mitigation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the added sigmoid term $R_{\max}/(1+e^{R_0(T-T_c)})$ faithfully represents how real abrupt carbon-cycle feedbacks, such as ocean saturation or forest fires, respond to temperature, with the scanned values of $R_{\max}$, $T_c$, and $R_0$ covering the true behavior. The paper itself states that the model is not intended to serve as a highly realistic forecast.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Accelerating the rate of mitigation adoption, through communication, incentives, or institutional change, can delay a modeled tipping point by up to about 120 years in the high-risk scenario and 60 years in the low-risk scenario.
  • Interventions that only reduce the net cost of mitigation or strengthen social norms are largely ineffective at preventing tipping when norms are weak; the social learning rate is the main lever.
  • A lower climate critical temperature (2°C versus 3°C) makes tipping more likely, earlier (around 2060 versus 2120), and widens the set of learning-rate and tipping-strength combinations that tip.
  • When the net cost of mitigation is low, the climate tipping can itself trigger a social tipping to full mitigation, so the coupled system can end in a recovered state rather than a runaway one.
  • For each tipping strength there is a threshold social learning rate above which the climate tipping term never activates, so the no-tipping outcome is not a fine-tuned exception.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's threshold result suggests that the rate of opinion change itself, not just its eventual equilibrium, should be treated as a climate policy variable; this is an editorial extension the authors do not spell out.
  • Because the added tipping term is a smooth sigmoid, a more realistic abrupt feedback with hysteresis or stochastic triggering might not show the same clean $\kappa$-threshold; calibrating the term to observed permafrost or forest carbon release would test whether the conclusion survives.
  • The V-shaped risk region implies an intermediate social learning rate can be worse than either a very slow or a very fast one; policy evaluations should look at where an intervention lands in parameter space, not just the direction it moves $\kappa$.
  • If the race mechanism is general, analogous speed-of-adoption thresholds should appear in other coupled social-environmental systems, such as vaccination uptake versus epidemic thresholds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper couples a binary-opinion social dynamics model (Eq. 1) to a simple carbon-cycle Earth system model (Eqs. 3–4) by adding a prescribed sigmoid “tipping term” to the atmospheric CO2 equation. It explores how the social learning rate κ, net mitigation cost β, and norm strength δ affect whether this tipping term activates, using area-under-curve differences, time-to-tipping ratios, and peak temperature anomaly as diagnostics under high-risk (Tc = 2 K) and low-risk (Tc = 3 K) scenarios. The main reported findings are that faster social learning can delay or prevent activation of the climate tipping term, that high-risk scenarios shift tipping earlier and make it more likely, and that climate tipping can trigger a social tipping to full mitigation.

Significance. The paper's conceptual contribution is to make the speed of social learning, not just the final equilibrium preference, a control parameter of coupled social-climate dynamics; if the result is robust, it has clear policy relevance. The manuscript is transparent: the model is simple enough to analyze, the social-model stability analysis in the supplement is coherent, the parameter space is explored systematically, and code and data are publicly available. The main limitation is that the climate “tipping point” is a prescribed term inserted by hand with unconstrained parameters, and the headline prevention result depends on an untested ordering of the social response threshold and the climate tipping threshold. The paper's own disclaimer in Section 2 that it is not a realistic forecast should be reflected more strongly in the Abstract and Discussion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3.1–3.2 and Figures 2–5] With the fixed values fmax = 5, ω = 3 K⁻¹, and Tlim = 1.5 K, the perceived-cost function f(T) is already about 4.1 at T = 2 K (Eq. 2), so in all high-risk (Tc = 2 K) and low-risk (Tc = 3 K) simulations the social response is effectively fully engaged before the climate tipping term can activate. The paper never varies Tlim relative to Tc, and the 5% sensitivity analysis in §6.4 cannot change this ordering. If Tlim were above Tc, the climate tipping term would activate before society perceived a strong warming cost, and the conclusion that faster κ prevents tipping could reverse. The authors should either test the opposite ordering (e.g., Tlim = 3 K with Tc = 2 K) or explicitly state the threshold-ordering assumption as a condition on the headline result.
  2. [Eq. (3), Section 3.2] The tipping term is a prescribed sigmoid source Rmax/(1 + exp(R0(T − Tc))), with Rmax, R0, and Tc scanned over broad ranges without empirical constraint. Because the paper's central “prevention of tipping” is defined as keeping this term from activating, all conclusions are conditional on this functional form and parameter range. The manuscript acknowledges this in Section 2, but the Abstract and Discussion do not. Please add robustness checks with alternative functional forms for the feedback (e.g., a step function or a different value of R0), or, if that is beyond scope, restrict the claims to “in this model formulation” and state explicitly that no real-world quantitative forecast is intended.
  3. [Section 4, Figure 3] The time-to-tipping definition—the first time the modified-model temperature is d times the baseline temperature—is not tied to a physical or dynamical threshold. With d = 1.1, a system that is only slightly warmer can be classified as tipping, while a system that crosses Tc but warms proportionally in both models can be classified as no-tipping. Since the 60–120 year delay claims are based on this metric, the authors should justify the ratio definition or demonstrate that the delay estimates are insensitive to the choice of d beyond the three values shown.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, paragraph after Figure 5] The sentence stating “for each value of critical temperature, there is a threshold value for κ, beyond which the modified model does not go through a tipping point. For example, for Tc = 3, the tipping point only occurs if κ is greater than 0.03” is internally contradictory; the second clause should read “less than 0.03” (or the threshold should be re-described) so the direction of the learning-rate effect is unambiguous.
  2. [Table in §6.3] The surface albedo A is listed with units yr⁻¹; it should be dimensionless. Also, C_ao0 should read C_oc0 for consistency with Eq. (17).
  3. [Supplementary Eqs. (13) and (15)] The critical temperature in the social cost sigmoid is denoted Tc in Eq. (13) but Tlim in main-text Eq. (2) and in the parameter table; the notation should be unified.
  4. [Figure 4 caption] “as K increases” should be “as κ increases.”
  5. [References [1] and [33]] References [1] and [33] are the same paper (Bury, Bauch, and Anand, PLOS Computational Biology, 2019); the duplicate should be removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline result is a model-derived consequence of explicit threshold assumptions, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (fast social learning κ can delay or prevent the climate tipping term from activating) follows from the coupled ODEs, specifically because the social cost function f(T) activates at Tlim=1.5 K while the tipping term R(T) activates at Tc=2 or 3 K. This ordering is an explicit modeling choice, not an identity or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper does not fit κ, β, δ, Rmax, or Tc to the AUC or time-to-tipping outputs and then report those outputs as predictions; it scans parameters and reports consequences. The social model is taken from the authors' prior work [1], but that is a transparent model adoption, not an unverified uniqueness theorem invoked to force the conclusion, and the utility-based derivation is restated in the supplementary material. The comparison of high-risk (Tc=2) and low-risk (Tc=3) scenarios is a parameter-sensitivity statement, not circular, even though lower Tc naturally makes tipping more likely. The concern that the result depends on Tlim < Tc is a legitimate robustness/correctness limitation, but it is not a circular reduction in the sense required here: no equation is equivalent to its own input by construction, and no fitted quantity is presented as an independent prediction. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model's central predictions rest on a set of hand-chosen social and tipping parameters. The tipping term is an invented mechanism inserted to create bifurcations, so its presence inflates the number of adjustable knobs. The behavioral and ESM components are taken from prior literature, which lowers novelty but also means those parts are not new assumptions.

free parameters (8)
  • Rmax = 0 to 5 GtC/year
    Maximum rate of the added tipping term; hand-chosen to span weak to strong positive feedback scenarios.
  • Tc = 2 and 3 K
    Critical temperature for activation of the tipping term; defines high- and low-risk scenarios.
  • R0 = 5 K^-1
    Nonlinearity of the tipping-term sigmoid; chosen to give a sharp transition.
  • kappa (social learning rate) = (0, 0.2) yr^-1
    Central parameter scanned in the study; not fitted to data.
  • delta (social norm strength) = (0,2) (and 3 in Fig. 6)
    Strength of social norms; scanned to test effect on social tipping.
  • beta (net cost of mitigation) = (0,2)
    Net cost of mitigation; scanned.
  • fmax = 5
    Maximum perceived cost of warming; inherited from previous model [1] without re-estimation.
  • epsilon_max = 7 GtC/yr
    Saturation value of future emission rate in Eq. 5; chosen for the projection.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Behavioral dynamics follow the replicator-like equation Eq. 1 with utility functions Eqs. 6-7.
    Assumed from Bury et al. [1]; no derivation from individual-level data in this paper.
  • domain assumption Perceived climate cost f(T) is a sigmoid of temperature (Eq. 2).
    Phenomenological choice from [1].
  • ad hoc to paper The positive feedback carbon term is a sigmoid of temperature (Eq. 3).
    Introduced to generate a climate tipping point; not calibrated to empirical data.
  • domain assumption Earth system model equations (Eqs. 16-30) are assumed valid.
    Taken from Lenton [17]; not re-derived or tested.
  • domain assumption Population is homogeneously mixed and choices are binary.
    Stated in the Discussion as a simplification.
invented entities (1)
  • Tipping term Rmax/(1+exp(R0(T-Tc)))
    purpose: Represent abrupt positive carbon-cycle feedbacks (fires, ocean saturation) that can trigger a climate tipping point.
    No empirical data or mechanism-specific derivation is given; it is a stylized modeling construct.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Social dynamics can delay or prevent climate tipping points by speeding the adoption of climate change mitigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7Y7MI63Z

@misc{pith2026250114096,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Social dynamics can delay or prevent climate tipping points by speeding the adoption of climate change mitigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7Y7MI63Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14096}
}
read the original abstract

Social behaviour models are increasingly integrated into climate change studies, and the significance of climate tipping points for `runaway' climate change is well recognised. However, there has been insufficient focus on tipping points in social-climate dynamics. We developed a coupled social-climate model consisting of an Earth system model and a social behaviour model, both with tipping elements. The social model explores opinion formation by analysing social learning rates, the net cost of mitigation, and the strength of social norms. Our results indicate that the net cost of mitigation and social norms have minimal impact on tipping points when social norms are weak. As social norms strengthen, the climate tipping point can trigger a tipping element in the social model. However, faster social learning can delay or prevent the climate tipping point: sufficiently fast social learning means growing climate change mitigation can outpace the oncoming climate tipping point, despite social-climate feedback. By comparing high- and low-risk scenarios, we demonstrated high-risk scenarios increase the likelihood of tipping points. We also illustrate the role of a critical temperature anomaly in triggering tipping points. In conclusion, understanding social behaviour dynamics is vital for predicting climate tipping points and mitigating their impacts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14096 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Possibility of avoiding climate tipping point through social actions. In this figure, The Baseline model is illustrated in blue and the modified model with an additional tipping term is illustrated in orange. The dynamic of x (fraction of mitigators) versus time is also depicted in both plots in a smaller box. Two plots differ in the values of κ and Rmax (GtC/year) that were used: (0.01, 5) for plot A, where it show… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The difference in AUC versus social behaviour variables. In this figure, the difference in AUC is depicted against social behaviour parameters and Rmax (GtC/year). The top plots represent the high-risk scenario (Tc = 2), and the bottom ones correspond to the low-risk scenario (Tc = 3). The plots illustrate the difference in AUC versus Social Learning Rate on the left, Net Cost of Mitigation in the middle, and Streng… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time to the tipping point for different emission and mitigation scenarios. Time to the tipping point is plotted against Rmax (GtC/year) and κ for six different cases. The top plots represent the results of the high-risk scenario (Tc = 2), and the bottom ones show the results of the low-risk scenario (Tc = 3). The plots on the left, middle, and right depict the results for different values of the threshold (d = 1.1, … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Peak Temperature Anomaly for Different Emission and Mitigation Scenarios Peak temperature anomaly (Celsius) is depicted against Rmax (GtC/year) and κ for the high-risk scenario (left) and the low-risk scenario (right). Isoclines show that as K increases, for the high-r…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The difference in AUC versus critical temperature and social learning rate The Dif￾ference in Area under the curve (AUC) is depicted versus critical temperature and κ (left). Two examples representing two different choices of Tc and κ are chosen and illustrated on RHS.…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Coupled Tipping Dynamics Between Climate and Social Models As shown in panels A and B, for high values of delta, decreasing beta destabilises 0 and triggers the social model to tip to x=1. A more detailed illustration of this effect in panel C shows that beyond a s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Tornado plot showing the sensitivity analysis for the Difference in the area under the curve (left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Historical record for Emission rate Vs Time is plotted. This data has been gathered from 1800 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Charting pathways to climate change mitigation in a coupled socio-climate model

    Bury, Thomas M., Bauch, Chris T., and Anand, Madhur. Charting pathways to climate change mitigation in a coupled socio-climate model. PLOS Computational Biology , 15(6):1–16, 2019. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007000

    doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007000 2019

  2. [2]

    Cross-system interactions for positive tipping cascades

    Eker, Sibel, Lenton, Timothy M., Powell, Tom, Scheffran, J¨ urgen, Smith, Steven R., Swamy, Deepthi, and Zimm, Caroline. Cross-system interactions for positive tipping cascades. Earth System Dynamics , 15(3):789–800, 2024. Published by Copernicus Publications G¨ ottingen, Germany

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Climate Feedbacks and Tipping Points

    Marques, Luiz. Climate Feedbacks and Tipping Points. Capitalism and Environmental Collapse , pages 199–231, 2020. Published by Springer

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review

    Fawzy, Samer, Osman, Ahmed I., Doran, John, and Rooney, David W. Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters , 18:2069–2094, 2020. Published by Springer

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Climate change mitigation and Sustainable Devel- opment Goals: Evidence and research gaps

    Pathak, Minal, Patel, Shaurya, and Some, Shreya. Climate change mitigation and Sustainable Devel- opment Goals: Evidence and research gaps. PLOS Climate , 3(3):e0000366, 2024. Published by Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Complexity of coupled human and natural systems

    Liu, Jianguo, Dietz, Thomas, Carpenter, Stephen R., Alberti, Marina, Folke, Carl, Moran, Emilio, Pell, Alice N., Deadman, Peter, Kratz, Timothy, and Lubchenco, Jane. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317(5844):1513–1516, 2007. Published by American Association for the Advancement of Science

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Social impacts of climate change mitigation policies and their implications for inequality

    Markkanen, Sanna, and Anger-Kraavi, Annela. Social impacts of climate change mitigation policies and their implications for inequality. Climate Policy , 19(7):827–844, 2019. Published by Taylor & Francis

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Opinion dynamics in social networks: From models to data

    Peralta, Antonio F., Kert´ esz, J´ anos, and I˜ niguez, Gerardo. Opinion dynamics in social networks: From models to data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.01322 , 2022

    arXiv 2022

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Opinion dynamics and learning in social networks

    Acemoglu, Daron, and Ozdaglar, Asuman. Opinion dynamics and learning in social networks. Dynamic Games and Applications , 1:3–49, 2011. Published by Springer

    2011

  2. [10]

    Game-theoretical approach for opinion dynamics on social networks

    Li, Zhifang, Chen, Xiaojie, Yang, Han-Xin, and Szolnoki, Attila. Game-theoretical approach for opinion dynamics on social networks. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science , 32(7), 2022. Published by AIP Publishing

    2022

  3. [11]

    An agent-based model of opinion dy- namics with attitude-hiding behaviors

    Zhu, Jiefan, Yao, Yiping, Tang, Wenjie, and Zhang, Haoming. An agent-based model of opinion dy- namics with attitude-hiding behaviors. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , 603:127662,

  4. [12]

    Mean-field solutions of kinetic-exchange opinion models

    Biswas, Soumyajyoti. Mean-field solutions of kinetic-exchange opinion models. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics , 84(5):056106, 2011. Published by APS

    2011

  5. [13]

    Climate mod- els and their evaluation

    Randall, David A., Wood, Richard A., Bony, Sandrine, Colman, Robert, Fichefet, Thierry, Fyfe, John, Kattsov, Vladimir, Pitman, Andrew, Shukla, Jagadish, Srinivasan, Jayaraman, and others. Climate mod- els and their evaluation. In Climate change 2007: The physical science basis...

    2007

  6. [14]

    The Earth has humans, so why don’t our climate models? Climatic Change , 163:181–188, 2020

    Beckage, Brian, Lacasse, Katherine, Winter, Jonathan M., Gross, Louis J., Fefferman, Nina, Hoffman, Forrest M., Metcalf, Sara S., Franck, Travis, Carr, Eric, and Zia, Asim. The Earth has humans, so why don’t our climate models? Climatic Change , 163:181–188, 2020. Published by...

    2020

  7. [15]

    Linking models of human behaviour and climate alters projected climate change

    Beckage, Brian, Gross, Louis J., Lacasse, Katherine, Carr, Eric, Metcalf, Sara S., Winter, Jonathan M., Howe, Peter D., Fefferman, Nina, Franck, Travis, and Zia, Asim. Linking models of human behaviour and climate alters projected climate change. Nature Climate Change , 8(1):7...

    2018

  8. [16]

    Climate change and game theory

    Wood, Peter John. Climate change and game theory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1219(1):153–170, 2011. Published by Wiley Online Library

    2011

  9. [17]

    Land and ocean carbon cycle feedback effects on global warming in a simple Earth system model

    Lenton, Timothy M. Land and ocean carbon cycle feedback effects on global warming in a simple Earth system model. Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology , 52(5):1159–1188, 2000. Published by Taylor & Francis. 9

    2000

  10. [18]

    New physical science behind climate change: What does IPCC AR6 tell us? The Innovation, 2(4), 2021

    Zhou, Tianjun. New physical science behind climate change: What does IPCC AR6 tell us? The Innovation, 2(4), 2021. Published by Elsevier

    2021

  11. [19]

    Carbon-cycle feedbacks operating in the climate system

    Williams, Richard G., Katavouta, Anna, and Goodwin, Philip. Carbon-cycle feedbacks operating in the climate system. Current Climate Change Reports , 5(4):282–295, 2019. Published by Springer

    2019

  12. [20]

    ESD Reviews: Climate feedbacks in the Earth system and prospects for their evaluation

    Heinze, C., Eyring, V., Friedlingstein, P., Jones, C., Balkanski, Y., Collins, W., Fichefet, T., Gao, S., Hall, A., Ivanova, D., and others. ESD Reviews: Climate feedbacks in the Earth system and prospects for their evaluation. Earth System Dynamics , 10:379–452, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Majeed, Muhammad Tariq, and Tauqir, Aisha. Effects of urbanization, industrialization, economic growth, energy consumption, financial development on carbon emissions: An extended STIRPAT model for heterogeneous income groups. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 1...

    2020

  14. [22]

    Climate and land degradation—an overview

    Sivakumar, Mannava VK., and Stefanski, Robert. Climate and land degradation—an overview. Climate and Land Degradation, pages 105–135, 2007. Published by Springer

    2007

  15. [23]

    Ocean acidification: The other CO2 problem

    Doney, Scott C., Fabry, Victoria J., Feely, Richard A., and Kleypas, Joan A. Ocean acidification: The other CO2 problem. Annual Review of Marine Science, 1(1):169–192, 2009. Published by Annual Reviews

    2009

  16. [24]

    Arctic climate tipping points

    Lenton, Timothy M. Arctic climate tipping points. Ambio, 41(1):10–22, 2012. Published by Springer

    2012

  17. [25]

    Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system

    Lenton, Timothy M., Held, Hermann, Kriegler, Elmar, Hall, Jim W., Lucht, Wolfgang, Rahmstorf, Stefan, and Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim. Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 105(6):1786–1793, 2008

    2008

  18. [26]

    Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change

    Dakos, Vasilis, Scheffer, Marten, Van Nes, Egbert H., Brovkin, Victor, Petoukhov, Vladimir, and Held, Hermann. Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(38):14308–14312, 2008

    2008

  19. [27]

    I., Pavithran, Induja, Scheffer, Marten, Lenton, Timothy M., Anand, Madhur, and Bauch, Chris T

    Bury, Thomas M., Sujith, R. I., Pavithran, Induja, Scheffer, Marten, Lenton, Timothy M., Anand, Madhur, and Bauch, Chris T. Deep learning for early warning signals of tipping points. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 118(39):e2106140118, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    CDIAC-FF: Global and national CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement manufacture: 1751–2017

    Gilfillan, Dennis, and Marland, Gregg. CDIAC-FF: Global and national CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement manufacture: 1751–2017. Earth System Science Data , 13(4):1667–1680, 2021. Published by Copernicus Publications G¨ ottingen, Germany

    2017

  21. [29]

    E., Eliseev, A

    Muryshev, K. E., Eliseev, A. V., Mokhov, I. I., and Timazhev, A. V. A lag between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration based on a simple coupled model of climate and the carbon cycle. In Doklady Earth Sciences , 463(2):863, 2015. Published by Citeseer

    2015

  22. [30]

    M., Bauch, C

    Menard, J., Bury, T. M., Bauch, C. T., and Anand, M. When conflicts get heated, so does the planet: Coupled social-climate dynamics under inequality. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 288(1959), 2021. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2021.1357

    1959

  23. [31]

    L., Sakschewski, Boris, and Donges, Jonathan F

    Wunderling, Nico, Winkelmann, Ricarda, Rockstr¨ om, Johan, Loriani, Sina, Armstrong McKay, David I., Ritchie, Paul D. L., Sakschewski, Boris, and Donges, Jonathan F. Global warming overshoots increase risks of climate tipping cascades in a network model.Nature Climate Change, ...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Incorporating human behaviour into Earth system modelling

    Beckage, Brian, Moore, Frances C., and Lacasse, Katherine. Incorporating human behaviour into Earth system modelling. Nature Human Behaviour , 6(11):1493–1502, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Charting pathways to climate change mit- igation in a coupled socio-climate model

    Bury, Thomas M., Bauch, Chris T., and Anand, Madhur. Charting pathways to climate change mit- igation in a coupled socio-climate model. PLoS Computational Biology , 15(6):e1007000, 2019. Published by Public Library of Science, San Francisco, CA, USA

    2019

  26. [34]

    When conflicts get heated, so does the planet: coupled social-climate dynamics under inequality

    Menard, Jyler, Bury, Thomas M., Bauch, Chris T., and Anand, Madhur. When conflicts get heated, so does the planet: coupled social-climate dynamics under inequality. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 288(1959):20211357, 2021. Published by The Royal Society. 10 6 Supplementary...

    1959

  27. [2022]

    Published by Elsevier

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.