This short excerpt explains much if it pretty well:
QUOTE: The consequences of climate change on rising sea levels, acidification in the ocean, increasing desertification, and the loss of fresh water have been amply discussed. Much of the time, these effects are discussed as if climate change moves in a steady, linear fashion. Most of nature, however, reacts in a non-linear fashion, largely because of positive feedback. For example, higher global temperatures mean that more tundra permafrost melts, which releases more CO2 and methane.
In turn, those higher greenhouse gas levels further increase temperatures, and that melts even more permafrost. Or, rising temperatures melt ice. Because ice reflects heat whereas darker surfaces, like blue water, hold heat, melting ice raises temperatures and that melts more ice. The key is that not only do temperatures rise, they do so at an accelerating, or non-linear rate. This has been quantified in measuring loss of glaciers, with the glacial decline accelerating over the last few decades.
Furthermore, there is about a 30-year lag between greenhouse-gas emissions and the effects that we see today. Although we presently have CO2 levels of 395.7 ppm, the physical evidence we currently see comes from greenhouse gases around 1980, when levels were about 330 ppm. That makes the belief that we can easily reverse climate change through technology change a fallacy.
If all emissions were stopped tomorrow, we'd still be living with increasing effects begun decades ago. The tipping point to at least stabilize it and prevent further acceleration is about 3 years away. At that point, it will become an unstopable run-a-way train.
In the meantime, nothing, absolutely nothing is being addresses in a serious way to stop it.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"