My understanding of climate change is that a large increase in human-caused CO2 emissions is likely to lead to large change in the Earth's climate through a global warming effect. Scientific consensus appears to me to be that if we make similarly large reductions in CO2 emissions, we can reduce the magnitude of the consequent warming.
I also understand the climate to have many non-linear mechanisms whereby the link between emission and warming isn't at all straightforward - and so we can only talk about broad averages and so forth, rather than make specific weather predictions.
So is it always true that a reduction in emissions will - on average - cause a reduction in the global warming effect, however small? Or does the existence of tipping points or any other factor mean that only large reductions can make a difference now and any lesser reduction will be pointless?
My intuition says that smaller cuts in emissions should still be preferred to no cuts at all, as I imagine that they would reduce the peak warming and/or delay the peak for longer and/or reduce the eventual recovery time. Perhaps not by as much as we might prefer, but still better than nothing. But perhaps my intuition is off.