The merits and pitfalls of metaphor use in science communication

Effective science communication is a powerful but underrated tool. Metaphors, a common literary device, draw connections between unlike things and are often conceptually, innately understood. In science and science communication, these figures of speech act as a means of structuring concepts to provide the basis for further exploration. The use of metaphors in science can be a catalyst for change, invention, and, unfortunately, misunderstanding. Metaphors should be used responsibly when attempting to make complex scientific concepts easily understandable, and should weigh the accuracy and accessibility of information in a favorable balance.

Dr. Gerrit Lohmann published his research in Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Research in March 2026.

In this research, two popular metaphors for describing climate-related issues were explored: the “ocean conveyor belt” metaphor and the “tipping point” metaphor.

Both of these metaphors began as concepts with scientific origins and evidence to create the framework for the literary decor. The metaphor of the ocean conveyor belt started as a means to describe the overturning circulation driven by deep water formation from the North Atlantic Ocean on a global scale. This metaphor helped propel hypotheses in the scientific community and also fostered more interdisciplinary communications; however, the oversimplification of the metaphor neglected important facets of its origins. The three-dimensional structure of oceanic circulation and the slew of other dynamics in the globe’s oceans are difficult to wrap succinctly in one metaphor, and to many, the conveyor belt imagery stuck around, but true understanding never arrived.

Similarly, the “tipping point” metaphor resonated strongly across disciplines and with the public. This metaphor communicates the possibility of abrupt change and, though it provided major motivation for further experiments, policy change and the public’s attention, it also became a focal point for fatalists and sensationalists. “Tipping elements,” individual issues with a threshold and consequence when surpassed, were later introduced as a way to further the metaphor.

For example, a tipping point often cited is a global temperature increase of 1.5°C leading to the irreversible damage and downfall of many of Earth’s systems, sending us into a catastrophe amounting to the end of days as we know it. However, this way of framing can be misleading to those with no basis of understanding climate science, leading to thoughts of instantaneous disaster versus gradual shifts that would take lifetimes to fully experience.   

“Both the conveyor belt and tipping point metaphors illustrate how science progresses through dialogue between models, data, and conceptual simplifications,” said Gerrit Lohmann, professor of climate physics and author of the study.

Metaphors, like the tipping point, can oversimplify to the point of being problematic. The binary framing of this metaphor with the image of imaginary thresholds being crossed with sudden, dramatic, dire implications is not entirely the truth, and like most things, the truth is somewhere in between the extremes.

Improving metaphors by balancing accuracy and accessibility is not as easy as it seems, given the amount of nuance involved in nearly every subject, especially within the sciences.

Lohmann suggests integrating communication research with practical evidence and models to remove some of the fog that can surround metaphors heard or seen without a base of knowledge to check against. When metaphors dramatize risk, Lohmann also suggests adding a clear explanation along with it to reduce negative feelings such as fear and vulnerability to the information being depicted. The better the metaphor, the more likely it is that better scientific practices and policies can be put into place to create actionable and measurable change.

Gerrit Lohmann of the Alfred Wegener Institute and the Univeristy of Bremen is the researcher and author of this study.