Assuming the tipping points are correct, I see no immediate behavior by humans that could stop those changes. Greenland was once warmer and so again it may be. That would not prohibit ice sheets from forming once again. When they say something is tipping to the point that a crisis occurs that may be only by man's perspective. If the planet was beginning to cool again, that may be natural for the planet but very bad for man. Cooling has some really negative implications. I say that after two very cold months here in WI with temps falling in the minus numbers quite often. We are currently at 30 degrees which honestly feels spring like tonight. It is a matter of perspective.

According to Hansen, Greenland and Iceland are cooler now than they were in the 1940s.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=620040630003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431043600000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=620040300000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Greenland sea ice is normal, and was above normal most of last summer.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html

The mass of the Greenland Ice Sheet is 2.85 million km3. The graph above cherry picks three year's worth of data (2003-2005) and tries to show it as a linear trend. It is not only ridiculous to try to advertise that short time period as a linear trend, but even if it was true - it would still take 10,000 years to melt the Greenland ice sheet at that rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

The "U.S. Global Change Research Program" exists for the sole purpose of promoting concern about climate change. This is junk science at it's worst. Nothing but opinion, distortion and unsupportable speculation.

Mr. Anderson,
Although we might all be aware of global warming, it seems we are impervious to anything that could happen in our lifetime. Yet we do not realize it is in our lifetime we will see changes we can not pretend to comprehend. We all get a picture of some homeless man holding a sign "The end is near" and we laugh. Has anyone really studied the jetstream in the last 24 hours or the H/L pressure systems on the net? Right now I'm on the southern shore of Lake Erie experiencing a lightning storm in Feb. and it's a storm I would expect in July (of this magnitude). There has been snow but it melts the instant it touches ground. This has been gradual, but how much more gradual does it need to be. Gradual becomes increasing like gravity. And let's not forget VP Al Gore, which was privied to certain info the President's not even entitled to. Now why would he go off on this rambling of Global Warming like it was our end? Right now I've heard thunder 10X worse in the past hour than in the past 10 years. Gradual my arse.

re this posting
Baffin ice sheet current
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.4.html
Current greenland ice area current
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html
No comment

While I realize that current projections say that chances are low for a MOC shutdown, I've always found it fascinating that discussions on the potential consequences focus almost exclusively on how this would result in a colder Europe and NE US. Not to minimize the disruption this would cause to the world economy, but here's the thing for me. That heat energy that the MOC transfers poleward will still need to be transferred and will find another route. What might that alternate route be? What additional weather pattern changes would that incur? What would the consequences be or agriculture, transportation, water resources?

From the Guardian article, "The scientists also expressed concerns over the Boreal forests in the north, and have predicted that El Nino, the climate system which has a profound impact on weather from Africa to North America, will become more intense."

Based on SOI data, El Ninos and La Ninas were more intense in the 19th century, when temperatures were considerably cooler.

And what causes what? It appears to me that a higher frequency of El Ninos would contribute to, not be a cause of, rising global temperature.

The graph above shows that the Greenland ice cap diminished in size from 300 cubic kilometers to -300 cubic kilometers over a three year period.

Did the authors actually graduate from high school? This is one of the worst excuses for a scientific graph I have ever seen. The title and axes make no sense, and the reference period is much too short to be meaningful as a trend.

People who work for industry have to be correct, but government funded research often produces garbage like this.

DANGER!!! DANGER!!!

NOW FOR TODAY'S DOOM AND GLOOM REPORT, WE TURN TO An international group of climate experts have identified nine areas that are in the greatest danger of passing critical threshholds or "tipping points" beyond which they will not recover due to climate change.

I see the modelers are extremely busy cranking out the most extreme scenarios. They should take a break and let the hamsters rest a bit.

Then we have this:

"The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Tornetrask record: On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on AD 1000. A 'Medieval Warm Period' is supported by other paleoclimate evidence from northern Fennoscandia, although the new tree-ring evidence from Tornetraask suggests that this period was much warmer than previously recognised.�

"The new Tornetrask summer temperature reconstruction shows a trend of -0.3 deg C over the last 1,500 years."

What's this? Arctic temperatures have actually declined over the last 15 centuries? The Greenland Ice Cap must have been totally gone back then, eh?

Sorry, bt and Bloom. You'll have to look this one up yourself.

Grudd, H. 2008. Tornetrask tree-ring width and density AD 500-2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers. Climate Dynamics, DOI 10.1007/s00382-007-0358-2.

Just thought I would point out that today high risk of severe storms in U.S. with tornadoes in early February. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm???

Reply: February is actually noted for severe weather in the south, but this outbreak will extend be a bit farther north than usual.

So, from what I can digest from the article, the globe will be stuck in a permanent El Nino, warm AMO cycle? Interesting prediction in light of the rather weak, short lived El Nino of 2006. If I remember correctly, 2005 was one of the warmest years on record. The 2006 El Nino event was unexpected, weak, and short lived. The AMO is a 50 year cycle, with both a postive and negative phase. The AMO has been positive since 1995. The last really warm AMO was 1919-1940, and experts back then also worried about the melting artic enviorment.

I can't get past the graphic. Nice 3 1/2 year trend. Why isn't 2002 included? and what about the last two years (2006-2007)?

I'll tell you why they weren't represented in this graph, because 2002 had more melting than 2005, it would be OFF the BOTTOM of the chart.

And more recent times (2006-2007) had significantly LESS melting than 2002; and 2006 would be OFF the TOP of the chart.

So if you expand this graph from 2002-present. It would have started below the bottom (-500) (representing alarming melting) shot up at 2002 (the graph's starting point) showing a short recovery followed by increasing melting, then at 2006 it would have jumped OFF the cart to the top indicating a recovery.

The overall trend from 2002-2007 would show an INCREASE in ice mass. Of course my graph would be attacked as cherry-picking data, yet the honorable folks at the U.S. Global Change Research Program are not to be impugned so, since they represent a consensus, rigorously peer-reviewed position, where conclusions are valid as long as they meet preconceived notions regardless of the validity of their methodologies.

For an honest review of NASA's ENTIRE known recorded history of the ice mass in Greenland (20 years or so) check out this article: (NASA also used enigmatic graphs to try to show alarming melting, but under closer scrutiny, these claims were shown to be spurious at best.)

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/11/05/greenland-climate-now-vs-then-part-ii-record-greenland-melt-area/

This article represents alarmism at its worst. It bases its doom and gloom projections on the hypothetical and unproven premise that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Reply: It is not all doom and gloom, the study also notes potential positives.

I read another article that showed, scientifically, that at least a part of the arctic circle has shown a downward temperature trend of -0.3C covering a period of 1,500 years. They can't both be correct.
You can read it here:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/04/1500-years-of-cooling-in-the-arctic/#more-305

Forecasts like this are pure speculation as the systems producing the observed phenomena are poorly understood. And when it comes to Greenland, melting ice sheets are nothing new in earth's history.

I'm a AGW believer and I understand the idea behind tipping points. But I still have a problem with the scale used on this graph. It seems to give the impression thatthe Greenland Ice Sheet is whittling away to nothing. The scale is given in cubic km. The total volume of the GIS is gien as 2.85 million cubickm in wikipedia, so if one were to graph this as a time series of total volume, with the bottom line being 0 cubic km, the dcrease would appear far less dramatic.

Dave wrote

"Just thought I would point out that today high risk of severe storms in U.S. with tornadoes in early February. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm???"

And then BT and Mark came in and admonished him for confusing weather with climate... they did right?

Time to sacrifice a 40 year old virgin.

Nothing has changed since antiquity. Everytime humans THINK they've learned something new the priests convince the people it's their fault and exact treasure in order to pay for absolution.

Anyone knows an ant can't move a rubber tree plant.

Aaron

Well, the graph has achieved another "tipping point". It has turned me from an interested but critical observer into a full-blown skeptic. It is utter rubbish. They might as well have joined the first three annual top points and said that only 2005 was an anomalous year. Using four years out all known history is a classic example of cherrypicking data. In private enterprise, the authors would have been compelled to resign.

Hi cmbclean,

If you plotted the 0.00008 change in atmospheric CO2 over the last 100 years on an absolute scale, the graph would have to be several stories high just to be noticeable.

If you plotted the claimed 0.5K rise in temperatures over the last 100 years on an absolute scale, it would similarly have to be huge to be noticeable.

AGW alarmism is based primarily on graphs of manipulated data magnified wildly out of proportion. Like those National Geographic electron microscope pictures of harmless insects, magnified about 10,000 times to look scary.

Hi Guys,

RSS January is in and the survey says. Coolest since 2000 and second coolest in 15 years. Bet GISS will say second warmest,LOL. I guess Patrick we can start using "Global Cooling Deniers", LOL pretty funny.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/rss-satellite-data-for-jan08-2nd-coldest-january-for-the-planet-in-15-years/#comments

And then BT and Mark came in and admonished him for confusing weather with climate... they did right?

Actually, the deniers are making so much noise on this thread that I haven't bothered to even read it very carefully.

it appears that AGW alarmism has reached a tipping point...the low rumble of critical science is deafening...it has become louder than the ever more desperate consensus scam machine...a reflection of the free speech opinions on this blog has made this apparent...as expected, the folks that may have bought the first bottle of snake oil are realizing it doesnt do what it was advertised to do...dubious scary stories being told thru nontransparent methodology is being exposed and cannot stand the test of truth...i wouldnt expect an easy ride off into the sunset from these dudes as the lie continues to unravel...more likely is a scorched earth policy, a namesake of the AGW battle cry...its a dastardly sham and crying shame, so much continues to be wasted...have a nice day, bros...

Patrick Henry

"If you plotted the 0.00008 change in atmospheric CO2 over the last 100 years on an absolute scale, the graph would have to be several stories high just to be noticeable."

Where do you get thatCO2 has only risen 0.00008 %?

And at the other Pole....

By Patrick J. Michaels
Published 2/5/2008 12:07:29 AM

At present, the coverage of ice surrounding Antarctica is almost exactly two million square miles above where it is historically supposed to be at this time of year. It's farther above normal than it has ever been for any month in climatologic records.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12679

Whoa what an alarmist viewpoint.

Has anyone simply asked what the tipping point is? Not when, but what? There is no way, repeat no way, that anyone, even these esteemed climatologists, know what the tipping point of any region is. Essentially, these are guesses of what they can imagine.

This is exactly the same thing that the followers of Gore bemoan when a skeptic says that the economy will tank if CO2 restrictions are imposed.

Honestly, Brett, you could have picked me out of the auditorium if Dr. Keller had discussed climatic tipping points such as the shutdown of an oceanic circulation due to AGW. Sure it can be imagined but did anyone actually ask him how he surmised such an idea?

I mean I can posit that a pig can fly in a warming world, should I issue a press release? Maybe I could get funding.

William Wright:

While I certainly do not want to demean your backyard weather observation, I would like to point out that thunderstorms in February have happened often over my life here in the Buckeye State. And the lack of snow is not really that earth shattering. It has happened even in the colder periods of the 70's. Really, I can recall more winters looking for snow than winters being sick of snow.

The weather is not really that different now than what it was 30 years ago except that we now treat T-1" of snow as a winter weather advisory, 4" as a winter storm, 6" as a heavy snow event, rain over 3/4" as a flood threat, thunderstorm warnings as soon as red shows on a radar, and tornado warnings if nearly any rotation is seen in the sky.

Our standards and perception of a weather threat is much different than what it was just a decade or so ago. Not saying it is good or bad, it just is different. This is because we have better detecting equipment and the public has demanded greater guidance. Frankly, it tends to lead to the public's view that weather in general is more extreme.

I'm kinda shocked that ACCUWEATHER hasn't been sued yet by some moron claiming that they gave out the wrong forecast or something. Or, have they been sued? Gosh, I hope it doesn't come to that.

Along the lines of a different thread, it is an example of media bias as anything extreme garners attention. Therefore, if you can imply extreme, you garner additional advertising revenue.

Thank you Ken Clark!

Yesterday I gave an overall look at the state of the snowpack in the West. Recent drought plagued areas such as Colorado, Arizona and California are all having a great Winter so far with snow water equivalent averaging well above normal. The Northwest southeast to Utah are also having a tremendous snow year that will put a lot of water into the reservoirs come the Spring and Summer melt.

Despite all of the great news this snowpack brings, and the benefits it will give, a search of the internet finds very few articles touting this. I looked at page after page trying to find a positive story. Either there were only the negative stories about doom and gloom come this Spring and Summer in the Southwest that were penned last Summer and Fall, or there were a few articles from small publications about the good news this Winter snowfall has brought. I can only say this seems very interesting.

http://www.accuweather.com/news-blogs.asp?partner=forecastfox&blog=clark