The phrase 'tipping point'is a foggy concept in the here and now AGW discussion.  It has no legal, scientific, political or economic basis point.  When does it begin? What is being tipped? What is the consequence of a 'tipping point' and in what time frame?

I contend we would not recognize a tipping point, in our lifetime, if it hit us in the face.

Is the now-accelerated melting of the Andean glaciers a 'tipping point' for the world of AGW believers?  Seems not.  But, it is a large and frightening moment in time for down slope farmers, villagers and municipalities reliant upon glacial melt water for irrigation and drinking water.

Lets assume Dr. Hansen is correct in saying that we're 10 years from a tipping point...I agree with him we are ten years or less from more consequences of a warming world.  Starting the clock today, I can assure you the politics in the US, Australia, China and India are not in place nor in the riaght frame of mind to do much of anything to [reduce greenhouse-gas emissions within 10 years].  Thus, [we'll pass some threshold where severe and possibly irreversible climate impacts will become unavoidable].  I accepted that as well --- about ten years ago.

The Nov. 10, Washington Post opinion piece of Robert Samuelson " Greenhouse Guessing" at:

http://tinyurl.com/uoa79  

is a graphic depic...    

It is an 8 meg report but it will convince you, perhaps, that having reached a "tipping point" might depend upon where you stand and when it changes your life.

John L. McCormick

please read from the previous entry, my last attempt to contriabute a legitimate comment.

take it from here :

depiction of the paralysis of the AGW response.  Whether you agree with his views or not, they are the backdrop for Dr. Hansen's warning and one might conclude they represent the political tipping point of AGW debate.

He says people say they are worried but don't act that way.  Climate-forcing emissions continue to rise despite the Kyoto Protocol.  Why?  

In his words:

 "With Today's technologies, we don't know how to cut greenhouse gases in politically and economically acceptable ways"    my comment: Please refrain from saying renewables and conservation if you believe Dr. Hansen's warning.

"In rich democracies, policies that might curb greenhouse gases require politicians and the public to act in exceptionally "enlightened" (read: "unrealistic") ways."  My comment: That holds true for the US 110th Congress under control of the Democratic party.

"Even if rich countries cut emissions, it won't make much difference unless poor countries do likewise - and so far, they've refused because that might jeopardize their economic growth and poverty-reduction efforts."  My comment: Peruvians measure the lost glacial melt runoff in economic terms but are powerless to reverse the inevitability of greater reduced stream flow.  Likewise for farmers and villagers reliant upon diminishing flows from diminishing Himalayan glaciers.  Globally or locally, we don't miss the water til the well runs dry.

In conclusion, Mr. Samuelson's view is hard to argue.  And, he has just described the political and economic dynamics that will forever follow closely behind the global AGW debate..... perhaps not in every instance but he has described the dark cloud hanging over the UNFCCC COP 12.  Politicians are hard-wired in ways that Samuelson described.

So, tipping points come and go, as former residents of New Orleans know first hand.  Inuit and Maldevians will have their own tipping points to confront.

I believe firmly that the world community had a moment of truth back in 1958 and 1959 when Dr. Keeling documented CO2 atmospheric concentrations were increasing.  We did not act then for reasons of ignorance of the consequences.  Today and tomorrow we will not act for reasons of Mr. Samuelson's rendition.

Two essential components of human survival are water and food...in that order.  Read the recently published UN Development Program's "Human Development Report, 2006"
At:

http://tinyurl.com/y72yjz    

It is an 8 meg report but it will convince you, perhaps, that having reached a "tipping point" might depend upon where you stand and when it changes your life.

There are several meanings you can assign to tipping points.  The one Hansen uses is as a point of no return.

I on the other hand see the climate war tipping points as cultural.

As an aside I see Coby and you joining the blorg as a step backwards.