OP-ED Where did global warming go?

Author: Andrew Piccirillo

Last week's article on Power Shift reminded me of the complex relationship between science and politics, between knowledge and action. I believe that prevailing assumptions on campus about the severity of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and how we should respond need critical reexamination. While Al Gore has declared the debate over, debates over scientific theories, by their very definition, should never be over.

In the past two years, I have become increasingly aware of complexities related to global temperature forecasts made in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report. Let me begin by saying I have believed in AGW for as long as I can remember. I have always been committed to preserving the environment for both its beauty and utility. This predisposition has caused me to make some false assumptions which I have recently begun to question.

The 2007 IPCC report gives a best estimate of 2.8 degrees Celsius (C) of warming by 2100. This is in contrast to about 0.7 degrees C of warming for the last 110 years. A quick calculation tells me that the next 90 years will require a rate of warming 4-5 times that of the last 110 years to meet the IPCC best estimate.

These predictions become even more remarkable when current trends and predictions are accounted for. The trend line in global climate since 1998 has been flat or slightly negative. Warming has halted. A number of meteorologists have been predicting cooling to occur for another 10-20 years. Last year the earth's climate cooled an astronomical 0.23 degrees C which finally got the attention of the mainstream media. The longer this halt in warming continues, the faster future warming will need to be to reach the IPCC prediction.

Nothing in IPCC models can explain an 11-plus year cooling trend. It is likely that much of this cooling can be explained by changes in the El-Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) state (1998 was a strong El Ni