a huge hole in the ozone due to human created gases
Mostly cow flatulence, SWALKER. Not aerosol spray cans, cow farts. Plus we now know that these holes have opened before and will again, the earth does replenish ozone naturally. Besides, holes in the ozone don't cause Global Warming, they cause localized increase in a certain frequency of radiation reaching the earth—the larger the hole, the more area of the crust is hit by this type of radiation (deemed harmful).
Where is the scientific record of the CO2 amount during the last Ice Age?
Would you believe, in ice?
Unfortunately, we don't how much concentration of greenhouse gas there is in the atmosphere, so how will they ever know whether they acheived their objective
That wasn't intended as sarcasm, DantheMan. I have not seen any data presented showing the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gas since the 1950s. I have only seen widely publicized data of increased emissions and a whole lot of conclusions drawn about the negative atmospheric impacts of these emissions from very little atmospheric science. But I have asked for the data. From several sources. And I still have no data.
So which field of scientific endeavor would know the atmospheric concentrations of certain elements? I decided to find out. I discovered that "weather balloons" (although in a more modern form now) are still used by climatologists to collect samples of conditions in the atmospeheric strata. Climatologists are the scientists best qualified for predicting negative climate impacts from chemical interactions with the atmosphere. Why is their input based on the fulfilled prophecy of "sharp increases in the next ten years" that were predicted in the early 90s noticably lacking from the discussions? Why are even the climatologists who support greenhouse gas as the cause pointing to emissions instead of (what should be) clear increases in atmospherically accumulated gas?
Oddly, climatologists are the most noted holdouts when it comes to jumping on the greenhouse gas bandwagon. Why? They should know better than anyone what the effects of these chemicals in the atmosphere will be on the climate. The reason that the statistics of atmospheric gasses are not being published and emissions are being focused on so strongly by anti-emissions activist groups is because the models presented for Global Warming in the early 90s on which the Kyoto Protocol was largely based are now proven faulty.
So far, each predictive model about the increases of accumulated greenhouse gasses has proven incorrect. As has the correlation between increasing greenhouse gas emissions collecting in the atmosphere and aberrant weather patterns. There is no question global warming is occuring. There is no question it is creating aberrant weather patterns. There is no proof, as yet, linking this reality that we are currently experiencing to greenhouse gasses anywhere, but most especially in the atmosphere. The amounts of gasses have declined. The aberrant weather effects continue.
Climatologists have been forced to examine another possible cause very closely since the initial alleged culprit cannot be proven at fault. We are warming in concert with solar activity. There is a provable and easily discernible direct correlation between the two which is markedly absent from the emissions theory.
or that there was some super invention right around the corner that would make the need for levees obsolete for that matter.
Actually, there is certifiable proof that everywhere along the gulf coast has been and will be hit by a hurricane. Ask your favorite climatologist. It is only a matter of time. Every location on that coast will be hit again eventually. It isn't a question of whether, but when. As stated by the FEMA Report well prior to Katrina, in point of fact.
As far as a superinvention that would make levees obselete, we have much better success harnessing the power sources for our methods of conveyance than harnessing the ocean. As I said before, the two are not similar in complexity. Sea level exists, the gargantuan power of our oceans is something we are centuries from taming. Some of NO was built below sea level.
Is it conceivable we might someday develop an invention that could move NO out of the way or raise it bove sea level? Yes. Is it possible that we could find a way to place an eco-shield of some sort that allowed for air transfer, sunlight, and rain but which put NO in a bubble against sea-water? Yes. But short of one of those two solutions an awful lot of houses were going to be submerged when a hurricane hit NO. More would have been completely submerged if the levee were built higher.
I doubt we are going to power a shield like the one necessary with fossil fuels, if you get my drift. Which means long before that technology is developed there would be no need for the Kyoto Protocol.
The power sources and filtration systems already exist that would render the Kyoto Protocol obselete except for the worst offending nations who would still use outdated technology, but those nations haven't signed anyway. That means the Accords fail to meet their objective no matter what the signatory nations do. The expense of those existing technologies is prohibitive currently. So, it isn't quite the same thing as proposing that a non-existent technology would suddenly become available. It is a matter of finding ways of making existing technologies more cost-effective to implement and making better technologies in the process.
The first thing I asked for in this discussion was atmospheric concentrations from 10 years ago to compare with atmospheric concentrations today. Not emissions, because unless the gasses are collecting in the atmosphere it can't be affecting the climate (per the Kyoto treaty). This is a very key piece of evidence that I have been unable to find stated clearly by any scientist. It should be easy to find, this is—after all—the WHOLE case of the Kyoto treaty.
If you find those sharp increases in atmospheric concentrations of gasses (not in a projected model, but in actual measurements by comparison between ten years or so) and show me a credible source of that information (I am pretty liberal about credibility) I will admit that I'm wrong on this point and acknowledge that greenhouse gasses may be the primary source of Global Warming. This is the missing link in their argument, and without it the whole argument falls flat.
It is the link they haven't shown. I have it on fair authority that it is because they know the predictions aren't materializing in the atmosphere. But I always like to be proven wrong, because then I get to choose to let my misconceptions go and become right. It takes proof, though. An opinion worth having is worth fighting for.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
