>> I have also seen 10 k years.   
   >   
   >Which is still way off from the 7k you previously mistook for Gospel.   
   >   
   >But, 10k BC(E) is in line with the popular dating for the end of the   
   >ice age, which folds the Younger Dryas cooling into it...   
      
   10 	k years ago.>   
   >> The implication remains the same as to human inputs to the greenhouse   
   effect thereafter.   
   >   
   >So even if your "Cite" is off with it's facts by as much as 100% or   
   >more, it's still accurate...   
   >   
   No, it is not a deciding item in the blurb.   
      
   How is the "end" of a cycle determined thousands of years ago?  The   
   important item is when the increase of temperatures in the cycle began to   
   appear.  That can, and did, vary as to hemisphere and local physical   
   features.   
      
   The take away point is the current rise in greenhouse gases and temperature   
   is more advanced in the current cycle then previous cycles.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)