From: "Mark" 

Here's a chart and supporting text about past levels over a considerably
longer period (500 million years):
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml the
levels back then are stunningly high, and not a V-12 Ferrari nor farting
cow in sight.

Here's the "good news" from the same source:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/12_6.shtml
"We should not neglect to make a brief survey of possible positive
aspects of global warming. We already mentioned that the warming that ended
the Little Ice Age was generally a relief for people suffering from the
harsh winters of that period. It is quite likely that the recent rapid
expansion of population also was aided by climate change. At the end of the
Little Ice Age, amelioration of the climate and the spread of high-yield
crop species, together with an expansion of technology, trade, and medical
knowledge, prepared the scene for a decrease in mortality rates..."

Anyway, my point has always been not to deny any possible human caused
aspects, but to question the wisdom of implementing expensive fixes that
are not supported by the facts. My personal feeling on it (which doesn't
count from a scientific point of view) is that global warming is better
than it is bad and needs no fixing.


"Antti Kurenniemi"  wrote in
message news:45978a98{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Geo."  wrote in message
news:45953767$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> I feel a little sorry for some Republicans.  They've been forced to
>>> admit
>>> that thier Administration lied through its teeth (and continues to lie)
>>> about Iraq and international terrorism - and now they're finding it was
>>> lying about global warming too.
>>
>> I'm certainly no fan of this administration so feel free to beat on them
>> all you like however.. There is a difference between denying that global
>> warming  is happening and denying that it is happening because of car
>> farts.
>
> I don't think anyone's saying it's "because" of human
actions, but that
> human actions are contributing to global warming in amounts that are not
> only measurable but possibly problematic. Here are some links to graphs,
> of which I have no clue at all how accurate or reliable they are, but
> they're fairly interesting anyway.
>
> First some ice-core measurements:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png . It seems
> from that image that the cycles are pretty identical, and that we're
> currently pretty much on top of one of the peaks of the temperature curve.
> You'll notice how the temperature and carbon dioxide leves seem to go
> pretty much hand-in-hand.
>
> Then we have the carbon dioxide levels:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png . It
> matches with the previous picture, except for the last couple of centuries
> since the industrial revolution. That about doubles the last peak level to
> a leve that hasn't been measured anywhere in the timeline of the last
> 400.000 years.
>
> Then there's the carbin dioxide concentration levels in the past couple
> hundred years:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux.png .
> Seems that recently, about since 1950, there is a definite turn upwards in
> the curve.
>
> For more graphs, you can always check here:
> http://www.globalwarmingart.com/ . Some of them are pretty interesting,
> and they seem to have fairly clear explanations although they could
> obviously been drawn in kindergarten and then just posted all over the
> place.
>
>
> Antti Kurenniemi
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5