For the EPA's justification for greenhouse gas regulation under
the Clean Air Act please see:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

The above page has good references. For an example:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endange...dangerment.pdf

Figure 4.2 and its discussion above is a good reference on the
acceleration in the temperature rise.

On Apr 19, 4:46*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
For the EPA's justification for greenhouse gas regulation under
the Clean Air Act please see:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

The above page has good references. *For an example:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endange...dangerment.pdf

Figure 4.2 and its discussion above is a good reference on the
acceleration in the temperature rise.

There is no such entity as a Greenhouse gas it is a construct
to explain how CO2 warms the Earth.
Warming of the Earth will cause CO2 to increase because the
Oceans will lose CO2 as they warm.
There is no logical physical reason why CO2 causes warming.
Arrhenius was wrong.
Please explain how, lack of water vapour causes the poles to
to warm more quickly (Arrhenius) and increasing water vapour
causes runaway GW (IPCC)
Logically you cannot have it both ways.
However logic is not your strong point.
Producing a row of 9s to support the claimed
accuracy of a statistical method or saying that
estimates include both measurements and conclusions
demonstrate that.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
For the EPA's justification for greenhouse gas regulation under
the Clean Air Act please see:


There is no justification for "regulating" anything. Climate is
self-regulating.


The above page has good references. For an example:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endange...dangerment.pdf

Figure 4.2 and its discussion above is a good reference on the
acceleration in the temperature rise.

Temperature can't accelerate, it's a state function. A time series of data
could be said to accelerate.
Of course, the temperature response to energy input is a log function. I
doubt you could explain a log function.

On Apr 18, 9:25*pm, chemist wrote:
On Apr 19, 4:46*am, Roger Coppock wrote:

For the EPA's justification for greenhouse gas regulation under
the Clean Air Act please see:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

The above page has good references. *For an example:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endange...dangerment.pdf

Figure 4.2 and its discussion above is a good reference on the
acceleration in the temperature rise.

There is no such entity as a Greenhouse gas it is a construct
to explain how CO2 warms the Earth.
Warming of the Earth will cause CO2 to increase because the
Oceans will lose CO2 as they warm.

An interesting prediction, to which you
should add some numbers. Currently the
oceans are gaining CO2.


There is no logical physical reason why CO2 causes warming.
Arrhenius was wrong.

My my! Aren't we full of ourself?

Please explain how, lack of water vapour causes the poles to
to warm more quickly (Arrhenius) and increasing water vapour
*causes runaway GW (IPCC)
Logically you cannot have it both ways.

One case in CO2 by itself, the other is an
interaction between CO2 and H20. For a
detailed explanation, see a good textbook.
For non-scientists, like you, I recommend:

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming.../dp/1405140399

On Apr 18, 9:46*pm, "bw" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...

For the EPA's justification for greenhouse gas regulation under
the Clean Air Act please see:

There is no justification for "regulating" anything.
Climate is self-regulating.

This is Lovelock's Gaia conjecture.
The dinosaurs may have thought climate is self-regulating, too.
Why don't you ask one?



The above page has good references. *For an example:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endange...dangerment.pdf

Figure 4.2 and its discussion above is a good reference on the
acceleration in the temperature rise.

Temperature can't accelerate, it's a state function. A time series of data
could be said to accelerate.
Of course, the temperature response to energy input is a log function. I
doubt you could explain a log function.

bw wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
For the EPA's justification for greenhouse gas regulation under
the Clean Air Act please see:


There is no justification for "regulating" anything. Climate is
self-regulating.


The above page has good references. For an example:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endange...dangerment.pdf

Figure 4.2 and its discussion above is a good reference on the
acceleration in the temperature rise.

Temperature can't accelerate, it's a state function. A time series of
data could be said to accelerate.
Of course, the temperature response to energy input is a log
function. I doubt you could explain a log function.

A temperature rise can damn sure accelerate. Learn to read before
flapping gums.