In article 9kyLf.494$fL3.244@fed1read01, Mark Fergerson wrote:
Richard Henry wrote:

"Mark Fergerson" wrote in message
news:eIlLf.421$fL3.193@fed1read01...

Ken Smith wrote:

And you think that the amount of CO2 man has added will have no effect.

"Trivial" effect, no sarcasm intended.

What degree of CO2 increase would you consider to be non-trivial?

Something on the order of what natural sources regularly (and
irregularly) produce. The irregular events I consider more worrisome as
the overall environment has a better chance of coping with relatively
slower changes; we ramp up our CO2 production over decades, the
biosphere adjusts to utilize it. A volcano blows off ten times as much
in one hour and there's no immediate place for it to go. Homeostasis (in
this case meaning staying on the "natural" attractor that determines our
climate) is a lot easier to maintain when the individual elements of the
system have adequate time to react to changes by sequestering excesses
of any resource, and Earth's biosphere has gotten very good at that.

Actually I worry less about rapid volcanic CO2 releases than things
like deep-ocean methane ice blowoffs. A seaquake releases a few cubic
kilometers of that in say an hour upwind of a populated coast and the
population is non-trivially screwed. This is not alarmist fantasy, it's
actually happened in large, deep inland lakes, killing every
air-breather for kilometers around. That was estimated to be from on the
order of a few cubic _meters_ of methane ice.

No, that was from at least a goodly fraction of a cubic KM of deeper
lake water becoming supersaturated with CO2 from known sources thereof.
A few cubic meters of solid methane will not make deadly the atmosphere
over 10's-plus square km of land, and where on Earth's surface or in or
adjacent to any body of water does one find methane ice?

- Don Klipstein )