Your surgery is warming the planet, a little

A new study suggests the gases commonly used to knock out patients before surgery are accumulating in the atmosphere, and may be contributing to global warming.

Scientists say atmospheric concentrations of common anesthetic gases like desflurane, isoflurane and sevoflurane are on the rise, and have been detected as far away as Antarctica.

"Health care in and of itself in the U.S. is one of the worst polluting industries," said Jodi Sherman, an anesthesiologist at the Yale University School of Medicine who reviewed the GRL paper. "It generates 8 percent of U.S. greenhouse gases according to one study.

According to the atmospheric chemists responsible for the new research, a single kilogram (2.2 pounds) of desflurane offers the same greenhouse warming potential as 2,500 kilograms (5,512 pounds) of carbon dioxide.

To estimate the total levels of anesthetic gases in the atmosphere, researchers relied on a series of air samples collected throughout the Northern Hemisphere since 2000. Using a computer model, scientists used these small samples to extrapolate global concentrations.

While anesthetic gases remain minor contributors to global warming, curbing the greenhouse warming requires all industries to cut back emissions.

[[There was 0.028%, now there is 0.04%, that rise is manmade]]

apparently you have different scientific figures than the rest?

[[but looking at the ice core, an ocean warming of 1C can only produce about 5 or at most 10ppm rise.]]

Warmign happens FIRST, then CO2 rises- them ore warming, the greater the rise- We’ve had this discussion many times and you never explain how wamrign can happen first, then decades later CO2 rises?

[[The natural flux is poorly measured.]]

Odd- but yet you are certain man is the cause for the rise

[[So the (roughly( 850 is two directions. Manmade, 30 Gt is all output]]

Big deal=- again- warming happens first, THEN CO2 rises- so CO2 can not be causing wamring- and secondly, man’s contribution of CO2 amoutns to just 0.00137% of the atmosphere- (man’s contribution of CO2 to the total atmospheric CO2 level of 0.04% is just 3.4% which eaquals just 0.00137% of the total atmosphere 3.4% of 0.04% = 0.00137%. You can keep touting ‘tons’ all youl ike, but the FACT remains that man is only contribution CO2 I nthe amount of just 0.00137% of the atmosphere

“’Scientists note that geologically speaking, the Earth is currently in a ‘CO2 famine’ and that the geologic record reveals that ice ages have occurred when CO2 was at 2000 ppm to as high as 8000 ppm. In addition, peer-reviewed studies have documented that there have been temperatures similar to the present day on Earth when carbon dioxide was up to twenty times higher than today’s levels’”

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/14/co2-nears-400-ppm-relax-its-not-global-warming-end-times-but-only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/

[[Manmade, 30 Gt is all output.]]

That’s funny because article after article I read states something along the lines of

“Oceans face higher acidity levels as more man-made CO2 gets absorbed”

http://news-oceanacidification-icc.org/2015/01/27/oceans-face-higher-acidity-levels-as-more-man-made-co2-gets-absorbed/

(The site goes on to declare man is pumping out record amounts of CO2- and blames wamrign on CO2 rises, yet IGNORES the fact that temps have remained flat for nearly 2 decades now DESPITE ‘record man made CO2’ being pumped into atmosphere

Weird!

[[Where do you get that man is responsible for 3.4% of the .04% carbon in the atmosphere?]]

I can’t remember now, but here’s some info I found quickly

“Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).”

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Note, this site lists ALL of the greenhouse gases, which figure out differently, but is still only 0.117% produced by man- if we are talking just CO2 produced by man, the figure comes out to just 0.00137& of the atmosphere

you never explain how wamrign can happen first, then decades later CO2 rises?

That is definitely true. There is warming from solar and related factors. Then the warming oceans release CO2. It takes more than decades, usually it takes centuries. Here is the relevant chart:

In typical cases the tempearture rises 8 or 9C and the CO2 rises 80 or 90ppm. Our current rise in CO2 is 120 ppm (from 280 to 400). If that were due to temperature we would have had a rise of 12C or more some number of centuries ago. That is not the case. Therefore the rise is manmade. There's plenty of other evidence that it is manmade, but the temperature rise argument is the most solid. We simply did not have a 12C rise in the past that could have caused the current 120ppm CO2 rise.

Scientists note that geologically speaking, the Earth is currently in a `CO2 famine' and that the geologic record reveals that ice ages have occurred when CO2 was at 2000 ppm to as high as 8000 ppm.

Absolutely true. Usually that is called CO2 starvation. The C4 plants evolved specifically to deal with CO2 starvation and are much better at pulling CO2 from the air. IOW, plants like corn are adapted to the low CO2 but also make it worse. Go into the middle of cornfield in full sun with no wind and you will get very low CO2 measurements.

"Oceans face higher acidity levels as more man-made CO2 gets absorbed"

That's true as well. What used to happen was there would be some warming, the oceans would release CO2 and the level in atmosphere would rise. Consider what would have happened after the Little Ice Age: the temperature in the atmosphere rose about a degree thanks to solar, albedo and other changes. That warmth trickled down into the deep ocean which rose about 1 degree (still ongoing). That releases some CO2. It would have raised CO2 from 280 to as high as 290 ppm.

Instead there has been a CO2 rise from 280 to 400. Not only that, but every year we get another 2-3ppm. There is not enough deep ocean warming to create all that CO2. The deep ocean has warmed roughly 0.2C in the last century. That's only enough warming for perhaps 2ppm CO2 rise.

There are also natural (and manmade) vegetation changes that account for some of the CO2 rise.

I looked through the page you linked to, then looked through the sources listed on that page. There is one that is quite incorrect: http://www.co2web.info. On that page they state "The stable 13C/12C carbon isotopes in the air's CO2 give us the only way to determine its anthropogenic fraction: ~4%".

There is absolutely no way to know that. There has been a very small drop in the 13C to 12C ratio thanks to fossil fuel burning. The drop corresponds to the fuel burning but cannot be used to determine how much fuel was burned or the percentage of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere. The percentage can be derived quite simply, there was 280ppm, now there is 400ppm. Natural rises in CO2 would have brought the 280ppm to about 285, maybe 290 at the most. The rest is manmade, so the manmade percentage is at least 25%.

Psssst- man is responsible for just 0.00137% of the atmosphere having CO2 in it- pelase explain to everyone here how 0.00137% of the atmosphere can be capturing enough heat and back radiating it to warm the earth even a fraction of a degree-

Light a match in an undomed football stadium, with a tiny umbrella made of space blanket material which reflects the hea t situated somewhere above the stadium and tell us that this match will cause catastrophic ‘climate change’ inside the stadium=- because this scenario is exactly how ridiculous the notion that 0.00137% of the atmosphere can be causing global climate change is-

[[There is absolutely no way to know that.]]

They think there is- if you have a beef with their calculations and methods, perhaps take it up with them and ask them to explain it to you-

[[The stable 13C/12C carbon isotopes in the air’s CO2 give us the only way to determine its anthropogenic fraction:]]

[[There is absolutely no way to know that... cannot be used to determine how much fuel was burned or the percentage of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere]]

hmmm- You just got done saying “There has been a very small drop in the 13C to 12C ratio thanks to fossil fuel burning.” and then you turn around and state that “There is absolutely no way to know how much of the 13c to 12c ratio is due to fossil fuel burning? you’re getting mixed up here- Sayign one thing, then turning around and saying the opposite

[[Our current rise in CO2 is 120 ppm (from 280 to 400). If that were due to temperature we would have had a rise of 12C or more some number of centuries ago]]

and hyet you and other ‘man-caused’ climate change advocates keep telling us there are many variables which affect climate- but now you’re certain man is causing climate change because we produce CO2-

There have been past decades where CO2 was as high as it is today- Again- woopsie- nature causes fluctuations in ppm’s- so to state ppm is higher today, therefore it msut be man, and this is the ‘only accurate wy to measure’ is ismpyl notr true

“”A slightly shocking finding,” Tripati said, “is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago,”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

To state that ‘man must be the cause’ of the rise in ppm is pretty presumptuous when the FACt is that man’s production of CO2 takes up only 0.00137% of the atmosphere

Sadly though, the site listed above states nature was the cause, then looks at today’s current rise and turns around and blames man- typical- even after stating it’s only in the last decade that a dramatic rise has taken place DESPITE the FACT that a dramatic rise in man’s production has NOT taken place- it’s remained fairly steady output for a a long while-

[[but every year we get another 2-3ppm. There is not enough deep ocean warming to create all that CO2.]]

Really? What caused it ‘15 million years ago’ then?

” At the same time, emissions in most industrial countries dropped, bringing global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use down from a high of 8.5 billion tons of carbon in 2008 to 8.4 billion tons in 2009. “

That’s funny- we just got done hearing how it’s man’s fault that CO2 levels are rising 2-3 ppm each year, yet here’s evidence that man’s output has been steadily and fairly dramatically falling since the early 2000’s

So, if we say “There is an increase in CO2 in atmosphere since the industrial age began, therefore it’s man’s fault’ do we now to get to say “There has been a drop in man’s production of CO2 for awhile now, yet CO2 continues to rise, therefore it ‘can’t possibly be man’s fault’? (you know, since we’re using ‘correlation’ as our measure for who is to blame)

[[There are also natural (and manmade) vegetation changes that account for some of the CO2 rise.]]

There we go- especially in light of the fact that past centuries have shown marked increases in CO2 levels

I’m sorry- for some, reason I read your post as saying “= 1%”

however, man produces just 3.4% of the atmospheric CO2, not 25% as some claim- Perhaps those claiming that are referring to ‘greenhouse gases’ as well, but even at that, it’s not 25%

Dinosaur Era Had 5 Times Today’s CO2”

http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

“One of the researchers’ goals is to understand the strong link between climate and volcanic CO2 emissions,”

but now you're certain man is causing climate change because we produce CO2-

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I have never said that. I have pointed out the very strong evidence that man has caused the rise in CO2. The alternative is that natural warming caused the CO2 rise. I pointed out that there was not enough natural warming decades or centuries ago to cause the present rise of 120ppm. That has nothing to do with "manmade warming" which I believe is real, but very slow and very beneficial to both people and the ecosystem.

There have been past decades where CO2 was as high as it is today

Only when measured in specific locations at specific times. The worldwide average has never been as high or even close for a million years or more according sediment cores (shells) and ice cores. Prior to that it was high and even much higher. Measuring CO2 in the 1800's in one location does not say anything about the worldwide average.

Really? What caused it `15 million years ago' then?

Several possible natural causes. One is volcanoes. Another is sudden death of lots of plantlife particularly ocean plantlife.

That's funny- we just got done hearing how it's man's fault that CO2 levels are rising 2-3 ppm each year, yet here's evidence that man's output has been steadily and fairly dramatically falling since the early 2000's

No, not correct. Your numbers say that CO2 production dropped from 2008 to 2009, and that corresponds nicely to the worldwide recession. The drop shows up a little on the worldwide chart of CO2 growth:

It doesn't stand out however because natural variations in temperature affect the year-to-year growth. For example El Nino in 1998 created a big natural rise in CO2, the cooling in 1999 made it drop, but there was still growth. The fluctations are natural, but the persistent growth is manmade.

[[Natural rises in CO2 would have brought the 280ppm to about 285, maybe 290 at the most. The rest is manmade, so the manmade percentage is at least 25%]]

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm — comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Sorry, but ‘there is an increase, thertefore man must be the cause of all 25% of it’ just isn’t going to fly scientifically considering past time periods had same or higher ppm’s than we have today

[[Now you are putting words in my mouth. I have never said that. I have pointed out the very strong evidence that man has caused the rise in CO2]]

True- I worded that wrong- I should have said “you’re certain man has caused the rise in CO2” My apologies- I wasn’t careful in my wording

[[very strong evidence that man has caused the rise in CO2.]]

[[Only when measured in specific locations at specific times.]]

Lol- specific as in all over the earth from random measurement positions and averaged out just like they do when measuring today’s CO2?

[[”manmade warming” which I believe is real,]]

so you bleeive that the CO2 man produces, which is just 0.00137% of the atmosphere, is causing warming? Can you explain to us how this small amount captures enough heat and radiates it back to earth in sufficient enough quantities to warm the earth even ‘very slowly’? I keep asking you to explain, but you never do other than to tell us how back radiation works- We get it- we understand how it works, but the facts remain, there simply isn’t enough CO2 produced by man, in our atmosphere, to back radiate nearly enough Heat to warm the planet- even ‘very slowly’, unless you know some scientific trick that somehow can multiply the captured heat by many many magnitudes and return it to earth?

[[Really? What caused it `15 million years ago’ then?

Several possible natural causes. One is volcanoes. Another is sudden death of lots of plantlife particularly ocean plantlife.]]

Excuse my French, but that had to be one hell of a volcanic period and plant die off to raise it to nearly 1500 as claimed by scientists during the early years

[[No, not correct. Your numbers say that CO2 production dropped from 2008 to 2009, and that corresponds nicely to the worldwide recession.]]

First off you chart is natural CO2 rises included- I believe? We were talking about man’s production falling- yet CO2 is ‘still rising’ Which anyone with logic can figure out means nature is causing the rise since man has been cutting back on production according ot scientific measurements of man’s production

[[The fluctuations are natural, but the persistent growth is manmade.]]

Illogical- According to the science, Man is producing less, but despite that CO2 is steadily rising, and CO2 was higher in past times without man’s involvement- and again- I’ll ask, mans’ production of CO2 amounts to juts 0.00137% of the atmosphere can be changing global climates? (Man produces 3.4% of the 0.04% CO2 which is in the atmosphere, meaning that the total amount of CO2 I n the atmosphere produced by man is just 0.00137% of the atmosphere- 3.4% of 0.04%= 0.00137%)

[[but the natural trend was down until man came along.]]

But the natural trend was up before it was down- long before man came on scene according to evoltuionists- so i’ll repeat your statement modified

“Seems just a little too coincidental that the planet shifts to FAR more plentiful CO2 before man arrives and begins the industrial revolution.”

Correlation is just as powerful both ways (that is to say, it’s not a powerful argument)- UI could just as easily say “I had cancer, I switched from eating macaroons to plums, and my cancer mysteriously disappeared, therefore plums cure cancer because it is just too coincidental that my cancer disappeared In the years following my switch from macaroons to plums” (While ignoring evidence that plums might infact cause cancer when looking at previous trials which showed an increase in cancer I n those who ate plums (along with myriad other foods- We throw out all the variables and just concentrate on correlation between two issues, to our detriment scientifically)

All I have is the available scientific evidence and most of that is hearsay since I have not seen it with my own eyes. Scientific revolutions will come from websites like the ones referenced in the one you linked to above. There, people will look outside the box for other evidence and that will cohere with a stronger theory than the previous accepted theory.

I can't rule out natural explanations for the CO2 rise and I can never do that even if I looked at every piece of available evidence with my own eyes (and trusted instruments). But the evidence I have looked at links the cement production (cooking limestone), fossil burning and deforestation to the rise in the atmosphere.

With the natural sources we would have to look for lots of new small ocean animals exhaling CO2, etc Volcanoes are underwater and not well estimated. But it would be a strange coincidence the volcanic activity happened to uptick with the industrial revolution. Not impossible, but improbable.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.