If carbon dioxide is the major cause of global warming, shouldn't we prevent people from breathing?

Question

That would solve it, right?

Answer 1

If everyone stopped breathing long enough to kill off a significant portion of the population then yes it would solve the problem.

Answer 2

No.

If all people stopped breathing (how about all animals too??). they would all die.

The insects and bacteria would devour the bodies, metabolizing and releasing vast quantities of CO2 stored in the bodies, nearly all at once

CO2 levels would really peak, but the wild animals gorged on dead human flesh would just burp and turn over to bask in the warmth. And the plants would go wild rejoicing in all the warm CO2

And if you believe in Evolution, the various wild animals left will then begin to evolve to fill the empty niche of "intelligent" life, leading to another such debacle in a billion years or so, give or take a few million.

Too bad these computer records will not last that long so they have guidance in their quest!

But hey! An idea. We use all the plastic straws in all the restaurants and stores up to avoid pollution, placing them end to end vertically, so when you exhale, you blow all the CO2 and other naughty gases up the linked straws into space with this long straw, so they are gone forever. Presto, a few weeks of heavy breathing and our problem is forever cured.

Answer 3

Surprisingly, it makes a difference whether the source of CO2 is natural or from burning fossil fuels.

There are a great many natural sources and sinks for carbon dioxide. But the present global warming is (mostly) the result of man made CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

There is a natural "carbon cycle" that recycles CO2. But it's a delicate balance and we're messing it up.

Look at this graph.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html

The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels. The scientists can actually show that the increased CO2 in the air comes from burning fossil fuels by using "isotopic ratios" to identify that CO2. The natural carbon cycle buried carbon in fossil fuels over a very long time, little bit by little bit. We dig them up and burn them, real fast. That's a problem.

Man is upsetting the balance of nature. We need to fix that.

Answer 4

natural carbon vs unnatural carbon? Now I've heard everything. We are so egocentric as a society - or at least a very vocal segment is. We can only imagine things on our limited, one-lifetime scale (or at least those of us with limited reasoning ability.) The Earth has been "recycling" fossil carbon for eons.

We proudly claim that we are presently putting 100 times the amount of CO2 that volcanoes do, but we have only been reaching that amount over the last 100 years. Volcanoes have been at it for over a billion years. And the level of vulcanism has decreased considerably relate to past eras. If the Earth were only at it for one billion years, then it has put out enough CO2 to dwarf 100,000 industrial revolutions.

Does that mean we have 99,999 centuries of catching up to do?

Answer 5

The environmentalists are about money, otherwise they would point to the true cause of global warming (if you believe it is caused by CO2 concentration).... OVERPOPULATION!

But I doubt they'd get most support if their solution was to kill off 5/6th of the population of the Earth. And who would get to choose?

I see one responder decided to classify exhaled CO2 as "natural" and fossil fuel CO2 as "evil" because it has been "locked away for a long time." So once it was in the atmosphere. You admit CO2 levels were higher at one time then? Say it isn't so.

If CO2 is the problem then ALL sources of CO2 must be reduced. Deny that if we reduced the population by 50% we would reduce CO2 emissions by approximately the same (no electricity for 1/2 the current population, no food production, no food transportation, we wouldn't need to build any more houses or buildings for a LONG time. And it would open up even more sugar cane, corn and other biofuels for energy uses.

Answer 6

Carbon that we exhale is part of the short term carbon cycle. It was CO2 last year before a plant fixed it from the atmosphere to make its plant material. Then you ate that carbon (either directly or though the "help" of another animal) to later exhale it as CO2 again. This is carbon neutrality. There is no net change in CO2. This is why there is a push to make fuels out of biomass.

Problem carbon is different. This is fossil carbon, carbon that was long ago locked away, that is placed back into the atmosphere by burning it.

Answer 7

The amount of CO2 expelled by a human is negligible, especially once compared to water vapor and methane. Fact is we are a part of earths natural process and so it generally has enough capacity to process the gas out of the atmosphere, it's our machinery that is the problem, but like some of the others said, if you listen to researchers (this is why there was a debate about it to begin with) the earth has experienced plenty of these naturally occuring increases in temperature one coinciding with the extinction of most life in the era just prior to the dynosaurs. Have we contributed, yes, should we do something to minimize our impact, sure, are we the sole reason for the warming hell no. Anyone pay attention to the amount of greenhouse gas is spewed by a volcano and the fact that there has been a small increase in volcanic activity on the planet in the last 150 years or so?

Answer 8

Actually, large buildings cause more carbon dioxide than all the cars and people combined. We should outlaw skyscrapers.

Also, methane gas traps several times more heat than CO2. I wonder why that is never mentioned?

Check the stats, both are true. But global climate change is another subject. That is a normal phenomena that is being capitalized on.

Answer 9

Massive eruptions of methane via one's rectum is quite significant if you take into account that, if you hold a lighted match near your hole when you fart, does the brilliant blue flame constitute further emissions of CO2 ? It's a double take really because methane in its raw state can cause damage and even cause damage when fired so what can you do except cork our arses up and pray that the beans you ate for lunch don't give you the works.

Answer 10

No, breathing is carbon neutral. When you breathe you're exhaling carbon that's been part of the carbon cycle for a long time.

When you burn fossil fuels, you're releasing carbon that's been trapped for a long time, so you're adding carbon to the atmosphere.

See the difference?