Is there some kind of gas we can produce to kill Co2 that causes global warming?

Question

It must be oxegen that kills carbon. I know a lot of trees help. But, is there a way we can massively produce oxegen or any gas that kills carbon? If there is such way, I wouldn't mind to be regulated by the government to pay for this gas. I even will do it voluntarily. I know my question is very stupid but just can't help wondering.

Answer 1

Unfortunately, no (not on a global scale).

There are two reasons. One is that chemical reactions don't "kill" anything--if you did have something that would react with the CO2, what you will get is a new molecule r molecules--it doesn't jsut "go away." And the reaction products from such reactions are themselves polluting.

The other is that most CO2 reactions with other substances are "endothermic"--you have to add energy to make the reaction happen. How much enrgy?--about as much as was released by burning the oil and coal that produced the CO2 in the first place. So--in order to get 1 ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere, you'd end up burning enough fuel to make another ton, more or less.

Plants take CO2 out of the air alll of the time--but they use energy from the sun (photosynthess) to get the enrgy to do that. Right now, although scientists are working on ways to remove large aounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, we don't have the technology. Our best bet is reforestration--plant as many trees in deforested areas a swe can.

Which will not do any good, either, unless we start using alternative energy sources and quit burning coal, natural gas, and oil in massive quantities.

Answer 2

There is a principal law for this answer and it it...

Matter can't be created or destroyed.

You can't just destroy CO2 molecules. But you can somehow find a way for them to react in a different way so it doesn't make CO2. CO2 comes from two major sources. Cars and power plants. Now there are other sources they come from i just named the biggest two. If the world steps up, we can make more fuel efficient vehicles, use hydrogen pods, hybrids or even electric cars.

Also without CO2 plants and trees will not be able to survive. Plants take in CO2 and create oxygen for us to breathe (you probably knew that but just bringing it in as its a problem for getting rid of CO2)

And no, your question isn't stupid. Every person has the right to wonder how or why something is the way it is.

Answer 3

CO2 content in the earth's atmosphere is about 0.03% ...that is NOT 3 % it is three one hundredths of one percent...
not enough to make very much if any difference in global temperature.
A more likely candidate for greenhouse gas would be water vapor which has a much greater presence in the atmosphere and a huge latent heat when compared with CO2.

The carbon footprint/carbon credit scam is only to separate you from your money via taxes.

Here is truth about global warming:

Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.
The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.
This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.
Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is
becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).
As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).
When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.

It's been happening for millions of years.

The worrisome and brutal predictions of drastic climate effects are based on computer models, NOT CLIMATE HISTORY.
As you probably know, computer models are not the most reliable of sources, especially when used to 'predict' chaotic systems such as weather.

Global warming/cooling, AKA 'climate change':
Humans did not cause it.
Humans cannot stop it.

Answer 4

No, the carbon needs to be locked up, it can't be 'killed'.

I've not put any money on the scientists being able to get us out of this fix, I know they always have in the past, but most of what science does seems to end in more carbon emissions at the end of the day. Just because something has worked in the past, doesn't neccessarily mean it will work in the future.

It's like spending too much on a credit card, shifting the debt 'round for a bit, and then hiding all the nasty mail in the kitchen drawer, hoping they will just go away. You know what the solution is...

Answer 5

You can't kill carbon. Carbon is an element and carbon atoms cannot be destroyed. Carbon dioxide is a chemical compound. A carbon dioxide molecule is one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms stuck together. You can split carbon dioxide into carbon and oxygen, and since carbon is not a gas it would just fall to the ground then. The trouble is that it takes energy to split carbon dioxide. And we GET energy by combining carbon with oxygen. That is what a fire is, a chemical reaction combining carbon and oxygen. Coal is mostly carbon, so burning coal causes oxygen from the air to combine with carbon in the coal to make carbon dioxide and heat, which is used to boil water in a steam engine in an electric power plant. (Oil is part carbon and part hydrogen. Burning it creates carbon dioxide and water vapor. The water vapor is no problem since it rains out of the air quickly, but the carbon dioxide does not.) So to split the carbon dioxide takes energy that we have to generate by making carbon dioxide. So the only solution is to find other ways to make power than do not make carbon dioxide in the first place.

Answer 6

Treating the atmosphere would probably do more harm than good. IF CO2 was the major cause of increased global warming, the solution would be to stop producing it and let nature take care of the excess in the atmosphere.

Answer 7

Frankly i'm uncertain which places me ideal up they with the climate scientist they don't look to renowned for useful the two. the only element they're useful of is that to proceed to get investment they greater useful declare that's led to by making use of human beings. My best guess is an identical variety of element that led to the tip of the final ice age. purely in accordance with statistical data i might say we are greater possibly to slip into yet another ice age than into run away international warming. i assume the international cooling alarmist of the 1970's had greater convincing data than the present international warming alarmist. additionally that's obvious that an ice age ought to take place interior a decade not a century, and the outcomes may well be some distance worse for mankind.

Answer 8

There is already 29% oxygen in the atmosphere and a few hundred parts per million carbon dioxide. Oxygen does not 'kill' carbon dioxide. Whilst people often talk about carbon emissions, or carbon credits they are referring to carbon which is released in the form of carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is a fairly unreactive gas. It does react with amines or caustic soda and scientists are looking at ways to 'scrub' it out of the atmosphere. These are expensive solutions and the engineering needs to be developed along with ways of raising money to finance such projects.

Answer 9

You might be on to something. You just might be right!

Some scientists are considering iron fertilization as a means of creating a sink to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Here's how it works... There are vasts tracts of the oceans where the limiting nutrient is iron. When iron is lightly sprinkled over the surface of the ocean it created a phyto- plankton bloom of algae which means the algae grows and does its photosynthesis business which uses CO2 from the atmosphere. The CO2 is changed into carbohydrates and cellulose and eventually dies and ends up in the bottom of the oceans. So no more CO2.

Answer 10

CO2 is a compound of two oxygen atoms with a Carbon atom as a binder