Can We Make a Sound That Will Cause Carbon Dioxide to Cool

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-8t0GE4WV3g

How do you turn CO2 into carbonate?

The CO2 is dissolved in water to form carbonic acid (H2CO3), which dissociates to H+ and HCO3 -. The H+ reacts with the mineral, liberating Mg2+ cations which react with the bicarbonate to form the solid carbonate.

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/896218#:~:text=The%20CO2%20is%20dissolved%20in,to%20form%20the%20solid%20carbonate.

https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article/150/14/144302/198581/Understanding-the-anharmonic-vibrational-structure

Study of vibrational kinetics of CO2 and CO in CO2–O2 plasmas under non-equilibrium conditions

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6595/acb665

https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/oysters-an-unsung-hero-in-a-changing-climate#:~:text=Superpower%3A%20carbon%20capture%20titans,in%20a%20process%20called%20calcification.

an organic sequestration method... the expense/development would be to expediate the sequestration.

This is a good strategy.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032122008991

I've tossed a lot of mussel shells in my garden, and I can say with some certainty, they don't break down very easily, even though you can break them with a boot. So whatever carbon they sequester, it's resistant to letting that carbon go.

Some suggestion though that climate change doesn't favor the shellfish:

"..warmer waters, less oxygen in the water, and now combining that with ocean acidification is a triple whammy. If we get a perfect storm of bad events, that can wipe out an entire shellfish population."

https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/news/28/how-is-climate-change-impacting-shellfish-in-the-ocean

So this needs to happen before it becomes less likely to succeed.

I for one could eat more shellfish, I should make it a point to eat mussels once a week to encourage the cultivation industry.

If the Higgs Boson is creating mass by harmonic association with the Higgs Field, can a series of anharmonic frequencies be used to reduce the effect?

Can two light waves cancel each other out?

When two light waves interfere destructively, their electric fields cancel each other out, resulting in no light (a dark fringe). This phenomenon can be observed in various optical experiments, such as Young's double-slit experiment.

https://www.tutorchase.com/answers/ib/physics/what-happens-during-destructive-interference-of-light-waves

A noise-cancellation speaker emits a sound wave with the same amplitude but with an inverted phase (also known as antiphase) relative to the original sound. The waves combine to form a new wave, in a process called interference, and effectively cancel each other out – an effect which is called destructive interference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_noise_control#:~:text=A%20noise%2Dcancellation%20speaker%20emits,which%20is%20called%20destructive%20interference.

To lower a molecule's energy state using frequency waves, you can expose it to electromagnetic radiation at a specific frequency that corresponds to the energy difference between the molecule's excited state and its desired lower energy state, causing the molecule to absorb a photon and transition to the lower energy level, essentially "relaxing" the molecule; this process is often referred to as "stimulated emission" in the context of quantum mechanics.

https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Duke_University/

N. Tesla said "If you want to find the secrets of the universe,think in terms of energy,frequency and vibration."

You may be on to something..

It may not be sound,but rather a electromagnetic frequency that does it.

Frequencies can be tuned to vibrate certain molecules like for instance, a microwave oven is tuned to the liquid water molecule and will heat water faster than ice.

Once the ice transitions to water,it begins to really heat up.

Perhaps there is a frequency that can split CO2 into carbon and oxygen,and other molecules as well.

Of course,there are always unintended consequences of any action,like carbon molecules in the air causing more rain,etc.

String theory states that all matter is created by vibrating strings,and like a violin,where the frequency determines the note,the strings determine the type of matter:Gold,carbon,hydrogen,etc.Imagine a violin with a nearly infinite number of strings,each string a prime number length and consequent frequency.

When we learn how to play all of the strings of that violin,we will be able to make or destroy anything.Scary.
There are frequencies in the universe that we cannot detect with our present technology,as it was in the 17th century.They did not exist for all intents and purposes.Anything moving faster than light cannot be detected by our present technology.Einstein did not say nothing could travel faster than light but rather communication was not possible faster than the speed of light,which means it would be presently undetectable to us.

"The truth is out there."

Yes I linked to a dissociation method earlier, but don't feel this is the right approach for desired results, at least in this instance, I just want to lower the energy level and release the the IR energy that has been absorbed...thus leaving the CO2 molecule intact...

..."Abstract One possible solution to mitigating the effects of high atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) is the use of a plasma source to break apart the molecule into carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen. This work experimentally investigates the efficiency of dissociation of CO2 in a 1-kW radio-frequency (rf) plasma source operating at 13.56-MHz in a low-pressure discharge. Mass spectrometry diagnostics are used to determine the species present in the discharge, and these measurements are used to calculate the energy efficiency and conversion efficiency of CO2 dissociation in the rf plasma source. Experimental results have found that the conversion efficiency of CO2 to CO can reach values near 90%, however energy efficiency reaches a maximum of 3%. A theoretical energy cost analysis is also given as a method to evaluate the effectiveness of any plasma system designed for CO2 emissions reduction."...continues..

https://public.websites.umich.edu/~peplweb/pdf/PCPP-2011-CO2Dissoc.pdf

Carbon dioxide primarily absorbs infrared radiation at altitudes below around 5-6 kilometers, where the concentration of greenhouse gases is significant enough to trap heat radiating from the Earth's surface, with the most prominent absorption occurring around the 15 micrometer wavelength band;...

This region of the spectrum is divided into near-, mid-, and far-infrared. The region from 8 to 15 microns (µm) is referred to by Earth scientists as thermal infrared since these wavelengths are best for studying the longwave thermal energy radiating from our planet.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

When a CO2 molecule absorbs infrared radiation, it experiences a relatively small energy increase, typically on the order of a few vibrational energy levels, which translates to a very small amount of energy per molecule, but the collective effect of many CO2 molecules absorbing infrared radiation can significantly contribute to warming due to the greenhouse effect...

Related If a CO2 molecule re-emits the IR energy it absorbed within microseconds (according to Quoran experts), how can it actually warm up the atmosphere?

Infrared photons are emitted by the earth and carry thermal energy upwards away from the surface. This is a cooling effect. Some of those photons make it all the way into space without every hitting a CO2 molecule. That is heat that has left the earth and cooled it down every so slightly.

Some of the IR photons run into a CO2 molecule without making it into space. The CO2 molecule then reemits a photon as you noted in your question. That photon can shoot back down towards the earth. or it could shoot upwards. Or it could shoot sideways. Some of those ways make it into space and they cool the earth ever so slightly. Those that shoot back downwards do not carry their energy out into space. They keep it in the atmosphere.

The more CO2 molecules there are, the more IR photons will run into CO2 molecules and have a chance not to make it into space. That’s the heat that is trapped in the atmosphere. Even though the CO2 reemits the photon almost instantaneously, it shoots that photon out in random directions and only some of those have a cooling effect.

Just to be clear, it’s not the same photon that is reemitted by the CO2 molecule. It’s a new photon. And sometimes, the CO2 molecule doesn’t reemit a photon. Instead, it might collide with a nitrogen molecule or an oxygen molecule. Then the energy of the photon is transferred to those other air molecules as kinetic energy of the air molecules. That means the air is now warmer.

https://www.quora.com/How-much-infrared-energy-does-one-mol-of-CO2-in-Earth-s-atmosphere-absorb-and-emit-per-day

...

Related If a CO2 molecule re-emits the IR energy it absorbed within microseconds (according to Quoran experts), how can it actually warm up the atmosphere?

Synopsis

The paradox answers itself, it’s not true. Thermal IR fluorescence/radiative relaxation (a slow process) occurs rarely in the atmosphere as the dominant process is collisional deactivation (a fast process).

According to Quoran experts” - an amusing notion when it is physics related to climate change.

Explanation

CO2 does not re-emit the IR energy it absorbs within microseconds. It takes around 20 milliseconds (if memory serves) for carbon dioxide to re-emit an IR photon. This behavior can only be observed when carbon dioxide is in a container at very low pressure.

At the pressures commonly seen in the atmosphere, the collision rate between a carbon dioxide molecules and the surrounding oxygen and nitrogen molecules is extremely high. So high in fact that the IR energy absorbed by a carbon dioxide molecule is transferred to the surrounding air in nanoseconds. In other words the IR energy is lost as heat before it can be re-emitted.

Gas velocimetry based on infrared laser-induced fluorescence....A study

..."A novel method for gas velocity field measurements by means of infrared molecular tagging velocimetry is reported with proof-of-principle demonstration in a carbon dioxide (CO₂) axisymmetric turbulent jet. Infrared laser-induced fluorescence utilizes the resonant vibrational energy level transitions of small gas molecules, such as CO₂, to “tag” and trace the flow of the molecules by taking subsequent images of the infrared emission. Spectroscopic model of the molecular vibrational energy transfer processes is taken into account to design and optimize the measurement scheme. The infrared images are then analyzed, with detailed consideration of molecular diffusion, lateral velocity, and fluorescence lifetime, to yield quantitative velocity field distribution. The radial velocity distributions in the jet main region, with velocities ranging from 7 to 50 m/s, are obtained and shown to be in excellent agreement with theoretical predication and previous experimental works. Velocity uncertainties are discussed and estimated to be 7.7%, 6.7%, 6.1% for Re = 10⁴,

2×104, 3×104 (maximum velocity uc=18.3,34.6,50.5 m/s), respectively. Spatial resolution along the laser beam is estimated to be 107 μm. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first work of infrared molecular tagging velocimetry. With powerful excitation lasers targeting strong infrared molecular absorption transitions, this technique presents great potential for simultaneous flow-scalar field measurements at much-improved accuracy, spatial and temporal resolution, that can be used for the study of low-speed micro-flows, or instantaneous snapshots of turbulent flows."...

https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pof/article-abstract/33/12/125126/1062371/Gas-velocimetry-based-on-infrared-laser-induced?redirectedFrom=PDF

So most the absorbed infrared energy actually ends up as kinetic molecular energy...

So I'm now balls deep in this rabbit hole, time to hop along casually to find a freeze ray....

...Yes, wind turbines do reduce the kinetic energy of air molecules because they extract the kinetic energy from the wind (which is composed of moving air molecules) and convert it into mechanical energy by spinning their blades, effectively slowing down the wind and decreasing the kinetic energy of the air molecules passing through them; however, the overall impact on the kinetic energy of the atmosphere is usually negligible due to the large volume of air involved....

There ya go, we just need more wind turbines...

...According to current scientific understanding, the total heat energy absorbed by CO2 molecules daily is estimated to be around 22 trillion joules per second for a US-sized chunk of the atmosphere, which is a significant amount of energy equivalent to multiple Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs detonating every second; however, the exact figure depends on factors like current CO2 concentration and atmospheric conditions.

Wait what? That doesn't sound right...

Here are some average wind speeds around the world:

• Global average The average wind speed on Earth is 9 meters per second.
• Ocean and land The average wind speed at 10 meters above the ocean is 6.64 meters per second, while the average wind speed at 10 meters above land is 3.28 meters per second.
• Day and night The average wind speed over land during the day is 4.96 meters per second, while the average wind speed over land at night is 4.85 meters per second.
• Gulf of Mexico The average wind speed in the Gulf of Mexico is 5.9 meters per second off the coast of Louisiana and 6.7 meters per second in Texas.
• Jet streams The strong winds in the upper atmosphere, known as jet streams, can reach speeds of 480 kilometers per hour.

Wind speeds have changed over time, with some research showing that winds slowed from 1978 to 2010, but then increased again after 2010. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that wind speeds will slow in the coming decades.

Wind speeds are getting faster worldwide, and that's good news for renewable energy production — at least for now.

A study published yesterday in the journal Nature Climate Change finds that winds across much of North America, Europe and Asia have been growing faster since about 2010.

In less than a decade, the global average wind speed has increased from about 7 mph to about 7.4 mph. For the average wind turbine, that translates to a 17% increase in potential wind energy. That might explain about half the increase in U.S. wind power capacity since 2010, researchers say.

The study may help put to rest a scientific debate that's perplexed researchers for years.

Before global wind speeds picked up in 2010, they had been decreasing for several decades, starting in the 1970s. Scientists floated a variety of theories about the "global stilling," as it came to be called. One of the most popular ideas suggested that increasing urban development and other land-use changes had altered the surface of the Earth, making it rougher and increasing the amount of drag acting on the flow of air around the world.

But if that were the case, wind speeds should still be slowing down now — not speeding up. The recent reversal suggests that some other factor must be playing a bigger role.

The new study points to large, natural climate cycles as the likely culprit.

Using models to investigate the factors that influence the behavior of global winds, the researchers found that big climate patterns — which affect temperatures in certain parts of the world — have a major influence on wind speeds. Temperature differences between neighboring regions, or between the ocean and nearby land areas, can affect the flow of air.

For instance, the researchers found that wind speeds tend to be slower across much of the Northern Hemisphere when temperatures are warmer in parts of the tropical Atlantic and the western Pacific and over Greenland.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-worlds-winds-are-speeding-up/

According to available data, the average daily energy extracted from wind turbines across all wind turbines globally is around 2,304 terawatt-hours (TWh), which translates to roughly 7.8% of the world's electricity generation based on 2022 figures;

Who wants to take a guess what percentage of co2 infrared heating is being neutralized by wind turbine generation...? Anybody?

22 trillion joules is 22 terawatts...

31,536,000 seconds in a year...= 693,792,000 tw

3600 seconds in an hour = 192,720 twh in a year - 2,304 twh neutralized by wind

I make that just over 1%

Wait that's 2304 twh a day....so times 365 days = 840,960 twh per year that's over 400%, of course we have to allow for efficiency and heat loss....but it seems we are still removing more heat with wind turbines than we are adding with CO2....

Wait that was only an area the size of the united states...so still a large chunk...

According to current data, the United States produces approximately 14.4% of global carbon emissions.

So wind turbines are neutralizing around 60% of heating from CO2....

https://www.irena.org/Energy-Transition/Technology/Wind-energy

Now there's a goal we might actually be able to reach by 2030....CO2 heat generation neutralization through wind turbine utilization...

But wait, isn't capturing the heat via wind turbine generation, from fossil fuels, then increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel engines....increasing the efficiency from around 50% to around 70% ?...

..."Gas turbines can be used in combined heat and power (CHP) systems with efficiencies ranging from 50–70% for combustion turbine-based systems and 70–85% for reciprocating engine-based systems. However, CHP systems can achieve overall efficiencies of 65–80%, and some systems can even reach efficiencies of nearly 90%. This is because CHP systems recover and use heat from on-site electricity production, which is more efficient than generating heat and electricity separately."...

https://www.epa.gov/chp/methods-calculating-chp-efficiency

So can car manufacturers invest in some wind generation to meet cafe standards...?

Wind turbines are not neutralizing heat captured by atmospheric CO2. All the energy captured from the wind is reemitted as heat typically mostlly at the surface. Whatever inefficiencies exist are conversions to heat and the end use is eventually a conversion to heat.

Perhaps if you are using the windmills to power large lasers of appropriate frequencies for low atmospheric absorption and beaming power into space it could be offsetting sources of heat. Most other uses still keep the heat here.

But the heat gets a chance to be re-emitted to space over and over again until it escapes...the CO2 only recaptures a small portion...the majority escapes Earth's clutches...so wind turbines are helping to cool the atmosphere...at least it seems that way following the logical data...

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/energy-budget

...and does the heat in the atmosphere not get the chance to be radiated into space over and over again, just like the heat that energy that gets processed by a wind turbine? How are you imagining that inefficiencies of windturbine and everyrhing downstream thereof is somehow more likely, than run of the mill atmospheric heat, to be radiated away from the planet?

Because the heat from the wind is being transformed into power generation which in turn replaces fossil fuel generation and the growing problem of too much CO2...we only need to diminish the amount of heat trapped in the atmospheric loop to lower the global temperature, or just keep pace with current temps...Eventually all the heat gets irradiated to space, the problem is the amount being circulated by CO2...

Now whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, is not clear, but controlling it would end speculation...and that would be a good thing...

We could further diminish the amount of heat in the atmosphere by using the wind turbines to heat molten salt in large storage tanks or underground caverns, thus sequestering the concentrated heat in storage and out of the atmospheric loop, granted eventually it all returns to the atmosphere, but the constantly sequestered heat is out of the atmosphere on a constantly rotating basis....

https://www.esmap.org/sites/default/files/ESP/220428%20ESMAP%20Worldbank%20ESP%20Webinar%20Malta%20for%20web%20.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZEBRA_battery

...and as long as you continue to increase the temperature of your molten salt tanks, and the insulation is good, you would be removing heat from the atnosphere. But even with garganuan insulatef tanks, you would very quickly reach limits and no longer be removing heat from the atmosphere in any appreciable amounts.

You are not suggesting that all the equipment subject to the inefficiencies in wind power, the grid and end use represemts an as of yet unheated insulated thermal sink where we might sequester appreciable amounts of heat from the atmosphere, are you?

A million tons of molten salt can hold a massive amount of heat, approximately equivalent to 2.65 billion gigajoules (GJ) or 736 twh, assuming a typical molten salt mixture with a heat capacity of 1.5 J/g and a temperature range of around 275°C.

The United States produced an estimated 42 million tons of salt in 2023, which was the second-largest amount produced in the world. The top producing states were Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Utah, which accounted for about 95% of the country's salt production.

42 tons of salt could store around 31,000 twh of energy

.....times about 6.2 and that would be the heat energy added to the atmosphere for an entire year...

2.06b cubic meters.

In 2023, the United States consumed 4,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity, which is one of the highest amounts ever recorded.

42 (million) tons of salt could store around 31,000 twh of energy

In 2023, global electricity generation reached a record high of 29,925 terawatt-hours

How many wind turbines would it take to power the world?

Depending on the size of the turbine (larger ones can produce more electricity), we might need fewer wind turbines overall. If we only used extremely efficient turbines (i.e. ones that create 4 MW of power at 40% capacity), about 1.49 million turbines could supply the world's electricity consumption.Oct 16, 2016

15 June 2023, London | The wind industry is today celebrating the sector passing the landmark figure of one terawatt of global installed capacity. It has taken more than forty years to reach the 1TW milestone, although with the wind industry continually gaining momentum, the next TW will take less than 7 years to install, according to data from the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), which is organising a series of events to mark the achievement.

You aren't completely wrong. Your answer has around 141 ppm truth, or 0.0141% true.

A metric ton is 10⁶ grams, so a million tons is 10¹²grams.

A gigajoule is 10⁹ joules, so billion gigajoules is 10¹⁸ joules.

If ambient is roughly 25°C then 275°C is 250°C above ambient.

At 1.5 joules/°C per gram and 250°above ambient, that is 375 joules per gram.

A million tons at 1.5 joules/°C per gram for 250°C is 3.75 x 10^-4 billion gigajoules. Not 2.65 billion gigajoules.

So you only missed by around 4 orders of magnitude.

Remember that the heat of combustion of fossil fuel pales in comparison to the what is calculated to result from radiative forcing.

Thank you for the attempt at clarification....that does seem like a significant amount of heat...

https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/questions-and-answers/answer-parts-d-e-f-question-solutions-part-b-c-q119295236

https://www.kylesconverter.com/energy,-work,-and-heat/gigajoules-to-terawatt-hours

...

3.1.2.1. Solid sensible storage materials

Basalt glass has been studied as a storage medium in QS,stor systems to determine the material's thermophysical and mechanical properties at varying temperatures and compositions [31]. The researchers studied three samples of basalt glass with varying mole% of free oxygens due to the varying composition of metal oxides. The thermal capacity of the sample with the highest amount of free oxygens (13.07 mol%) was the lowest compared to the other two samples at temperatures ranging from 0 to 1000°C. The sample with the highest number of free oxygens also had the highest heat capacity and thermal conductivity.

At 1000°C, the cp of the sample was 1.274 J g-1 K-1, and the thermal conductivity was 1.60 W m-1 K-1. Moreover, the material's density was determined to be 2.66 g cm−3. As compared to basalt, basalt glass had much better thermophysical properties. Moreover, basalt glass provides a more economical and environmentally friendly alternative for QS,stor, as compared to other natural ores.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666202723000459#:~:text=2.2.,high%20temperature%20applications%20%5B28%5D.

Perhaps there is a frequency that can split CO2 into carbon and oxygen,and other molecules as well.

You might find this interesting.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep18436

"Disintegration of Carbon Dioxide Molecules in a Microwave Plasma Torch"

It's got a few problems. The residue after dissociation includes a mess of biproducts. " The dominant species after the decomposition of carbon dioxide are C, O, CO, C₂, O₂ and CO₂. Thus, there are 19 reactions expected in total."

The energy required doesn't include what is necessary to extract pure CO₂ from the 0.04% concentration in the atmosphere.

Mother nature does a much more efficient job with green plants with free energy from the sun.

We still have a lot to learn.

Lightning and wind turbines...and mitigation strategies...

..."Wind turbines have lightning protection systems that channel electrical energy safely into the ground. In fact, industry experts estimate that wind turbines survive 97–99% of lightning strikes without taking any significant damage.

Even so, the 1–3% of damaging lightning strikes cost the industry $100 million annually and account for 60% of blade losses and almost 20% of operational losses overall, according to estimates.

Risk management company, DNV, says lightning damage is the single largest cause of unplanned downtime in wind turbines. Insurance specialist, AXIS Capital, says lightning damage also results in the longest downtime at 233 days on average per closed claim."...

..."Wind farms are natural targets for lightning, due to their height and the conductive materials they contain. The taller the turbine, the more likely it is to be struck by lightning. And in the race for maximum efficiency, height does matter. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the average hub height of land-based wind turbines has increased by 73% since 1998, to 98 meters (322 feet) in 2022. That's taller than the Statue of Liberty."...

..."We detected 77,494 lightning strokes at or near U.S. wind farms in 2023. That’s just over one for every turbine in the country on average. In reality, some farms saw significantly more lightning while some had no lightning at all, as we’ll see later in this post."....

https://www.xweather.com/blog/article/xweather-reveals-lightning-risk-for-wind-farms

https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2021/lightning-protection-wind-turbine-blades.html#:~:text=While%20thermal%20welding%20offers%20benefits,the%20novel%20thermoplastic%20materials%20safe.