Uh, wonder what would happen to the fishies if the ocean is forced to uptake all the "extra" CO2?
And, more importantly, what happens if it goes hog wild and sucks up ALL of the CO2? What will the poor trees and corn do without CO2? What happens to all of the ethanol we are counting on the corn to produce for us?

Lastly, who paid for this brainstorming?

"I wonder how big these treatment plants would have to be, certainly not on the scale of your ordinary home town treatment plant."

I wonder...............................

I wonder how much these plants will cost to build AND WHO WILL PAY FOR THEM ???

I wonder how much these plants will cost to operate and maintain over the many decades of operation AND WHO WILL PAY FOR THEM ???

I wonder where will they be built; NOT IN MY BACKYARD !!!

I wonder WHAT ELSE COULD BE DONE WITH ALL THAT MONEY ???

I wonder......................

I wonder how much electricity it will require to run these plants?
I wonder how many more power plants would be built inorder to generate the electricity these plants require?

This process would require that huge volumes of seawater are exposed to electrolysis, which might be harmful to plankton and other small sea creatures which get through their filters. It would likely require large amounts of platinum for the electrodes. If you have ever done electrolysis on salt water, you know that the electrodes corrode in a matter of minutes. Platinum is the only metal which can survive electrolysis very long.

It would also be nice if author could stick to discussing reducing atmospheric CO2, rather than reducing "global warming." Global warming is a concept, not a chemical.

I did not see any mention of the impact of this chemical change to ocean eco-systems. Reply: they probably do not know those answers yet.

It is hard to believe there would not be any.

I would assume that an incredible amount of electrolysis would require an incredible amount of electricity. This raises two questions: 1) How can that much electricity be generated from renewable and carbon neutral sources? 2) Simple economics dictates that this would increase the price of electricity, which will hurt both consumers and industry.

However, if sea level rise ever got way out of control, this could be a highly effective method of reducing (in fact, precisely controlling) atmospheric CO2. It would also be a great way to discover whether or not reducing atmospheric CO2 would actually lower sea levels.

Remember that one of the key aspects of the IPCC reports is that stopping human CO2 production now would take decades to significantly impact atmospheric CO2. This is why any attempts to reduce CO2 production will be futile. It is human nature to be proactive. I think that politicians talking about reducing human CO2 emissions is just touchy feely talk to get elected. Even the Republican presidential candidates are doing it!

Surely, a politician that actually implements a serious CO2 emission reduction program would be committing political suicide. If you think that basic commodities are expensive now, a forced reduction in CO2 emissions will be your worst nightmare! The cost of energy affects our economy in every conceivable way. Most people are much more concerned about whether or not their next paycheck will cover their daily living expenses than anything else.

Back to the science, I feel that changing the acidity of seawater would be better than fertilizing the oceans with iron, where there is great uncertainty of how much iron would be required and what effect it would have on the food chain.

It is also a way for The West to reduce atmospheric CO2 without necessarily requiring the cooperation of China, India, or Russia. The combined coastlines of the United States, Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand should be more than enough. In fact, the United States could possibly have a significant impact by acting unilaterally.

We currently spend 4 billion a year on global warming research, so why not spend it on this instead? Forget computer modeling and simply observing ecosystems. All we get from those "scientists" is complaints! Do some real experiments!!! This could be like the Manhattan project, but without the destructive goal. If the project is successful, wouldn't the people involved deserve the Nobel Peace Prize as well as the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry and Physics?

Or would the whole thing start a new cold war with The West reducing atmospheric CO2 while Russia does what it can (with the help of China?) to increase atmospheric CO2. Russia stands to gain the most from global warming, so there is not way they will ever agree to do anything to reduce atmospheric CO2. I am quite perplexed by Canada's stance on global warming. Just who are they trying to kid? They don't care about global warming, they just want to reduce the military power of the United States by imposing worldwide socialism.

Canada wants the win-win situation of global warming plus socialism, as that is what Kyoto would give us. They couldn't possibly want global cooling plus cooperation with the United States! That would be a lose lose situation for them!!

What does the elimination of 100% of CO2 do to plant life? Why even mention it?

A significant development?

Loehe's published work on non-tree temperatures records versus "hockey stick" record
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_trees_were_kidding_the_world_was_warmer_just_a_few_centuries_ago/

How do they stop smog, lung cancer,skin cancer,heart attacks, strokes,asthma,arctic ice loss,extinction of species including loss of the corals for starters? How do they generate electrical power that offset almost all of the fossil fuels?

My "TUNNEL" idea does all this and about 250 other benefits for mankind. These water treatment plants are probably about as big as my "TUNNELS" are. Perhaps, bigger.

Carbon footprint of the treatment plants? Impact on sea life? Effects of (most likely) imbalanced sea life on future air quality? Ecological balance overall?

Sounds to me like, "Hey, we've screwed up our air. I have an idea! Let's screw up our water to fix it!" Brilliant!

Patrick-

Wow! Your tunnels cure cancer? You should have shared the Nobel prize!!

Can they also cure spam?

johnk,

You raise some interesting questions about electricity. They may well run up against some fundamental thermodynamic limitation which would require more energy input to bond the carbon, than the energy output from broken carbon bonds upon burning. Which would mean that the use of coal generated electricity would actually cause a net increase in CO2. The electricity would probably have to be generated by wave action or some other non carbon source to be a viable approach for reducing CO2.

A dash of reality.... sorry.
" The Big Secret:
Climate Bills Result in No Meaningful Impact on Global Temperature "

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/11/20/the-big-secret-climate-bills-result-in-no-meaningful-impact-on-global-temperature/

Excerpt:
" And the three Senate climate bills would do even less!

Recall that EPA calculates that the climate bills will reduce future atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 23 to 25 ppm. That is about 60% of the reduction calculated by Wigley for his global Kyoto scenario. Since the temperature savings scales roughly with the CO2 concentration savings (especially at these small quantities), the climate bills �save� about 60% of 0.15�C or just less than one tenth, that�s 0.1, degrees Celsius.

One tenth of one degree Celsius for an enormous economic hit�the EPA calculated that S.280 (Lieberman-McCain) would lower the U.S. GDP annually by 1.1% to 3.2% ($457 billion to $1,332 billion) by the year 2050. EPA�s analysis of the economic effects of the other bills has not been completed yet (see here for updates).

That�s a lot of lost capital to produce virtually no climate impact. No polar bears are saved, no droughts averted, no hurricanes tamed. Nada. Except, a lot less cash in the pocketbook. "

Oh brother is what I say. In 20 years we can all sit back and laugh at all this global warming silliness. The Greens were in retreat in the mid 90's and American socialists were in full retreat after the election in 1994. This whole global warming scam was cooked up by the ivory tower intelligencia and the loony left wing in this country to regain power .. �If we can�t scare them with the Marxist rhetoric let�s appeal to their love of nature�. Their coming out party was Kyoto and the famous hockey stick diagram. Most of America is too stupid and too asleep to actually study the issue in any intelligent way. The lefties prey on your ignorance of the facts and in their old Brown Shirt tactics seek to intimidate and squelch all dissent. There is no man made global warming, never was.

Humans contribute approximately 1/57th of 1 percent of all CO2 if we are to assume that minor fluctuations in CO2 do anything to the climate. Do most people know that? Nah, they think that SUVs belch out so much Co2 that the deserts are growing polar bears are dying. If you say a lie long enough and often enough anyone will believe it. More than 17,000 real scientists not some left wing cranks have determined that the data is far from any correlation that man has anything to do with climate change. But yet, it�s non stop here and other websites and is the new religion for the communists. Ask any jovial Clintonista or Obamite to give you their proof global warming exists and watch the smile go away and the anger rise and boil over. �It just is� they will say. It�s their own arrogance and naked envy and hatred of the producers in this society that will be their downfall. I love burning my leaves in the fall and driving my SUV, pissing the limp wristed men and their hags off.

I have been here before and for now the 7th time please anyone who wants global warming to be true show me one shred of evidence besides anecdotal and �The cock crowed therefore the sun rose� type logic to prove your point. Tell me how if all Co2 were eliminated today that the climate would change, Show me a diagram past a 100 year span that shows a steady and not cyclical rise in temps and their correlation to CO2 in the atmosphere. It�s like finding a word that rhymes with orange..there isn�t one. It�s a mindset, they want it to be true in the face of the fact, they like the crisis and what they can by fiat do to this country. Create a caste system whereby the rich intelligencia pit the poor against each other as they grovel in a system which punishes entrepreneurship and innovation.

What a stupid idea.

Patrick Henry,

Can they also cure spam?

SPAM!!!

I Love Spam!!

I'm having spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, spam, and spam!

/Monty Python off

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

At least the Soviets weren't proud of being brainwashed...

I like this idea for two reasons: First, it doesn�t involve making direct changes to our environment (such as huge space mirrors, or millions of floating pipes). Secondly, and more importantly: It can easily be switched off again. Should knock-on effects be observed we have an option to stop. Great.

These postings highlight a problem I see with this issue and why it seems more a political agenda.

The majority of posters seem to quickly disregard any suggested solution that does not also redistribute global wealth.

It seems only solutions that happen to have "other" politically motivated outcomes are exceptable. But if global warming is truly the greatest threat to mankind, wouldn't you think that very potential solution would be on the table?

I will promise you anything that you want as long as it does not have to happen before 2050.
By then, my body will have the same temperature as the earth at that time.

If a politician can't prove he can do what he promised while still in office then why believe him/her. If its about health care then maybe that politician should become a medical researcher. .. etc.
The proof is ALWAYS in the pudding.
According to a government agency (anonymous),
vocanoes grow additional parts in the ocean.
Lots of stuff gets dumped in the ocean, and we preserve a lot of animal life in the ocean.
If you stick a spoon in a glass of water the water level rises.
Water seeks its own level. That is, it takes the path dictated by gravity and environment.
In pourous parts of the crust, water follows the nooks and cranies in the earth. Water, water everywhere... New Orleans is predicted to sink, yet the Mississipi dumps silt in the Delta.... displacing of all things .. water.