My comment about the lack of understanding of the carbon cycle refers more to the quantification of the natural sources of CO2 in the carbon cycle. The assumption is that before the Industrial age the cycle was in balance and man disrupted that. While this may indeed be true. ( but we have been warming since the last ice age) If the scientific community can not accurately quantify the natural release and absorption of CO2 it remains a hypothesis.

I have yet to find any accurate data on the natural sources with less than 5-10% accuracy. My personal opinion is that if more time was spent understanding the natural sources they also could be mitigated and possible more cost effectively.

Fundamentally I am against condemning man, which to be fair had made incredible progress lowering CO2 emissions on a productivity based over the past 100 years. Think about the progress moving from Wood to Coal to Oil to natural gas to nuclear, wind, solar, battery storage etc. Burning stuff enabled mankind, it is the differentiator between us and other living things. Without fire we wouldn’t excite today nor would any of our technology.

The CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule compared to the total CO2 in the oceans. So if you are taking CO2 from the oceans and believe that removing a tiny time percentage will some how magically lower atmospheric levels of CO2, I think you are wrong. Please keep in mind man’s scientific understanding of the total CO2 cycle is surprisingly poor. 95% of total CO2 released into the atmosphere is done naturally with the CO2 cycle. Please tell me who can accurately measure the natural sources of CO2 with a greater degree of certainty of +- 5%?

Taking CO2 from the ocean will not have any significant impact on the % CO2 in the atmosphere at least not for a long long time.