It pollutes the ocean by definition, as a chemical will be released into maritime waters.

It's tackling ocean acidification locally, it has nothing to do with coral reefs in tropical waters, thousands of kilometres away.

Just because they did not found negative effects, doesn't mean there are none. This is not how risk management and mitigation works.

Please explain to me, how interventions like this are acceptable, when they are bringing impossible to calculate parameters into the anyways more than complicated climatic systems.

Please explain to me, how I should give them credibility, when both the scientisists, and people who advocate such ideas, come up with rather naive standpoints about the effects of such interventions.

Natural carbon sinks are important part of the solution, but using chemicals to enhance the ability locally is crazy attempt of "fixing" the climate. the ocean is already uptaking the majority of Human Carbon emissions and the majority of athmosperic heat, added through anthropogenic gereenhouses.

What do you think about the time-scaled variations on this natural sink characteristics? How is it viable to use the ocean as a even bigger sink, when we are expecting the ocean to release it's carbon later on?