Yes, it is possible, but it does not bring us to the root of the problem.  And it is not an excuse for human race to pursue the  unrestrained use of natural resources and burning fossil fuels. Human activity acts pretty much like  a catalyst for conversion of oxygen to carbon dioxide, therefore introduction of catalyst for carbon dioxide to oxygen conversion may bring to a desired equilibrium of gas exchange but not without some other consequences and side effects.  Furthermore, introduction of new system always bring some side effects. Introduction of new system or species (of living things) that do not have a limit on population or production of byproduct usually end up collapsing its own environment that species rely on and eventually it leads to collapse of themselves (for example, the previous great extinctions except for 5th extinction which may be contributed to meteor impact on earth).  However, your question and research in that area  may have very interesting application in terraforming such as Mars.  Mars could be your ideal lab since there is no need to worry about health and safety of human population and no government bureaucracy to overcome.

Thanks, Kenneth - you are probably right.

Adam, I absolutely agree, but,perhaps, as a last resort, it may be an option worth considering.

Terra forming! - I like it. I think that you might like to see the work I have done regarding the relationship between life and the process of catalysis.

Again, off topic answer for Kenneth.  The key is electromagnetic shield.  Solar radiation does not allow formation of earth like atmospheric gases say ozone because Mars does not have a EMF shield due to inactivity of inner core.  Indeed, it will be hard to find bacteria to be able to survive UV exposure.

Dear colleague, you said :"However, it may be possible to modify strains of bacteria to make them more efficient at removing CO2 from the atmosphere - perhaps by increasing their growth rate". Yes it is interesting, but you can use genetically modified microorganisms or try to find them in the huge amount of unexplored bacterias species but perhaps this will be out of control and create greater problems since it is very hazardous to play as apprentice wizards...

I like the trend of Mr. Davia's thinking because it is "medicative" in the same sense as my 2014 book MEDICATIVE MACRO-IMAGINEERING. An off-topic thought: if planet-orbiting space junk can be detrimental to future spaceflight, wouldn't an increased aerial biomass cause some problems? What if there were an aerial version of a Red Tide???

Kenneth,

How about engineering a multi-species solution? If an ocean environment could be identified that was suffering from a nutrient deficiency then perhaps the precipitated bacteria could constitute a replacement food supply and thereby lock the carbon up in the food chain.

No! We don't know exactly what we're doing to the climate today. Adding yet another mechanism that we don't know how it would work would compound the problem and run the risk of doing something entirely different to what we think it would. For that reason alone - in my opinion - geoengineering is out!

If you need more reasons, think about the scale of the problem. Even if one of these things would work it would have to be implemented essentially for ever on an international scale. If we can't agree internationally on cutting emissions, which we know is possible, how do you think we would ever agree on anything of this scale and so potentially devastating? And even if we could agree today, how would it hold over time?

Better do something we know will work than to fantasize on thinks where we have no clue!

Don't get me wrong; I do think that global warming is a real problem! The fact that this warming has declined in later years - just like the temperatures going down in the mid-1900's - is just natural variations overlaid on a slow and steady warming. Back in the days you cite we didn't know nearly enough about neither natural variability nor about anthropogenic warming as we do today.

With that knowledge at hand, I think we can say that with some certainty that we need to do something about this global problem, but also that we will still be surprised by the system. Therefore fiddling with it, even though with the best of intentions, is dangerous and the target should be to minimize anthropogenic effects on climate; not increase it by artificial countermeasures.

My main point is why go over the stream to get water, when it is right in front of us? We know what must be done, we know it is possible and just yesterday we learned that while it might entail some large initial investments; in the long run we can earn money doing it.

Dr. Towe's correct in his thinking BUT I urge Davia to pursue his thoughts to their reasonable ends anyway. Otherwise Science will surely stagnate. "Truths" I learned in the 1950s and 1960s while I was undergoing formal  college schooling are now not so accurate, yet our civilization's inertia still moves barely forward because other people taught those "truths" are still operating under the illusion they are still valid operationally. Press on, Davia!! Your just might find some totally unanticipated solution to a major civilization survival macro-problem. Perhaps you might find the works on cloud-making by Stephen Salter in the UK beneficial, after all he'd create more clouds for your microbes to enjoy living in and providing a service to humankind!

Davia: Just as today's Geoscience verities say Earth's atmosphere became oxygenated by early forms of life, making ours a world we could appear in eventually and seemingly flourish, why not look upon your nascent concept as the reverse, a regulated de-carbonization of air to continue our reign indefinitely?

Yes, CO2 has increased with increasing world population, and yes, the oxygenation of the atmosphere came with early forms of life (as we know it). But the latter was an unintended effect. We didn't choose to oxygenate the atmosphere; it was an inevitable effect and this is where the analogy ends.

Increasing CO2 is something we have chosen to do; OK, initially we didn't understand we did this, but in the recent decades we have taken the decision to keep doing it although we have reasons to believe it is not very smart. We don't have to continue doing it, at least not at the present rate. We are smarter now and we could do something different.

You're absolutely correct that we can't go back to 300 ppm; with the CO2 already in the atmosphere it will take many hundred of years to reach there even if we abruptly ended emissions tomorrow. But we could stabilize the concentrations on an acceptable level.One cannot at the same time argue for geoengineering to solve this problem and then claim there is no problem. If there is a problem, and I do, we need to solve it and I'm confident that we can. And that the resulting world would be a better place for it - in many different ways.

I am surprised at the 'intensity' of some of your responses.

The world is sick and the world might, or perhaps might not ,have sufficient self regulatory dynamical mechanisms to correct itself. 

Of course, resorting to such bio/geo manipulation such as I suggest is certainly not a good thing. However, given the political 'inertia' of our time it would be foolish to ignore the available options.

On a philosophical note, if it were fundamentally bad to introduce a new substance and/or dynamic into a complex system in order to effect an eventual beneficial effect then it would seem that we must question much of the practice upon which modern medicine is based.

Also, I would not appreciate being associated with a certain callous faction that arrogantly assume that there is always a scientific/industrial fix for any problems that we might create. I have attempted to tackle the root energy component of the problem with a small contribution to the nuclear fusion effort - be it as it is! I understand that some exciting work is already being done in this area.

Data Soliton Mediated Nuclear Fusion

My "intensity" comes from the attitude that it is all due to an increasing world population, that this will continue and therefore there's nothing we can do about things. I very strongly believes there are things that we can - and should(!) - do.

I disagree with your view on geoengineering for the following reasons:

1) A system that is sick because we have tinkered with it doesn't necessarily become healthier by tinkering some more. At worst, we may cause more harm than good. History is full of examples where such technical solutions have with hindsight been catastrophic, but on a smaller scale, the classical one being DDT.

2) At best - if it  works - the consequences will be that it removes the incentive to deal with the real problem. And the consequence of that is that it will have to be implemented on an ever increasing scale, globally and essentially "for ever"; if aborted after 50 years the consequences will rapidly become really catastrophic. Until we have found a global political system that eradicates poverty and war, I just don't believe we can create a global political system that will make geoengineering sustainable at the scale required. If we can't agree on reducing CO2 emissions, which we know how to do, I don't see how we could agree on such a huge undertaking.

I can agree that geoengineering poses some interesting scientific questions; I just think it is the wrong answer to the problem and I also think it is a more expensive answer than dealing with the actual problem. And I don't think it'll work in practice, even if it does work in theory.

Can you provide the references for the relation between bacteria and cloud formation?

The relation is that bacteria may form ice particles and thus induce rain by which clouds disappear

H ten Brink: SEE: P.N. Polymenakou, "Atmosphere: A Source of Pathogenic or Beneficial Microbes?, ATMOSPHERE 3: 87-112 (2012).

Harry,

I have no references (Richard has one, I think) - I watched a documentary recently

Bacteria act as nucleating agents that allow water droplet (or ice crystal) formation at a much higher temperature than would otherwise be the case.

If you use Google Scholar I'm sure you'll find many references on "cloud biology" etc. The ATMOSPHERE article is a free download and it cites relevant literature.

Richard

I am quite aware of the literature on bacteria in clouds but I ask the questioner for references on the importance of bacteria in cloud FORMATION. It is up to HIM to provide those to make his point

My urgent request for literature also is for the idea that the bacteria spend so much time in clouds. Clouds are only present for a limited time. They evaporate and the contents of the size of bacteria fall to the surface. Another path is that cloud droplets form rain and that rain also falls back to earth

My concern here, only, is the obvious attempted "stifling" of Davia's original inquiry. I have neither time to patience to debate. My only concern was to help Davia find the truth of his intuition. Curiosity is a habit to be encouraged, not shown up!

Thanks Richard,

Harry, if your request was so urgent perhaps you should have said so and addressed your request to me personally!

Please bear in mind that I was asking a question - not developing a thesis or making a claim. One of the advantages of Research gate is that you can expose ideas to experts (like yourself) quickly and get ideas evaluated. Your response would seem to imply that it is wrong to ask questions outside of your own particular field of expertise - I think that would be quite silly.

Poor Davia: endless opinionizing from distant fellows, but never do they offer any real substantive help (citations, references etc.)--that is PRACTICAL assistance to Davia. Bloggers instead of professional help! Adios!

Richard

The questioner asks a question and we take time to give him serious answers. My URGENT request was for HIS information. It turns out now from his answer that it is a documentary and he refers to you for the reference.

BTW thanks for that review article

@ Kenneth Towe: I agree with you that geo-engineering is not the way, but I find your arguments wanting.

In the seventies the climate scientists were well aware of the heating effect of CO2, in fact the green house effect has been known since the nineteenth century. They were also aware of the cooling effect of  aerosols from industrial pollution. At the time they were uncertain which effect would be the strongest, and clearly expressed this uncertainty in their papers. Nevertheless, most publications expected that CO2 would "win". It seems typical that you quote a popular "science" book of some right wing radio personality instead of a real scientist.

In the mean time climate scientist have done their homework and have a very high certainty that climate change is real and man-made.

If you pick any other year than 1998 (year with an unusual heat transfer from ocean to the atmosphere) as a starting point for a trend analysis, not much of the "pause" is left. Furthermore, climate change is something that takes place on the long term. Looking at short periods gives a distorting view:

. http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

@Kenneth: Your motivation for not supporting geo-engineering is that in your eyes it is not certain enough that human caused climate change is taking place. So reacting to your statements is relevant for the discussion.

I think I need to explain some basics before going on. Global warming does not mean the atmosphere is heating equally over the planet, even local cooling is possible. So just because it is cold were you live, does not mean there is no climate change. If you look at the global average temperature there is a sturdy trend of increasing temperatures (see first Fig., source NASA GISS). This does not make me happy, I would prefer the climate to be stable. I like cold winters.

For the people who really did the research there is not much doubt anymore. The "debate" is between them and people who, for a variety of reasons, don't want climate change to be true. This zombie debate, where debunked denialist arguments are repeated in cycles, delays urgently needed action. And, I must admit, this annoys me a lot.

Source of second image:www.xkcd.com

Christopher and Richard

I like to cite the literally cite the title of the Q&A section of Researchaget:

Q&A

Get answers to your research questions and share your expertise.

This means Researchgate is a forum for scientists not a blog for intuitions

Kenneth:

"Since 1999 we had a very strong positive trend in global temperatures" is as valid as your "pause since 1998".

Even a first year science student can tell you that if the results of your analysis depends so much on one point in you data set,

that your data set is either too small,

and/or there is something special about this particular data point. So if you look at the bigger picture you see a fairly continous trend,

that is consistent with climate models, with an outlier at 1998. The reason for this outlier is well understood.

So what you are saying actually means: " climate models could not predict this one particular outlier, so they are useless all together."

Well, nobody claims that climate models can predict single years, however, they have been pretty good in predicting the overall trend. If you look at the temperature record it is always possible to (cherry)-pick a period that seems to have a pause or even negative trend.  So, no the situation is not comparable to the seventies.

You keep bringing on the urban heat island effect. This is exactly one of this debunked, but nevertheless endlessly recycled, talking points. Scientists compared the temperature trends of rural stations, urban stations and stations with surroundings that became urbanised during the measurement period.

They found that the differences in the trends were small and the influence on the global temperature record was negligible.

An ad hominem fallacy is when you say "your arguments are wrong because you are such and such kind of person". Here it is the other way around:

The endless barrage of cherry-picking, misquoting, quoting out of context, recycling of debunked arguments, opportunistic switching between inconsistent positions, personal attacks, wacko alternative theories, harassment, conspiracy theories, red herrings and so on, makes me conclude that the climate change deniers are not in the debate to further the scientific knowledge on the climate,

but instead just want to smear climate science in the eyes of the general public.

I hope I can be of assistance getting back to the problem rather than throwing debating points around.  For Kenneth Towe's information there is plenty of evidence of warming and would suggest that he download the current IPCC report, and if he is interested the previous ones. They are all available at IPCC.ch   . These reports, at roughly 5-year intervals, synthesize the published literature and give what the scientific community thinks.

As for atmospheric bacteria--I would expect that they are a very small component of the carbon cycle.  And, if the carbon is to be stored, it is after they rain out and if it is captured in soils. If they fall in the oceans, their carbon is likely to be recycled relatively quickly. 

Thank you Mitchell.