There's a couple important points on which there appears to be some misunderstanding.
1. Releasing this CO2 is no worse for the environment than leaving it there. All of the gas which gets added beyond the saturation point of the water will eventually come out. The two options are to "Let the world take care of itself" and kill a few thousand people every now and then, or to drain the gas at the same rate which it is naturally added.
Either way, the same amount of gas will enter the atmosphere at the same average rate (long-term). On one hand you kill a couple thousand people and release a couple million cubic meters of CO2, on the other hand nobody dies and you release a couple million cubic meters of CO2.
2. There isn't that much energy being wasted. It is true that a turbine could be used to harness some energy, but at the expense of the pressure difference of the syphon. As Jeff already suggested, at 100% efficiency such a turbine could power a fountain the same size as the one naturally occurring from the syphon. In reality, you would be lucky to reach half that efficiency, and you would be reducing the speed of the syphon, necessitating many more pipes.
3. Plants do use CO2 and light via photosynthesis, but there's a maximum rate at which they'll use it, and even if there weren't, they'll be limited by the amount of available light. I'm not saying the co2 couldn't be used this way, but planting more trees nearby would be just as effective. Seeing as that area is already pretty much jungle, it's probably already doing a pretty good job with this task.
As far as the other major discussion points go:
Neutron bombs? The only response that I'll give to that, is that I don't see any scientific fault with the CO2 explanation, and I guarantee you that a violent release of that much dissolved gas is entirely capable of making a very loud noise.
Global Warming: I believe that humans are a major contributing factor. Burning fossil fuels is putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that wouldn't otherwise end up there. A lot of money is being put towards non-scientific research to make it look like global warming is not a problem, and we're not responsible. A lot of money is also spent (and made) on non-scientific research demonstrating that it is a problem. People need to start looking at this scientifically. Just because some "environmentalists" make things up because they think it will support their cause, doesn't mean that their cause doesn't warrant support. I'm not excusing bad science. I'm not saying we should listen to the nonsense, but if someone says the right thing for the wrong reason, you can ignore them and still listen to a proper scientist who came to the same conclusion scientifically.
If I tell you that you shouldn't drink gasoline because it contains over 20% potassium cyanide I would be guilty of making stuff up.
If the pro-gasoline drinking lobby proves that gasoline doesn't contain potassium cyanide, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's safe to drink. There's probably plenty of other people saying not to drink your auto fuel without using these same scare-mongering tactics that are used by "environmental" organizations so frequently.
I know this analogy may seem ridiculous, but this same logic is being used for global warming all the time.
I haven't seen absolute proof of either viewpoint, but the evidence does seem to support the theory for the most part. If someone proves otherwise, that's great. Pointing out a single flaw in the evidence doesn't automatically invalidate the whole theory, just that piece of evidence.
1. Releasing this CO2 is no worse for the environment than leaving it there. All of the gas which gets added beyond the saturation point of the water will eventually come out. The two options are to "Let the world take care of itself" and kill a few thousand people every now and then, or to drain the gas at the same rate which it is naturally added.
Either way, the same amount of gas will enter the atmosphere at the same average rate (long-term). On one hand you kill a couple thousand people and release a couple million cubic meters of CO2, on the other hand nobody dies and you release a couple million cubic meters of CO2.
2. There isn't that much energy being wasted. It is true that a turbine could be used to harness some energy, but at the expense of the pressure difference of the syphon. As Jeff already suggested, at 100% efficiency such a turbine could power a fountain the same size as the one naturally occurring from the syphon. In reality, you would be lucky to reach half that efficiency, and you would be reducing the speed of the syphon, necessitating many more pipes.
3. Plants do use CO2 and light via photosynthesis, but there's a maximum rate at which they'll use it, and even if there weren't, they'll be limited by the amount of available light. I'm not saying the co2 couldn't be used this way, but planting more trees nearby would be just as effective. Seeing as that area is already pretty much jungle, it's probably already doing a pretty good job with this task.
As far as the other major discussion points go:
Neutron bombs? The only response that I'll give to that, is that I don't see any scientific fault with the CO2 explanation, and I guarantee you that a violent release of that much dissolved gas is entirely capable of making a very loud noise.
Global Warming: I believe that humans are a major contributing factor. Burning fossil fuels is putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that wouldn't otherwise end up there. A lot of money is being put towards non-scientific research to make it look like global warming is not a problem, and we're not responsible. A lot of money is also spent (and made) on non-scientific research demonstrating that it is a problem.
People need to start looking at this scientifically. Just because some "environmentalists" make things up because they think it will support their cause, doesn't mean that their cause doesn't warrant support.
I'm not excusing bad science. I'm not saying we should listen to the nonsense, but if someone says the right thing for the wrong reason, you can ignore them and still listen to a proper scientist who came to the same conclusion scientifically.
If I tell you that you shouldn't drink gasoline because it contains over 20% potassium cyanide I would be guilty of making stuff up.
If the pro-gasoline drinking lobby proves that gasoline doesn't contain potassium cyanide, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's safe to drink. There's probably plenty of other people saying not to drink your auto fuel without using these same scare-mongering tactics that are used by "environmental" organizations so frequently.
I know this analogy may seem ridiculous, but this same logic is being used for global warming all the time.
I haven't seen absolute proof of either viewpoint, but the evidence does seem to support the theory for the most part. If someone proves otherwise, that's great. Pointing out a single flaw in the evidence doesn't automatically invalidate the whole theory, just that piece of evidence.
-Nick