It's spelled "Nobel". I'm also not the first person to suggest it. So if it works, the prize wouldn't go to me.
Either way you haven't made a case, or provided sources, for why it wouldn't work.
Some methods are apparently snake oil[1]. But others, such as pumping into saline aquifers[2] may be viable (the source on that is naturally suspicious).
No, no the "noble prize" is an award I personally give out to the HN comment that best exemplifies the common phenomenon on this board where a glib oversimplification of a massively complicated issue is used to dismiss the importance of far-reaching changes in favour of a one-line technical fix.
I'm aware that far-reaching changes need to occur in society and the economy to solve the climate crisis. Reduction of consumption, renewable energy, planting more forests, efficient transportation, heating and cooling, re-evaluating what we value in life - all of these will play their part. I don't think carbon sequestration alone will fix everything. But if it has the potential to help, why not look into it?