I see an even more fundamental problem: we have taken carbon that was sequestered underground over a period of hundreds of millions of years and released it into the atomsphere in a period of a few hundred years. That genie will not go easily back in its bottle. Even if we could turn all that carbon into wood, it's still above the surface in close contact with oxygen. So not only do we have to grow all that wood, we have to keep it around, i.e. we have to keep it from burning. Forever. As a resident of California, I'm not sanguine about our prospects in this regard.
Yes, that's obviously true, but it's not so simple. You still have to put all the wood somewhere. The more you have, the harder it will be to find places to store it. The more concentrated the storage, the larger the resulting fires will be when they do inevitably start. Remember, we have to sequester this carbon forever. It's a harder problem even than storing nuclear waste. At least that only needs to be stored for a few tens of thousands of years, and there is a lot less of it.
Is storing wood really more difficult than nuclear waste? The Endurance was pretty well preserved after 100 years and was never at risk of burning up. Perhaps we can build a carbon silo down there?
That might work if the climate were stable but it’s not. The only reason the Endurance was found at all is because of reduced sea ice in the Weddel sea. Give that process another 100 years and there will be little left of her.
I don't think you would have to store the carbon as wood forever. We need to get it out of the atmosphere ASAP but it's still a valuable resource. Even if we don't wind up turning it into diamond and using it as a fundamental construction material or something (nod to "Diamond Age") and still want to keep it in organic form in the ecosystem at large, we have time to convert it into herds of mammoths and vast forests or whatever, once we get it out of the sky.
What the OP is talking about is that we brought up a lot more forest back from below ground than we could possibly plant above. Below ground are many generations of forests, above we can only have one, unless we invent vertical stacking or create hundreds of meters tall trees (now I would be all for it Some real tree-houses like in fantasy movies!).
The best storage is to leave what already is underground right there, until/unless there is plenty of energy to influence the carbon cycle above ground by putting it back deep below with technology without requiring the energy to be supplied by even more below-ground-carbon.
The usefulness in growing trees is not in their ability to put oil back in the ground. They're useful by themselves. Nobody is under the impression that planting trees, or any other single initiative, will fix our climate issues in isolation.
Uhm... this thread has a specific context, which is CO2. So your comment makes no sense.
Would it be too much to ask to make replies that take the context into consideration, instead of using "autobot" mode posting generic standard text based on keywords?
