"Higher reproductive rate". Eh, you do realize that this doesn't matter? A tree consists of millions of cells.
No, actually it does because it still takes time to grow all those millions of cells.
What are those files? Your own notes? Have you published in a scientific journal? I have. Eight times.
Really? I pooped today and it seems to have as much significance as your claim.
According to Sarmiento et al., (2010) "Trends and regional distributions of land and ocean carbon sinks", about 33% of the human emitted carbon is absorbed by oceans, and 11% by terrestrial biosphere. Yup, that is three times more by the oceans, BUT water covers about 70% of the planet, AND water will itself absorb CO2, even without algae. The 11% is literally land plants and nothing else. Notice that National Geographic says that algae produce about half of the earth's oxygen (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html). The rest is mostly produced by land plants. Your statement that a tree is "not a good carbon sink" is false. In fact trees tend to absorb more and more as they get older, AND much of the previous absorption is retained in the wood, often eventually becoming part of the soil.
The Most Important Organism - Algae.
Oh, hey! Look at this Wikipedia article on
Photosynthetic Efficiency. It looks like algae wins again!
I know, lets ask Reddit!
Which plant is the most efficient at converting CO2 to O2? Holy shit! It's algae again!
Hmmm, I wonder what
Microbe World has to say about algae? Wow! 75% of the world's oxygen is produced by algae! Incredible!
Here, I saved a National Geographic Education plan for you. It is called
Save The Plankton, Breathe Freely.
I hate to use wikipedia, but they actually have a good figure here: take a look at the figure in the article on "carbon sinks". See a difference between net terrestrial uptake and net ocean uptake? There is also an increasing awareness that while oceans tend to release CO2 as it gets warmer, terrestrial plants tend to grow faster. Redwoods has been shown to do this more than anything.
Nice cherry-picking there. The article on
Carbon Sinks you refer to, but did not link to, has large sections where they discuss the importance of oceans and associated algae as carbon sinks. Not that a scholar such as yourself would stoop to such fuckery as leaving out important information that does not support your assertion.
Here's a quote that has been known for some time in the scientific community "As a result of accelerated growth, northern coastal redwood forests are producing two to three times more plant biomass than any other forest in the world and storing an incredible amount of carbon." http://baynature.org/article/redwoods-growing-faster-in-a-warmer-climate/
Good thing I read that article because what it actually says is:
Researchers believe that increased temperatures could be lengthening the growing season for giant sequoias in the snowy Sierra Nevada, while the decrease in fog along California’s coastline means that coastal redwoods, which receive ample rainfall, are receiving more sunlight.
“Sunlight, enough water and warm conditions is the perfect recipe to grow happy redwoods,” said Burns, “and that’s what we’re seeing.”
Nowhere does it say that the redwoods are more efficient carbon sinks than algae.
So lets do some research! I will use Trond's Bay Nature article for the growth rate of California redwoods and
this source for the growth rate of algae.
A California redwood can grow at a max rate of roughly 1.61 cubic meters per year while algae may grow at a rate of (K=1) a doubling of size every 0.693 days. Do a little math and we get a rate of doublings equal to 252.945. So assuming the size of the California redwood and the algae bloom are the same at the outset (1 cubic meter), the algae will be 252.945 cubic meters in size while the California redwood will be 2.61 cubic meters in size.
So even if algae were less efficient carbon sinks than California redwoods, the fact that they out grow the trees by a factor of 100 means that they are still the winner!
In other words, the redwoods are among the best climate buffers we have. Do you still think redwood trees are "not a good carbon sink"? Think again.
Obviously, I have thought again on the off chance that you are correct. You are not. But it is OK, California redwoods are prettier than algae pond scum.
But here I am arguing with you, the guy who has strong opinions on extinctions, but who had never heard of passenger pigeons. Sorry but I don't have time for this anymore. I have students waiting for their grades.
Best get cracking on grading your students! Indoctrination must not be impeded! Keep their critical thinking skills stunted so they do not dare question what they are being taught!