Where the net oxygen production comes from is some of the biomass are buried in sedimentary layers before they can decompose, this biomass is slowly changed into coal and other fossil reserves, however this is a very slow process which would not be accelerated just by planting more trees.
The problem with our CO2 production is that we are burning fossil reserves collected slowly over millions of years thereby reintroducing the previously sequestered hydrocarbons as CO2 and H2O ( the oxygen is from our atmosphere ). So far, industry response has been to suggest CO2 sequestration but that's not what we want to sequester, it is the carbon, preferably the carbon and hydrogen that we need to sequester though sequestering the carbon would be enough.
The best actual carbon sequestration plans have been to gasify biomass into charcoal which is stable and using it as biochar to improve soil fertility. The problem with biochar is whether or not it can be done on the scale needed as it must be distributed and mixed with farm land to sequester the carbon. Because the scalability of biochar has never been proven and it requires far more effort than CO2 sequestration, industry isn't willing to invest in biochar carbon sequestration.
Global Warming ended in 2012, confirmed 11/28/2012. Mike
The main benefit of trees is that they are carbon 'sinks' (that is extract carbon from the atmosphere and store it).
Releasing more oxygen wouldn't be beneficial on its own, you would need to either reduce the sources of carbon or increase the sinks of carbon.
Yes, Trees not only add more oxygen, they also add more water vapor, which cools the climate in the daytime, but warms it at night, they also cause more clouds to form and generally improve climate.
Trees are partly made of CO2, so having more of them gets some CO2 out of the air. So you are on the right track.
Yes but it wont change the weather or stop extreme storms so called
