Can Global warming Be Reversed Immediately?

Yes, we must not simply place a sapling in the ground and wish it well. But for groups planting, say on Earth Day, who cannot tend their trees afterwards, it is better than doing nothing. Some will survive, as they have throughout Earth history. Cared for trees are more apt to flourish, so yes, it is much better to tend them well, and with knowledge of what helps them grow.
Your sharing your gardening knowledge has a great impact on helping with healthier trees that in turn help the planet. I realize trees are not the same as most crops, but the basics are often the same.

Trees need to be tended to get the best results. Only today I was reading about the plans to save the Benmore Giants, huge Redwoods planted in Benmore Gardens in West Scotland, which are now suffering from waterlogging because of the global warming induced increase in rain in North West Britain in the past few years. Compressed air is being pumped into the soil to facilitate drainage and oxygenate the root zone,which is necessary as plants take in oxygen via the roots.

So if we want to use trees to soak up CO2, we need to plan for their care.

That is a positive move.

About 15 miles from where I live is 2000 foot Kinder Scout, whose flat moorland summit is a large expanse of boggy ground that captures CO2 and retains water, preventing it from flooding parts of Manchester. The bog is being managed to make it grow to facilitate greater capture. This is happening with other bogs in Britain.

Plants are efficient, but not adequate. They have long helped maintain the proper balance of gases, but are being expected to do more than they can in response to what we are adding to the atmosphere.
Greenland should remain habitable. As for bogs, I am unfamiliar with the problem. we ave a very complicated situation here, and individual aspects are significant locally.

blackspanielgallery, Thank you for the practical information and the product lines.
Is it that the number, placement or type of plants does not suffice when you say "Yes, plants will have more carbon dioxide to breath in, but there are inadequate plants to handle the removal of the excessive amounts of carbon dioxide in a short period of time"?
Research in this century mentions poison ivy (!) as a plant that handles high carbon dioxide and that will flourish accordingly with globally warmed climate change.
What would be the best strategy in a place such as Greenland, whose ice is melting seven times faster than in the 1990s and whose peatlands sometimes represent fire hazards?

Hi Frank,
I mentioned plants because in periods of the past when carbon dioxide levels were at high levels trees grew faster, and helped remove the carbon. But, it is not at the same pace as is needed. So, greater carbon for growth does help make trees larger, and they do remove carbon faster, but it is not enough to offset the problem. People can deduce the added value and come to the erroneous conclusion that trees alone will rapidly solve the problem. They help, but not enough.
Yes, other factors are important in tree growth, and water distribution will alter with climate change. And, as you point out there are limiting factors.

Plants can cope with higher levels of CO2 than we have now, but the limiting factors are water availability and plant nutrients. Phosphates are less available than nitrogen, carbon and potassium. This means that we can run into a block in our use of plants to solve the problem.

Peat bogs can soak up masses of CO2, and we are encouraging them in Britain.