And if you interrupt the cycle at any point and vent 10% of the participating carbon to the atmosphere, you are going to have a massive spike at that particular

And if you interrupt the cycle at any point and vent 10% of the participating carbon to the atmosphere, you are going to have a massive spike at that particular point in time. If that spike further prevents the cycle from continuing (because the Sequoia can no longer grow in sufficient time scales) then you suddenly have a net release that will not be recaptured. Which is, of course, exactly the point of the article: keeping the carbon trapped in the cycle is the sink. I don't know your intent, but this seems like a deliberate framing of a technical truth in a particular light in order to downplay consequences. If this isn't your intent; great! But if it is, it's not a responsible way to foster discourse. We should all exercise maximal humility in dealing with climate change because we are dealing with incredibly complex systems with truly catastrophic implications of making the wrong choice. We need to engage with each other as constructively as possible to any chance of minimizing the harm.