Huh? I took a class on geoengineering taught by a
woman who'd done work on ocean iron fertilization and a
man who'd done work on sulfate aerosol injection.
Also the average "Ask HN" gets zero replies. I tend to "lean in" and answer a lot of them but that might say something more negative than positive about be but you can tell I am karma motivated by my score and I think I deserve more upvotes for this than I get.
I'll add to the other person's comment in that you probably won't find just one input for your figures but you'll find many of them.
You might find one paper that says that an acre of wetland holds 10 tons of CO2 and another that says it holds 15 tons of CO2. (I just made those numbers up)
In fact it probably depends on the wetland and if you spent a lot of time looking at papers you might find 20-30 numbers. All this is fine because this reflects real uncertainty and you're either going to say "the average is 12 tons with a standard deviation of 3 tons" or you're going to repeat your analysis with a wide range of inputs to do your sensitivity analysis that way.
----
My take is that soil carbon is like "dark matter" in that it is really mysterious. If anything is fraught it is soil carbon because Bayer sure wishes farmers quit plowing to control weeds and just spraying a lot of glyphosate everywhere which might be good for the carbon balance but the glyphosate almost certainly has unwanted side effects.