Also, this method a) has something utterly unreversable that does something akin to what we've done here as the first step and b) takes centuries of just trying to terraform Mars from a safe, external environment through a single plan with no vested interests in not terraforming it, not to mention not having another group of people take over half a decade later and stop or even undo progress.
Climate change is causing a mass extinction right now. Believe it or not, most mass extinctions happen over a few hundred thousand years, not suddenly; not even the KT event happened totally overnight. If you change environments faster than species can adapt, which we are undoubtedly doing, ecosystems collapse and you lose biodiversity. When you lose biodiversity you increase the risk of viruses and infectious diseases spreading (and they evolve WAY faster). As those viruses and diseases spread faster, they further decrease biodiversity, leading to a feedback loop and accelerate an ecosystem's collapse. That's on top of changes in habitable temperatures and humidity/aridity levels species can tolerate. What we are doing right now might take us 1,000 years. I assure you the KT event took 10,000+ years... and that was a freaking 10 KM smacking into the Earth at 220,000 KM/H...
That impact caused multiple quakes across the globe with enough force to shove your legs straight through your torso, lit pretty much every landmass on fire, caused tsunami waves that traveled up to 1.2 Mach before slamming into the continental shelf and ballooning into 5-6 km tall waves. The heat blast alone from the impact was enough to set dried vegetation on fire on the other side of the Earth, faster than the actual ejected material came raining back down. Then the Earth sky darkened for at least a year, most likely a few years. While 95% of the damage was done in the first few hours, The other 5% took much longer. After everything cleared another bloom/burst of adaptation occurred... so if there is a silver lining, the Earth can usually recover pretty fast as well.
Sure it is. How else would you describe a theory if not a belief in something that you feel strongly about but cannot prove.
▼
deleted
· 6 years ago
A theory is supported by evidence and often peer-reviewed and closely analyzed, what you've described is a hypothesis. A theory is provable otherwise it's not a theory.
Scientific Theory: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
By detonating nuclear warheads at he poles your allowing for thousands of radioactive particles into the not-an-atmosphere, this could make our best chance even more radioactive then it already is. UV radiation would be no help since, without an ozone, it becomes a radioactive oven with huge mirrors in orbit
Coincidence? I think not! ಠ_ಠ
D: