> Maybe we can increase trees by a factor of 100 too. I don't agree: using a bird and an Apollo space mission in speed comparison is a completely invalid suppo

> Maybe we can increase trees by a factor of 100 too. I don't agree: using a bird and an Apollo space mission in speed comparison is a completely invalid support for that proposition: the rocket which launched Apollo 10 had to burn 770 tons of kerosene and 1300 tons of liquid oxygen in 150 seconds to achieve these speeds which are possible to be kept then only once outside of atmosphere and outside of the earth "gravity well". It didn't depend on anything of unknown physics or chemistry: Tsiolkovsky published his rocket equation in 1903. Contrary to that, your "maybe 100 times" would depend on something different from what we know the physics and chemistry say for the last hundred years.