Xelloss

I don't know about a planet three times larger, there would be a limit how big a planet could be for human genetics to continue to function properly. But a larger planet in general, if we were eventually able to function, would seemingly produce bigger muscles. Could we live longer (rhetorical)? We probably would live for a shorter period of time with increased gravity.

Three times larger in what way? If you are talking about the diameter, then I don't think a planet that large would be even solid. At the very least, you would still have to contend with the pressure of the hypothetical atmosphere (it will most certainly be larger than on a smaller planet; and quite possibly there would probably be a planet-wide ocean of some sort), which would probably crush any genetically modified lungs.

Could we live longer on a planet with a little less gravity than Earth (rhetorical)? Maybe some people would

//

Our bodies are optimized specifically for Earth gravity. On a planet with less gravity, your muscles would probably have long term problems with atrophy, and your immune system would be weaker. I think it would be a wiser idea to find planets with similar gravity, or even ones with slightly higher gravity than our own.

I don't think it would be necessary to make the calculations that complicated; if we can figure out how much of the methane was emitted from their manure then we have a good enough estimate. The only problem is, is that we don't really know how much manure a typical brontosaurus would have produced. Now if we can find a creature with its manure fossilized, it would make the task a lot easier. Though it is unlikely that such a thing would be fossilized after millions of years...

Alternatively, the above calculations could be done if the stomach was somehow fossilized; then we would know how much the things actually ate (or even what they could have possibly eaten).

However' date=' as you rightly point out, more WV means more clouds and depending on type, clouds can have a tremendous cooling effect. Watch the temps drop on a sunny day when a cloud passes in front of the Sun.

 

AGW standard theory also requires that clouds be feedbacks of temperature and never a forcing. This is disputed in the literature by a number of climatologists, but mostly by Dr Roy Spencer who does the UAH satellite temperature series. Put simply, the sats show us that warmer years tend to have slightly less cloud coverage than cooler years so the question being argued is this "Is there less cloud because it is warmer or is it warmer because there is less cloud?" If the standard theory is correct then the first is the case and clouds are a feedback, if the standard theory is incorrect then clouds can be a forcing in their own right and the second part is correct.

 

Messing the whole question up is the fact that clouds most certainly are a feedback effect from temperature, but can they also be a feedback effect from another factor [i']besides[/i] temperature and therefore become a temperature forcing?

Are you sure? As far as I know, cloud and surface albedo is indeed counted as a radiative forcing. The key point is that greenhouse gas emissions have a much larger positive radiative forcing. You can see the graph below for more details:

SOURCE: IPCC

To make a long story short, there is much more energy being poured into Earth's climate system than is being reflected out. Therefore the planet is warming. The source of the excess carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is caused primarily by fossil fuel combustion. This effect is very well known.

Also keep in mind that a warmer atmosphere holds more water; thereby making the surface drier (i.e. there is on average less cloud formation and rain). Though there will be more water vapor in the atmosphere, that doesn't necessarily mean that there will be more clouds in the future.

But going back to basics we know that for a doubling of CO2, and everything else being equal, then temps should rise by about 1.1 degrees. The IPCC estimates the rise using climate models to be somewhere between 2.4 and 4 degrees due to water vapour enhancment. The amplification of warming by water vapour is a main leg of AGW theory, however it has not been demonstrated in the lab or by any real world experiment to exist. WV is a much more powerful GHG than CO2 and logically if the world is warmer then there should be more WV and therefore the warming should be amplified.

First, water vapor is not the main leg of anthropogenic global warming. Second, water vapor doesn't really stay in the atmosphere for a long enough time to contribute greatly to temperature rise. That's why it is seen only as something that has an amplifying effect; it will make the effect of CO2 even bigger than it would be.

This is probably the least well understood part of the climate system and the quantities we are dealing with are quite small. The energy figures themselves are large, but the change in the budget is less than 1% since 1850. For example a change (drop) in average annual cloud cover of less than 1% between 1850 and 2000 is quite enough to allow the extra energy into the system to explain all warming since 1850.

 

Since we have been putting CO2 into the atmosphere since 1850 and therefore must have caused some rise in temps this cannot be the only answer, but it is a reason why we sceptics are sceptical of climatologys claims of confidence in their attribution.

Where are you getting these figures from??? If you are cite figures, at least post a graph or a table.

In fact, there is no evidence for birth star activity other than near the nucleus of the galaxy.

There are several areas where stars are formed that are not located anywhere near the galactic center. For example, the Eagle Nebula (approx. 6500 light years; this nebula is where the "Pillars of Creation" are located) and the Orion Nebula.

Star formation also takes place in the spiral arms in general, which can extend all the way out to the edge of the galaxy.

Hence, the next question is as follow: Is it possible that thesolar system was formed near the nucleus or even outside the galaxy?

Probably not. There is no indication that the sun's orbit is spiraling outward by anywhere near the magnitude necessary for this to be possible. More likely, the sun formed in a nebula or in one of the arms (i.e. the Orion arm).