Consider if you well, upon the very nature of any planet capable of hosting a sufficient degree of cloud cover, especially if that cloud cover could be artificially induced into including additional mass, as well as filtering agents, such as sulphur. As now you've created a global environmental shield surround that's not only become nearly meteorite proof but also quite nicely filtering out a good deal of those bad UV and of buffering and/or shedding those more lethal radiation spectrums, yet allowing more than a sufficient spectrum bandwidth of 350~450 nm to slip through, giving the much needed surface illuminations, while essentially blocking the direct impact of the horrific IR as well as for diminishing the undesirable influx of UV/abc to a point where sufficiently advanced life becomes survivable, in spite of those horrific side effects of creating a rather massive greenhouse.
If you've got surplus energy, you can certainly deal with a little too much heat and even of not enough O2, although without such a sufficient global atmospheric density as your primary shield, all the energy in the universe isn't going to save your butt from the gauntlet of solar and cosmic influx, not to be forgetting about those pesky meteorites, like all those strewn about Mars, and of worse off being of what's impacting our moon.
Without having such a dense atmosphere and cloud cover, sunrise on Venus wouldn't represent the mere 5~10% increase in their ambient, but more than likely several hundred percent, creating an intolerable daytime infernal, plus differentials that even highly educated folks would have been hard pressed to deal with. As in addition to those wild sorts of day/night thermal variation, there'd be a horrifically wide spectrum influx of solar and cosmic radiation to fend off. So thereby, as for being parked closer to a sun, especially of any Sirius class sun, the thicker and denser your atmosphere the better off, plus having an extremely slow planetary rotation can be just as essential for those remaining as nocturnals becomes another facet of improving your survival equation. Thus thick clouds and a dense atmosphere are good sorts of things, and not the purely hot and nasty as we've been educated.
It seems, if our relatively minor solar system can somehow manage to host such a clouded planet like Venus, then it's entirely possible that of something other created and/or modified (terraformed) for the likes of orbiting Sirius could have survived in spite of our ignorance (imagine that, folks actually smarter then GW Bush).
Sirius becomes our salvation every 110,000 years, by photosynthesizing life into subduing CO2. This is certainly of good news for those distant generations to come, unless you don't have any of that 24/7 SPF-1440, or without some reptilian hide worth fending off those excessive UV rays, or of being an alligator certainly couldn't hurt.
This is where it's getting seriously weird again, as I'm way more than exceeding my skill level in math, as well as having to discover upon things that I always thought were fairly well said and done.
However, since none others are stepping forward, actually not even stepping sideways, I'll try to convey this latest confusion that I've created about the Sirius orbit, or photosynthesis loop/cycle of planetary life and death.
In my usual reverse engineering mannerism, I've established in my nearly empty head upon the following tale or rant, as representing my latest rough concept worth pondering over.
1) It seems as though Sirius has been using a 9.4 ly diameter trek, offering itself a 29.531 ly circumference.
2) if we were to further extrapolate that the expected cycle or loop duration was taking up 110,000 years worth in order to transpire, then I simply divided that circular route by 110 divisions, thus each division representing 1000 years worth.
3) Drafting a line from the 40,000 year division and of bringing that to a distance of 8.64 ly that's terminating slightly (0.1 ly) outside of the Sirius path. This mechanical drafting effort simply helped my three brain cells to visually establish another verification, of placing the most likely location point of our solar system's proximity to that of the Sirius plot.
4) from this I may have badly deduced the overall distance that Sirius has traveled, as along in the latest term of it's 110,000 years worth of being on-the-road, calculated as follows;
29.531 * 9.4276e12 = 278.4e12 km
278.4e12 / 110e3 = 2.53091e9 km/year
2.53091e9 / 3.64e2 / 8.64e4 = 80.475 km/sec SOA (as in Speed Of Advance)
Obviously this ongoing velocity assessment of 80.475 km/s is occurring along it's own path, as the combined mass of Sirius/abc plus whatever other is inside the illuminating cloak is perhaps more than sufficient as for calling most of the gravitational shots, and of not per say something in any specific bonding relationship to that of our relatively insignificant solar system, although it represents that the previously touted 32 km/s of recorded recession, that I believe has been in specific relationship to us, may have been a bit wild from what the current speed of recession could actually be (at least one other source as placed the red-shift at a mere -0.04 nm). Here again my math could be unintentionally skewed, as when I'm reading this as indicating a more likely recession of 21.7 km/s as based upon Sirius traveling along a somewhat circular path, though being somewhat egg shaped or of an elliptical trek is more likely somewhere within the scheme of things. So, don't bother taking my last word on this until you've run off your own analysis, such as filtered through a few of those CRAY computer assisted astrophysics modeling routines.
Besides someone further determining whatever the shape of the Sirius trek, if the existing "red shift" calculations were those presumably based upon using a sufficiently correct method, and if the estimated distance of 8.64 ly is still within the ballpark, then it's entirely possible the surface temperature of Sirius is simply what's skewed, as being slightly different than those temperatures previously utilized to establish upon the previously accepted 32 km/s (20 miles/s) rate of it's recession, and if the previous temperature was based upon the 9600ºK, as then quite possibly the adjusted/corrected surface temperature can now be established without all that much fuss, thus all should remain well and good within those pesky laws of physics, and of all those nice folks that established what they did about Sirius are thereby still sufficiently correct, just somewhat improved upon, which seems business as normal in the mystical (members only) realms of such astronomy/astrophysics sciences.
In the above graphics, I'm merely suggesting for the moment that our solar system remained sufficiently offset by a factor of 0.1 light year outside the nearest trek of the long path of Sirius (though of much closer than 0.01 ly and we'd surely be having ourselves some trouble in River City, and only much worse off if our solar system ever gets enveloped within the path). As such, here's what I believe we get out of the deal; as suggested by these following two considerations:
When the path of Sirius is within +/- 1 ly, we're taking on 7400 years worth of some rather substantial illuminations.
When Sirius is within +/- 0.5 ly, we're taking 3600 years worth of Sirius illuminations at four additional times greater intensity.
Obviously, even if the nearest juncture of being a mere 0.1 ly, this is when our global environment receives the brunt of those Sirius UV photons (peak wavelength spectrum of 314 nm along with lots of other near UV @375~450 nm) whereby producing nearly runaway photosynthesis, as well as additional visible and IR spectrum photons of nearly a magnitude 11, though also consider of something as loosely associated with our solar system as Pluto is most vulnerable to being kidnapped or at least skewed by the likes of the rather substantial Sirius/abc gravity influence. Should this nearest juncture become 0.01 ly, then all bets are off, as Pluto is most certainly being sucked towards Sirius.
Obviously if we pondered along the possibility of having ourselves a truly 0.01 ly near miss (that's offering 75 years worth as being within 0.02 ly range) by the likes of our solar system residing just barely outside of the Sirius path, as such all hell should have broken lose, not to mention obtaining at least 75 years worth of our nighttime as well as daytime becoming far brighter than almost anything, short of a supernovae. Of course, all of that terrific illumination offered by Sirius isn't restricted to benefitting Earth, as all planets from Pluto to Mercury are being given this gift of life, if they want it or not, and only of those planets having a sufficiently thick and dense cloud cover would have some moderation of those otherwise horrifically energised and as such penetrating UV rays that the very nature of photosynthesis thrives upon.
In other village idiot words of wisdom; whenever Sirius was passing so nearby (as in the example of residing within the range of +/- 0.5 ly), for those surviving on Earth is either a relatively normal sunny day along with having at least another 10 fold more UV to work with, or it's trying to be nighttime while situated under the blazing infernal of essentially another sun the size and magnitude of Sirius, meaning there's seldom actual nighttime on Earth, just one horrifically bright star having yet it's own gravitational nightmare circumnavigating on an internal 50 year cycle of it's own (exactly like those nice Dogon folks said).
I seem to recall, over the past few decades, of my reading about many researchers taking note of these historical CO2 cycles, of those recorded and verified CO2/ppm readings that had become nearly if not literally written in stone, and of their trying to understand those readings along with interpreting the most recent spike that has gone more vertically ballistic than of anything natural. The most recent article published by National Geographic (February, page 88, http://nationalgeographic.com/magazine/0402), and of what their researcher Tim Appenzeller complied seemed to further trigger my thoughts, especially once the focus was upon the mechanism of photosynthesis as being more clearly portrayed as the primary factor in reducing levels of CO2. Since their link above doesn't include access to that published chart graphic, I've scanned it, and perhaps reminded myself that "National Geographic" is a publication long owned and/or controlled entirely by the "status quo", thus much of what we read is firstly highly selective, and secondly of timed release, and of containing as much skewed indoctrination as our administration believes they can get away with, so much so that all is never entirely as rosy as what it seems, especially these days when so much horse poop needs to spread throughout our Whitehouse Rose Garden. However, I can foresee no ulterior motives or hidden agendas at play with respect to all those recorded and independently substantiated levels of CO2, especially since these nice folks had absolutely no idea that Sirius was even being considered. In other words, sometimes even the worst warlord Godfather unknowingly lets the truth be known.
Then I've recalled reading and being told certain things about Sirius, plus from further readings of mostly NASA moderated sources that were most often quite negative, as in depicting the worth of Sirius as having been summarily dismissed by the bulk of astronomy but also abandoned by mainstream media and scientific communities as pure folklore and/or superstition, yet somehow as of today, the modern science, of which NASA supposedly stands for, remains unable to explain away past issues as pure happenstance, especially since those nice Dogon folks offered no ax to grind, nor has there been ulterior motives or hidden agendas at play, in fact they might even vote for GW Bush. What I'd previously learned was of how downright illuminating Sirius was and relatively still is, as in bar none brighter nor hotter within our neighborhood and, above all else was the fact of for certain that at some time in our past is when Sirius was so much closer to our solar system, and as such the thought of 40,000 years seemed hardly a drop in the evolutionary bucket of planetology, much less by and astrophysics standards, so why not consider this Sirius timeline as reason good enough to qualify for the record, when at least it seems to work out on paper and, it's something we're not having to get nice folks killed over some invisible WMD fiasco, nor even having to risk another batch of astronauts.
Surely the likes of David Helfand and dozens of others would have to side with this notion of Sirius having far more to do with influencing our solar system than previously thought, especially of influencing upon the likes of Pluto, as this is simply another one of those things in which looking through most any telescope isn't going to offer all that much new information, nor sufficiently answer these sorts of long-term questions, though I'd certainly like to understand lots more about the ongoing trek of Sirius, if there's any further correlation to support this 110,000 year cycle of being the primary factor in reducing Earth's CO2, as that would certainly be a good sort of thing to know about, just as it might explain the skewed nature of Pluto's orbit.
As usual, I'll expect that numerous others will either pretend that I don't exist, or perhaps that I'll soon be seeing another batch of those ICBMs launching new rounds of their flak in the form of "spin" and "damage control", or hopefully they'll fall off course by introducing far better terminology, improved syntax and as always their math will be an improvement over what I've initially offered. At least whenever I'm able, I'll honestly post links to deserving others, in that way insure the fullest of credits for correcting and/or merely polishing up on what's bound to become yet another messy tit for tat, that yet another village idiot outsider (non card carrying club member such as myself) introduced.
Unfortunately, even though there's NO new science returning from Mars, just more trial and error plus somewhat better pictures of exactly what we already knew existed, plus confirmations on the environment that we already understood as being damn cold and irradiated to death. In spite of all that has thus far produced damn little if any value to humanity, it seems as though folks that are so easily impressed by such hype, and thereby snookered, remain focused like the collective Borgs they are, looking at and absorbing this Mars data as though it were all new and for the first time being made available, which in that case we should be sending off spendy probes into the sun, just to find out if it's actually as hot and nasty as we've been told.
Eventually these other Sirius related pages will be updated, such as "sirius-co2.htm" and the "moon-earth-sirius.htm" plus offering the synchronized moon approach.