I suppose a really robust windmill could do it but it’s just not really practical compared to more consistent energy sources

In principle there are ways to use the sun’s energy to create magnetic fields to lift away some material, but there are far easier ways to get helium

The distortion of spacetime in the black hole is such that it’s geometrically possible to move outwards (or even remain still). It would be like trying to go north from the north pole.

Also the thing about not having to reach escape velocity is only sort of true. If you start near a planet and start moving at less than your current escape velocity, you could indeed escape the planet, but escape velocity drops as you get further from the planet, so you would have to cross that escape velocity at some point.

Without looking at the specific news, most activity we’ve seen at yellowstone so long as we’ve been monitoring indicate movement of hydrothermal fluids (superheated water mostly), not magma

To take a somewhat less abstract approach to this than those mentioned so far, an object like a neutron star needs some repulsive force to counteract gravity and prevent further collapse, and that force must be conveyed by particles that cannot exceed light speed. If no light or other particle can move outwards, no force can be conveyed, and there's nothing stopping the mass from collapsing eternally inwards.

That emission comes out of their heat and angular energy; they'll slow, cool, and dim long before that point.

Those are the most important in Earth's atmosphere, but methane, ozone, and NO2 also contribute, and there are numerous other gasses that could act as greenhouse gasses (and some cases where certain combinations of gasses can have a stronger greenhouse effect than either alone).

Then why are you saying everyone is wrong when they're pretty much all mentioning that deblurring methods exist but don't amount to perfect image recovery?

In the extreme case, if you take an entire image and average it to a single color, clearly you can't reconstruct any detail from that no matter how clearly you know the algorithm. I think a similar argument could be made that a large image split into 4 quadrants that are each completely averaged would also be unrecoverable. Perhaps there is some floor of smaller blur radius where the image becomes recoverable, but I don't think it's obvious that knowing the blur process always allows reversal.

According to one recent paper the Earth's core might have stopped moving relative to the surface, which is to say it's still rotating as fast as the surface is. From an outside perspective, essentially the core is going from rotating slightly faster than the surface to slightly slower. Per the paper, this happens pretty regularly and won't do much.

The rate at which the sun's luminosity will change will vary at different parts of the process, but it would never really be as stable as it is now. The habitable zone has some "width" so some of the outer planets might remain in it for something like hundreds of millions of years (depending on how exactly you define it), but nothing like the billions Earth has had.

It's largely down to heat capacity, mostly that of water. Water requires a good bit of energy to heat up by a given amount, and it has to lose that same energy to cool down; so even though the amount of solar heating is lowest in December, the oceans and other bodies of water are still holding onto heat from summer, and will continue to cool until the rate of solar heating surpasses the rate of cooling at some point in spring.

Heat is distributed pretty widely in the atmosphere, the poles are a fair bit warmer than they would be without an atmosphere and oceans, but the transport still isn't perfect so there is a gradient (compare to somewhere like Venus, which has a thicker atmosphere of mostly greenhouse gasses and so very little temperature variation on the surface, other than that caused by altitude).

For the most part, Reptilia just isn't really used as a formal taxon anymore. It may sometimes be used as a convenient grouping of more basal or less metabolically active amniotes, but in this way it usually applied to extant or recent groups (i.e., the classic collection of lepidosauria, turtles, and crocodilians) in which case there's no need to specify the inclusion or exclusion of early synapsids. The definition of reptilia as basically synonymous with sauropsida was an attempt to sort of preserve the term as a proper monophyletic clade, but in my experience researchers mostly refer to sauropsida instead to avoid any ambiguity.

I think what you'd find is that there is no consistent percentage that corresponds neatly to the way we currently divide species. Some species are a fair bit more diverse than others, and species barriers (i.e. cessation of viable reproduction) can arise from just a few mutations.

Why would that be an issue? Insects are plenty nutritious and there are some fairly large insectivores like anteaters.

Global weather patterns would cause that water to mostly get carried away and end up raining back into the sea again. Even if you could prevent that, the volume of water you'd need to move to offset even a bit of sea level rise would be enormous.

That claim has met with a lot of controversy, and even accepting it, these are like microscopic fragments of heavily degraded material.

Those are still fossils that have mineralized, it's just material that usually doesn't survive long enough for that.

A tube to space isn't going to pull up objects any better than the vacuum of space pulls up objects anywhere else on the planet, if that's the idea here.

We really don't have near enough information to have any uncertainty about it. Perhaps some more extreme claims about the occurence rate of roughly earth-mass planets in inner planetary systems have become implausible, but we know very little about what the surfaces of these planets are like or what conditions are necessary for life.

There is at present no theoretical basis for the manipulation of gravity other than through the presence of mass-energy (i.e., how gravity usually works).

Io has a molten interior but nothing like plate tectonics, magma pretty much just erupts straight upwards through the crust across the surface.

Several other moons like Europa, Enceladus, and maybe Titan are expect to have something like tectonic plates and maybe subduction in their icy crusts, but in detail it wouldn't be quite the same as what we see on Earth, in large part because it's occuring in ice and water rather than rock.

Which scientists?

To be clear, when people say the Sahara was once "green", don't picture a rainforest, picture something like the serengeti. So there wasn't a ton of organic matter there to start out with.

But anyway, water and wind erosion are constantly working to remove topsoil, and vegetation plays a big role in securing it. Once the climate dried and the vegetation died out, the soil eroded away and the bedrock behan eroding, producing sand--though significant portions of the sahara are just bare bedrock or desert "pavement" which is compacted rock.