{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3612", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 3612, "subject": "PLAN[E]T ENGINEERING 101", "messages": 3, "voices": 2, "first": "2002-11-26T17:17:12+00:00", "last": "2002-11-26T18:23:03+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-11-26T17:17:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) PLAN[E]T ENGINEERING 101", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ahem.\n\nIt seems to me that we can explain the difference in climate between \nGreen and Blue, without resorting to a radical difference in their \nrespective orbits ... for example, by invoking a difference in the \nchemical composition of their atmospheres. Suppose that Green simply \nhas a very high percentage of \"greenhouse gasses\" -- including but \nnot necessarily limited to CO2? And that Blue has a relatively low \npercentage thereof? Or put it in terms of albedo, and say that Blue's\nis higher than Green's, so that the same amount of incident solar\nraditation produces a higher degree of insolation. Will that not\nproduce the -- relatively small; they're both \"life zone\" planets! -- \ndifference in their average surface temperature? \n\nFrustrated," } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Charles Reed", "address": "cmreed at link.com" }, "date": "2002-11-26T17:41:20+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PLAN[E]T ENGINEERING 101", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ahem back.\n\nYou're right, of course. My training is in mathematics, not \ngeological/planetary science. Still, I should have thought of that. My \ntendency seems to be jumping in with my \"ideas\" without fully examining \nother alternatives.\n\nStill, there's no denying that even if Green orbits Blue, it doesn't \norbit it in the same way that Lune orbits Urth. That was one of the \npoints I was trying to make and I got sidetracked talking about orbits \nand such.\n\nSheepishly,\n\nCharles" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nAhem.\n\nIt seems to me that we can explain the difference in climate between \nGreen and Blue, without resorting to a radical difference in their \nrespective orbits ... for example, by invoking a difference in the \nchemical composition of their atmospheres. Suppose that Green simply \nhas a very high percentage of \"greenhouse gasses\" -- including but \nnot necessarily limited to CO2? And that Blue has a relatively low \npercentage thereof? Or put it in terms of albedo, and say that Blue's\nis higher than Green's, so that the same amount of incident solar\nraditation produces a higher degree of insolation. Will that not\nproduce the -- relatively small; they're both \"life zone\" planets! -- \ndifference in their average surface temperature? \n\nFrustrated,\n\n--Blattid" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-11-26T18:23:03+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) PLAN[E]T ENGINEERING 101", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Charles,\n\nI didn't mean to direct my Ahem at you; you are hardly the first\nto get involved in the orbit trap in discussing the mechanics of\nthe Bleen system. I've seen some of our smartest list members go\non at great length about possible orbits (including some extreme\ncases like a sort of W-shaped orbit that actually works but that\nI really doubt would be stable for a planetary pair for any long\nperiod of time).\n\nNor had I thought of this possibility prior to today, so I'm not\nclaiming any special credit for brilliance here ..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Charles Reed [mailto:cmreed at link.com] \nSent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:41 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) PLAN[E]T ENGINEERING 101\n\n\nAhem back.\n\nYou're right, of course. My training is in mathematics, not \ngeological/planetary science. Still, I should have thought \nof that. My \ntendency seems to be jumping in with my \"ideas\" without fully \nexamining \nother alternatives.\n\nStill, there's no denying that even if Green orbits Blue, it doesn't \norbit it in the same way that Lune orbits Urth. That was one of the \npoints I was trying to make and I got sidetracked talking \nabout orbits \nand such.\n\nSheepishly,\n\nCharles\n\n\n\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ahem.\n\nIt seems to me that we can explain the difference in climate between\nGreen and Blue, without resorting to a radical difference in their \nrespective orbits ... for example, by invoking a difference in the \nchemical composition of their atmospheres. Suppose that Green simply \nhas a very high percentage of \"greenhouse gasses\" -- including but \nnot necessarily limited to CO2? And that Blue has a relatively low \npercentage thereof? Or put it in terms of albedo, and say that Blue's\nis higher than Green's, so that the same amount of incident solar\nraditation produces a higher degree of insolation. Will that not\nproduce the -- relatively small; they're both \"life zone\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "planets! -- \ndifference in their average surface temperature? " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Frustrated,\n\n--Blattid" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-- \nhttp://www.urth.net/ To unsubscribe: send > \"unsubscribe\" to \nurth-request at urth.net" } ] } ] }