Subject: (urth) PLAN[E]T ENGINEERING 101

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:17:12 +0000

Ahem.

It seems to me that we can explain the difference in climate between 
Green and Blue, without resorting to a radical difference in their 
respective orbits ... for example, by invoking a difference in the 
chemical composition of their atmospheres. Suppose that Green simply 
has a very high percentage of "greenhouse gasses" -- including but 
not necessarily limited to CO2? And that Blue has a relatively low 
percentage thereof? Or put it in terms of albedo, and say that Blue's
is higher than Green's, so that the same amount of incident solar
raditation produces a higher degree of insolation. Will that not
produce the -- relatively small; they're both "life zone" planets! -- 
difference in their average surface temperature? 

Frustrated,

--

---

From: Charles Reed <cmreed at link.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:41:20 +0000

Ahem back.

You're right, of course.  My training is in mathematics, not 
geological/planetary science.  Still, I should have thought of that.  My 
tendency seems to be jumping in with my "ideas" without fully examining 
other alternatives.

Still, there's no denying that even if Green orbits Blue, it doesn't 
orbit it in the same way that Lune orbits Urth.  That was one of the 
points I was trying to make and I got sidetracked talking about orbits 
and such.

Sheepishly,

Charles

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

>--Blattid

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:23:03 +0000

Charles,

I didn't mean to direct my Ahem at you; you are hardly the first
to get involved in the orbit trap in discussing the mechanics of
the Bleen system. I've seen some of our smartest list members go
on at great length about possible orbits (including some extreme
cases like a sort of W-shaped orbit that actually works but that
I really doubt would be stable for a planetary pair for any long
period of time).

Nor had I thought of this possibility prior to today, so I'm not
claiming any special credit for brilliance here ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Reed [mailto:cmreed at link.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:41 AM
> To: urth at urth.net
> Subject: Re: (urth) PLAN[E]T ENGINEERING 101
> 
> 
> Ahem back.
> 
> http://www.urth.net/ To unsubscribe: send > "unsubscribe" to 
> urth-request at urth.net
> 
> 

--