PLAN[E]T ENGINEERING 101

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 26 Nov 2002, 17:17 · from urth-v0211.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Subject: (urth) PLAN[E]T ENGINEERING 101
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:17:12 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0211-2256 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0211/2256.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ahem.

It seems to me that we can explain the difference in climate between=3D20
Green and Blue, without resorting to a radical difference in their=3D20
respective orbits ... for example, by invoking a difference in the=3D20
chemical composition of their atmospheres. Suppose that Green simply=3D20
has a very high percentage of "greenhouse gasses" -- including but=3D20
not necessarily limited to CO2? And that Blue has a relatively low=3D20
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! --=3D20
difference in their average surface temperature?=3D20

Frustrated,

--Blattid

--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net