Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:41:20 -0600
From: "Charles Reed" 
Subject: Re: (urth) PLAN[E]T ENGINEERING 101

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:

>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,
>
>--Blattid
>
>
>



--