From the University of Colorado at Boulder a claim that computer modeling has solved the problem, with an atmosphere that is 20,000 parts per million of CO2 and 1,000 ppm of methane.

CU study shows how early Earth kept warm enough to support life
Scientists tackle faint young sun paradox with 3-D climate models
Solving the “faint young sun paradox” — explaining how early Earth was warm and habitable for life beginning more than 3 billion years ago even though the sun was 20 percent dimmer than today — may not be as difficult as believed, says a new University of Colorado Boulder study.
In fact, two CU-Boulder researchers say all that may have been required to sustain liquid water and primitive life on Earth during the Archean eon 2.8 billion years ago were reasonable atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts believed to be present at the time and perhaps a dash of methane. The key to the solution was the use of sophisticated three-dimensional climate models that were run for thousands of hours on CU’s Janus supercomputer, rather than crude, one-dimensional models used by almost all scientists attempting to solve the paradox, said doctoral student Eric Wolf, lead study author.
“It’s really not that hard in a three-dimensional climate model to get average surface temperatures during the Archean that are in fact moderate,” said Wolf, a doctoral student in CU-Boulder’s atmospheric and oceanic sciences department. “Our models indicate the Archean climate may have been similar to our present climate, perhaps a little cooler. Even if Earth was sliding in and out of glacial periods back then, there still would have been a large amount of liquid water in equatorial regions, just like today.”
Evolutionary biologists believe life arose on Earth as simple cells roughly 3.5 billion years ago, about a billion years after the planet is thought to have formed. Scientists have speculated the first life may have evolved in shallow tide pools, freshwater ponds, freshwater or deep-sea hydrothermal vents, or even arrived on objects from space.
A cover article by Wolf and Professor Brian Toon on the topic appears in the July issue of Astrobiology. The study was funded by two NASA grants and by the National Science Foundation, which supports CU-Boulder’s Janus supercomputer used for the study.
Scientists have been trying to solve the faint young sun paradox since 1972, when Cornell University scientist Carl Sagan — Toon’s doctoral adviser at the time — and colleague George Mullen broached the subject. Since then there have been many studies using 1-D climate models to try to solve the faint young sun paradox — with results ranging from a hot, tropical Earth to a “snowball Earth” with runaway glaciation — none of which have conclusively resolved the problem.
“In our opinion, the one-dimensional models of early Earth created by scientists to solve this paradox are too simple — they are essentially taking the early Earth and reducing it to a single column atmospheric profile,” said Toon. “One-dimensional models are simply too crude to give an accurate picture.”
Wolf and Toon used a general circulation model known as the Community Atmospheric Model version 3.0 developed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder and which contains 3-D atmosphere, ocean, land, cloud and sea ice components. The two researchers also “tuned up” the model with a sophisticated radiative transfer component that allowed for the absorption, emission and scattering of solar energy and an accurate calculation of the greenhouse effect for the unusual atmosphere of early Earth, where there was no oxygen and no ozone, but lots of CO2 and possibly methane.
The simplest solution to the faint sun paradox, which duplicates Earth’s present climate, involves maintaining roughly 20,000 parts per million of the greenhouse gas CO2 and 1,000 ppm of methane in the ancient atmosphere some 2.8 billion years ago, said Wolf. While that may seem like a lot compared to today’s 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, geological studies of ancient soil samples support the idea that CO2 likely could have been that high during that time period. Methane is considered to be at least 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and could have played a significant role in warming the early Earth as well, said the CU researchers.
There are other reasons to believe that CO2 was much higher in the Archean, said Toon, who along with Wolf is associated with CU’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics. The continental area of Earth was smaller back then so there was less weathering of the land and a lower release of minerals to the oceans. As a result there was a smaller conversion of CO2 to limestone in the ocean. Likewise, there were no “rooted” land plants in the Archean, which could have accelerated the weathering of the soils and indirectly lowered the atmospheric abundance of CO2, Toon said.
Another solution to achieving a habitable but slightly cooler climate under the faint sun conditions is for the Archean atmosphere to have contained roughly 15,000 to 20,000 ppm of CO2 and no methane, said Wolf. “Our results indicate that a weak version of the faint young sun paradox, requiring only that some portion of the planet’s surface maintain liquid water, may be resolved with moderate greenhouse gas inventories,” the authors wrote in Astrobiology.
“Even if half of Earth’s surface was below freezing back in the Archean and half was above freezing, it still would have constituted a habitable planet since at least 50 percent of the ocean would have remained open,” said Wolf. “Most scientists have not considered that there might have been a middle ground for the climate of the Archean.
“The leap from one-dimensional to three-dimensional models is an important step,” said Wolf. “Clouds and sea ice are critical factors in determining climate, but the one-dimensional models completely ignore them.”
Has the faint young sun paradox finally been solved? “I don’t want to be presumptuous here,” said Wolf. “But we show that the paradox is definitely not as challenging as was believed over the past 40 years. While we can’t say definitively what the atmosphere looked like back then without more geological evidence, it is certainly not a stretch at all with our model to get a warm early Earth that would have been hospitable to life.”
“The Janus supercomputer has been a tremendous addition to the campus, and this early Earth climate modeling project would have impossible without it,” said Toon. The researchers estimated the project required roughly 6,000 hours of supercomputer computation time, an effort equal to about 10 years on a home computer.
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Make the atmosphere thicker due to more volcanic activity and it becomes a lot easier problem to solve. Were they trying to solve the paradox using the atmospheric thickness of today? That might not be correct. Double or triple the amount of atmosphere present and the problem gets a bit more manageable.
The researchers estimated the project required roughly 6,000 hours of supercomputer computation time, an effort equal to about 10 years on a home computer.
somebody got the numbers wrong here. Janus comprises more than 16,000 compute cores so the comparison is not credible. 6000 hours is 2/3 year, so Janus should only by 15 times as powerful as a ‘home computer’. Off by a factor of 1000.
Data finally confessed. It’s CO2 of course, but “more research is needed”, i.e. better models and faster computers and more money for us.
What distance from the “faint young sun” they have in their 3D model?
“Paradox Solved” – no, hardly, as the estimates for the young Earth CO2 levels were considerably less as pointed out by a recent paper in GRL, and this paper is based upon climate models which are unable to replicate even the Holocene, RWP, MWP, LIA, 20th and 21st centuries.
A recent paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds that the ‘Faint young Sun problem’ has become “more severe” because to solve the problem using conventional greenhouse theory would require CO2 to comprise 0.4 bar or about 40% of the young Earth atmosphere, far greater than CO2 partial pressures today [0.014 bar or 28 times less] or those estimated for the young Earth [0.06 bar]. According to the authors, “Our results suggest that currently favored greenhouse [gas] solutions could be in conflict with constraints emerging for the middle and late Archean [young Earth].” However, if one instead assumes CO2 concentrations had no significant influence on Earth temperature, the faint young Sun problem can be resolved with the basic thermodynamics of the lapse rate.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/faint-young-sun-paradox-resolved-by.html
So are they going to use the same explanation for Curiosity proving Mars had running water some 3 billion years ago?
…just add CO2 and all the problems are solved
That is until all that stuff evolved to use it…..and used it all up
I wonder how complete the modelling was.
For example the Moon was a lot closer so the tidal stress on the Earth’s crust and oceans must have generated some heat. I would also think that the massive tidal ranges would break up any ice sheets over water.
I thought at this time the day was around 4 hours so atmospheric turbulence would have had some interesting effects!
A question. Is there anything to indicate (i.e. “evidence”) that the atmosphere really was as they say other than the assumption it was so their model would work?
Assumptions = faith
“anticlimactic says:
July 9, 2013 at 7:05 pm
I wonder how complete the modelling was.”
############
well more complete than 1D versions.
If you want to solve the faint sun paradox you have one tool to “prove” that your hypothesis is consistent with known physics and consistent with extant data. That tool is a GCM. of course it leaves things out and gets other things wrong. But if you are a scientist interested in the question, this is all you have.
Then again it could be unicorns that solve the paradox, they cant be ruled out.
The earth is moving away from the sun at 15cm per year is that a factor?
==========================================================================
(Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.)
Unicorns? Why not? After all, the greens are depending on them to generate electricity…
We have no idea what the early atmosphere was. Today, UVC is absorbed by O2 in the stratosphere. Back then, it reached the surface and caused reactions in gases and rocks. It has been shown that UV produces methane from carbon in meteorites (under Mars conditions).
Is this computer model study a genuine attempt to explain the faint sun paradox or just another sorry attempt to promote the idea that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability? Sadly I suspect the latter.
If solar radiation reaching the earth was indeed 30% lower 3 billion years ago, the faint sun paradox is more reasonably explained by the following factors –
1. Higher atmospheric pressures.
2. Reduced albedo.
3. Higher volcanic activity.
4. Different planetary rotation speed.
The empirical experiment for factor 1 is simple to conduct. (note – climate scientists may need Mum or Dad to help with the scissors) The question is what effect would higher gas pressures have on atmospheric temperatures for an atmosphere in conductive contact with a planets surface heated by solar radiation?
– Build two identical insulated tall pressure chambers
– in the base of each chamber place water coils of thin aluminium tube with input and output through the walls of the chamber.
– place temperature sensors (optical preferred) at several heights within each chamber.
– fill both chambers with dry nitrogen. ( chamber A to 1 bar, chamber B to 2 bar)
– run cooling water through the water coils of both chambers until gas temperatures are equalised.
– now run 90C water at equal flow rates through the water coils in both chambers.
– observe that the gas temperature in chamber B rises fastest.
– now alternate heating and cooling water flows to simulate diurnal cycle.
– using the temperature sensor highest in each chamber observe that chamber B maintains the highest gas temperature.
The authors of this radiative greenhouse effect “study” should immediately relocate it, not to where the sun shines 30% less but to where it does not shine at all.
I suspect the authors did not take into account that the atmospheric pressure about 4 billion yrs ago was likely in the 200 – 250 bar range based on the rate of loss into space today. So 2.8 billion yrs ago it still would have been >>100 bar (I’m too lazy to look up the original work or do my own calcs ’cause I’m falling asleep) and unless this was included in the UCB work the results are pure crap.
Good night,
BC
@Latitude July 9, 2013 at 7:05 pm:
“…just add CO2 and all the problems are solved”
Yep. The CO2 killed off all the existing life on the planet (like the alarmists say will happen soon to us), and it took millions of years for it to get started again.
It’s just models all the way down.
Regarding “anticlimactic saying “I wonder how complete the modelling was.”
Steve mosher says “well more complete than 1D versions.
Dont be ridiculous Steve. With more complexity comes more assumption not more certainty.
Why are they assuming that life began in upper oceanic levels? There is a lot of life around submarine vents and the temperature around those vents is pretty high. Young sun doesn’t need to come into it. Nor does CO2 or oxygen for that matter.
A question from a non-scientist sitting back here in “the cheap seats”…. I sure would like to know how they are so sure that the paradox is a real one, i.e., how do we know that the sun was 20% (or so) dimmer back then?
[This is not a sarcastic or argumentative question — I simply do not know the answer.]
And, Dr. Svalgaard, PUUUH–leez do not utter some enigmatic oracle like, “That is the long-settled science. You should know that.” #[:)]
I think Leif Svaalgard sent it over to Anthony so we could have a laugh.
I am with those who doubt that this is solved, due to the current state of climate models’ science that is far from complete science. It will be interesting to see how many fudge factors and assumptions are in it. If they can’t replicate the next 10 years or the recent history worth jack, claim of “solved” sounds pretty ludicrous, like Steve Mosher’s unicorns. They do currently have that “other” Divergence Problem between rising CO2 and global temps, including the utter failure of the models – ANY model – to predict the current stall in global warming. I wonder if they figured in the “stalled warming.”
Any fudge factor off by 0.0000001% per millennium over millions of millennia and their model is wrong. It’s great that they fudged with such precision as to not get infinity as a result.
I also wonder how many times they ran that model. Once? Once at 5,000 hours – I am pretty darned sure they didn’t run a second one (or they would have mentioned it).
One model run and the Faint Young Sun is solved? Bwahahahaha!!! No replication, not even by themselves. Just because they fudged some numbers in, and then got a result they liked doesn’t mean anything is solved. It sounds like they threw darts (the “garbage in”) at a rotating dartboard and got lucky with the “garbage out.”
I predict this won’t stand.
Janice Moore says:
July 9, 2013 at 8:22 pm
how do we know that the sun was 20% (or so) dimmer back then?
And, Dr. Svalgaard, PUUUH–leez do not utter some enigmatic oracle like, “That is the long-settled science.
Unfortunately, it is settled science. We have a very good understanding of stellar evolution. We know that the theory works because we observe millions of stars in all phases of their life: old stars, young stars, stars in middle age [like the sun], etc. so we can readily check that the theory works by simply looking around at many stars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution or http://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/~zirbel/ast21/handouts/StellarEvolution.PDF
Best guessing on the opacity levels through several spheres and several years is a tough nut to crack:)