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
Some months ago, I saw a BBC programme presented by Professor Brian Cox who is a high energy particle physicist. So this is an area well within his specialist field.
He briefly mentioned the faint sun. What was interesting was that he said that the solar spectrum was very different back then, and it had a far greater ratio of high energy particles. Is that so, and if so, has this been taken into account by the models?
No doubt Leif can at least clarify the spectral point.
phlogiston says:
July 10, 2013 at 5:31 am
Occam’s razor favours negative feedback and climate regulation as the reason for stable life-supporting climate over an earth history with 30% change in TSI.
Other explanations, whether CO2 (may Allah’s blessings and peace be on this molecule), or atmospheric pressure, or volcanism, or cosmic rays, or any other agent, require the fortuitous and improbable scenario of a level of action declining linearly over all of earths history in such a way as to exactly counter-balance the increasing insolation…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Loss of atmosphere would be fairly linear and so would the cooling of the earth’s thin crust and volcanism. But I certainly agree with negative feedbacks
***
Steve mosher says:
July 9, 2013 at 7:20 pm
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.
***
ROFLMFAO! How’s it deal w/a 10X current atmospheric pressure & completely different ocean/air circulation?
lsvalgaard says:
July 10, 2013 at 7:08 am
Gail Combs says:
July 10, 2013 at 6:56 am
So all of the CO2 and half the H2O is converted into glucose and O2.
What is the glucose eventually converted into?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
pyruvate which releases adenosine triphosphate (ATP) by cellular respiration.
How ever I imagine you are looking for dead bodies ===>>>> coal and limestone which is how we know they were there in the first place.
Joseph A Olson says:
July 10, 2013 at 7:04 am
The core is a 900 mile diameter extremely dense Iron cubic crystal that is inherently a solid magnet
Solid Iron loses its magnetism when the temperature is above the Curie Point [about 1000 K): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie_temperature so no magnet in the inner solid core.
Gail Combs says:
July 10, 2013 at 7:49 am
limestone which is how we know they were there in the first place.
Limestone is evidence of photosynthesis??
I’m not convinced with this, There is no good argument here at all. Uranus has a thick atmosphere and by scale, it has far more methane than earth ever had, yet Uranus’s atmosphere is unable to warm it’s planetary body.
This “paradox” is only called a paradox because it is contradictory to present understanding. These issues are incredibly complex and there is a lot more going-on than what a quick model can tell us, increasing or decreasing the earths atmospheric composition of gases in a model does not provide a convincing structure, I’ll point to Uranus again for example, its internal “heat” mechanism has shut down, due to the fact that the planet Jupiter has knocked it of its axis, the main source of radiation it receives is from the Sun, it does not warm internally nor does the sun provide this planet with enough energy to heat its atmosphere, So how could the methane in Uranus’s atmosphere provide warmth? it doesn’t.
“richard verney says:
July 10, 2013 at 7:36 am”
Cox is a strong advocate of AGW.
There’s more to the earth’s temperature than just heat from the sun. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/19/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat
Were it not for the ongoing decay of radioactive elements (uranium-238, thorium-232, potassium-40) in the earth’s interior, the planet would be much, much cooler today.
3 billion years ago, the concentrations of all of these elements would have been higher. There would have been ~59% more U-238, ~16% more Th-232, and ~429% more K-40 (based on half lives of 4.47 billion, 14.05 billion and 1.25 billion years respectively), implying ~116% more radioactive heating from within the earth than today.
Gail said:
“Sorry Stephen you did not have free atmospheric O2 and O3 until after you had photosynthesis”
Doesn’t matter. The absence of ozone would result in a very different circulation to the present one.
All that matters is that for whatever reason the rate of energy throughput was slower than it is now such that the temperature was not dissimilar despite the less strong sun.
The suggestions about different atmospheric densities and volumes are also relevant because they affect the rate of energy throughput too.
lsvalgaard says:
July 10, 2013 at 7:08 am
Gail Combs says:
July 10, 2013 at 6:56 am
So all of the CO2 and half the H2O is converted into glucose and O2.
What is the glucose eventually converted into?
Plants! or some other photosynthesizing organism.
Patrick says:
July 10, 2013 at 8:03 am
////////////////////////////////////
It would not surprise me since he is a favoured ‘BBC’ man, and we all know what the BBC is like and how you have to be within its clique to operate.
However, in his programme which was to do with life, not the evolution of Earth, he made a number of interesting comments. amongst these were:
1. That in the early days of the solar system although the sun was fainter the spectrum was more energetic; it consisted of a greater ratio of high energy photons. I cannot remember the detail but he gave the impression that the solar spectrum was more injurious to life because of the different high energy profile. Say if ‘you’ had been sunbathing, although the sun was faint, ‘you’ would have got more sun burnt. I think he was suggesting that the spectral difference would increase the risk of damage to cell structure, thereby making this early period rather hostile to life.
2. That every time that energy is used and recycled, it loses some inherent quality; it degrades. He sat on a beach as the sun set and picked up a handful of warm sand that was radiating energy. He said that during the day the sand receives high ordered, high quality energy, and at night what is radiated is less ordered, low quality energy. Unfortunately, he did not go into detail and did not explain precisely what he meant, still less the implications, but the impression given was that he was talking about entropy and that whilst energy is conserved, it loses some inherent quality which fuels (or results) in the never ending disent into disorder. I am fairly sure that he said that the energy being radiated by the sand was less useful and could do less work because the energy that it was radiating was not as ordered and was of lower quality.
Of course, he was not discussing the greenhouse effect, or global warming so I may be taking his comments slightly out of context. Nonetheless, they did interest me. May be he holds some inconsistent views, that would not surprise me.
“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.” and
““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.”
Ooh, ahh – sophisticated computer models. Ooh, ahh – Janus supercomputer. I’m impressed (I say this sarcastically). Looks to me someone is trying justify the immense expense of the computer.
Barry Cullen says:
July 10, 2013 at 8:56 am
Gail Combs says:
July 10, 2013 at 6:56 am
So all of the CO2 and half the H2O is converted into glucose and O2.
What is the glucose eventually converted into?
Plants! or some other photosynthesizing organism.
That is correct Barry, Plants produce sugars and use them in a wide variety of practical ways, a source of energy and to attract animals and insects that help in the procreation process by way-of pollination and also in the dispersion of the seed itself from the fruits that animals eat.
It’s actually a perfect and natural way to store solar energy.
lsvalgaard…thanks for the Wiki/Curie_Temperature link…
however, we suffer from a ‘reference plane’ myopia and often extrapolate beyond our measurement abilities. I question the ‘constant’ decay rate, over conditions that vary beyond or imagination, as well as extrapolation to core conditions of an Iron cubic crystal mass that we cannot replicate. For more on this very dense cubic crystal see, “Researchers Confirm Discovery of Earth’s Inner, Innermost Core” on work by Geologists Xiaodong Song and Xinlei Sun
http://news.illinois.edu/news/08/0310core.html
What is the hypothesis de jour for planet and solar magnetism ?
Barry Cullen says:
July 10, 2013 at 8:56 am
“What is the glucose eventually converted into?”
Plants! or some other photosynthesizing organism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition :
“The chemical aspects of plant decomposition always involve the release of carbon dioxide.”
So eventually glucose becomes the CO2 that went into forming the glucose
richard verney says:
July 10, 2013 at 7:36 am
Some months ago, I saw a BBC programme presented by Professor Brian Cox who is a high energy particle physicist. So this is an area well within his specialist field.
He briefly mentioned the faint sun. What was interesting was that he said that the solar spectrum was very different back then, and it had a far greater ratio of high energy particles. Is that so, and if so, has this been taken into account by the models?
Brian Cox is correct, The suns spectrum was very different back then, but at this point in time that he was discussing there would have been no life on earth, and if there actually was life emerging at this time it would be in the form of extremophiles which would negate a “faint sun paradox” No need for one! simples…
Russ R. says:
July 10, 2013 at 8:44 am
There’s more to the earth’s temperature than just heat from the sun. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/19/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat
No Ross, your link is about the heat coming from the interior which is about 1000 times smaller than the heat we get from the Sun. The ‘half of Earth’s heat’ referred to is that produced by radioactivity, the other half is simply left over from the formation of the Earth 4.5 billion years ago. Together these two heat sources account for less than a thousandth of what we get from the Sun.
Joseph A Olson says:
July 10, 2013 at 9:13 am
Iron cubic crystal mass that we cannot replicate
we can: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/new-double-diamond-anvil-device-can-create-pressures-greater-core-earth and more
For more on this very dense cubic crystal
The solid inner core was discovered by Danish seismologist Inge Lehmann in 1936
What is the hypothesis de jour for planet and solar magnetism ?
for decades both planetary and solar magnetism are thought to be generated by circulation of liquid [planets] or gas [sun] through a magnetic field. this ‘dynamo’ process is self-sustaining: it requires a magnetic field and produces a magnetic field so can go on ‘forever’.
@lsvalgaard
this is an interesting paper, but I know that Leif’s true motive is ruling out all warming factors besides co2.
Leif, please tell everyone how there was an ice age on earth during the late Ordovician with atmospheric co2 concentrations upwards of 4400ppm.
For somebody as intelligent as you are, I am dismayed that you dismiss the geologic record in what seems to be nothing but your own opinion.
dr. lumpus spookytooth, phd. says:
July 10, 2013 at 9:53 am
I know that Leif’s true motive is ruling out all warming factors besides co2.
And how do you know that falsehood?
Leif, please tell everyone how there was an ice age on earth during the late Ordovician with atmospheric co2 concentrations upwards of 4400ppm.
First off, the Sun was a bit less luminous back then, second the main cause of glaciations are changes of the Earth’s orbit and tilt [mainly brought about by Jupiter] combined with the continent being in such places that there is land at high latitudes. This overwhelms just about every other cause.
Leif,
This is interesting, Uranus’s poles alternate facing the sun every four solar cycles.
I’ve plotted in red for the South pole and blue for the North pole.
http://thetempestspark.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=534
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/uranus-poles-sunspot_area.gif
lsvalgaard says:
July 10, 2013 at 7:55 am
Gail Combs says:
July 10, 2013 at 7:49 am
limestone which is how we know they were there in the first place.
Limestone is evidence of photosynthesis??
==============================
Really, Leif, do you need to be so petty ?
Let me put it another way. Is COAL, which you conveniently snipped out, NOT evidence of photosynthesis ?? And YES, clearly MOST limestone indicates the presence of photosynthesis because:
1) most corals are symbiotic with algae
2) other carbonate shelled creatures feed on photosynthetic organisms and would not exist without food in a roughly 10:1 ratio, if current energetic dynamics were true.
Since limestones are roughly 10% of all sedimentary deposits, that’s one hell of a lot of carbon dioxide and oxygen.
lsvalgaard,
<"The ‘half of Earth’s heat’ referred to is that produced by radioactivity, the other half is simply left over from the formation of the Earth 4.5 billion years ago. Together these two heat sources account for less than a thousandth of what we get from the Sun."
Sorry, I never intended to suggest that “half of earth’s heat” came from the interior… though looking back at what I wrote, I see that it reads that way.
What I should have written was that in addition to the heat absorbed from the sun, some amount of heat from the young planet’s interior would have contributed to keeping the place warm, and that amount would have been significantly greater 3 billion years ago than it is today.
The radioactive part was easy to estimate… the primordial heat would take a bit more work, but it could only have been greater than today.
lsvalgaard says:
July 10, 2013 at 9:14 am
So eventually glucose becomes the CO2 that went into forming the glucose