Claim: Faint Young Sun Paradox solved

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.

This is an artist’s conception of the Earth during the late Archean, 2.8 billion years ago. Weak solar radiation requires the Earth have increased greenhouse gas amounts to remain warm. CU-Boulder doctoral student Eric Wolf Wolf and CU-Boulder Professor Brian Toon use a three-dimensional climate model to show that the late Archean may have maintained large areas of liquid surface water despite a relatively weak greenhouse. With carbon dioxide levels within constraints deduced from ancient soils, the late Archean may have had large polar ice caps but lower latitudes would have remained temperate and thus hospitable to life. The addition of methane allows the late Archean to warmed to present day mean surface temperatures. Credit: Charlie Meeks

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

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
209 Comments
BioBob
July 10, 2013 10:33 am

sorry — hit the wrong key — mod please delete 10:28 post
lsvalgaard says:
July 10, 2013 at 9:14 am
So eventually glucose becomes the CO2 that went into forming the glucose
================================
which then becomes plants again….unless it gets sequestered soil or benthic organic deposits (hugh), peat, coals, limestone, oil, natural gas, etc. etc.
Leif, clearly life is winning here since there is ALWAYS a higher standing stock of CO2 sequestered into plants and animals than exists in the atmosphere. CO2 rarity is one of the limiting factors on plant standing stock.

July 10, 2013 10:34 am

BioBob says:
July 10, 2013 at 10:21 am
Let me put it another way. Is COAL, which you conveniently snipped out, NOT evidence of photosynthesis
Most plant material when it decays does not end up as coal, but simply as CO2. But most people agree that there was a lot of CO2 back then, so your comment about limestone should really be directed at the people here who deny that. My ‘pettiness’ as you will have it is rooted in the fact that the devil hides in the details so it is important to get the details right. So, you would agree that there was a much higher concentration of CO2 3 billion years ago [when BTW there were no land plants and no COAL [one reason I left out that straw man].

July 10, 2013 10:41 am

lsvalgaard says,
Roughly speaking the efficiency of a greenhouse gas depends on the number of different ways the molecules can vibrate, stretch, and shake. That is why N2 [with only two atoms] is not a GHG, H2O, O3, and CO2 [with three atoms] are GHGs, and Methane CH4 [with four atoms] is a very strong GHG, because it has many more ways to ‘shake and bake’, stretch and bend, etc.
However, a black body at 288K, emits largely between 5 and 25 microns, the peak being at 10.06um.
The number of spectral lines of CO2 and CH4 (five atoms there Lief, not four), between 5 and 25um is 94,934(CO2) and 75,023(CH4)
These figures are checkable through,
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
I would expect that the ‘suggested’ potency of CH4 arises from experiments measuring optical transmission whereby CH4 attenuates higher frequencies (ie >10um whereas CO2’s spectral dominance is below (15um) the peak that defines the temperature(10um). Any radiation above the Wien peak has to be energetically more significant than radiations below.
However, entropically heat travels as a statistical certainty, inter atmospherically as a result of a thermal gradient that is set and maintained by gravity. Long wave within the atmosphere and at low (ambient) thermal gradients is overwhelmed. Normal engineering heat exchangers confirm this fact.
The early atmosphere was more dense and existed at much higher surface pressure resulting in an adiabatic increase in temperature. As suggested by other commenters.
The ‘greenhouse gas theory’ is a popular misconception.

July 10, 2013 10:45 am

BioBob says:
July 10, 2013 at 10:21 am
clearly MOST limestone indicates the presence of photosynthesis because:
1) most corals are symbiotic with algae
2) other carbonate shelled creatures

Except that there were’nt any of those critters around 3 billion years ago, either.

July 10, 2013 10:51 am

nuwurld commented on Claim: Faint Young Sun Paradox solved.
CH4 (five atoms there Lief, not four),
Five it is, indeed, thanks for correcting my mistake, and it is Leif not Lief 🙂
So CH4 is an even more potent GHG then NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, Vol. 24: 645-661, 1999

BioBob
July 10, 2013 10:58 am

lsvalgaard says:
July 10, 2013 at 10:34 am
so it is important to get the details right. So, you would agree that there was a much higher concentration of CO2 3 billion years ago [when BTW there were no land plants and no COAL [one reason I left out that straw man].
===========================================
yes. the geologic evidence indicates more CO2, but we don’t really know how much more w/o making assumptions. The evidence ALSO indicates much more O2 in the atmosphere (30+%) during some periods, which indicates much more plant production and photosynthesis than present.
the point is that there has ALWAYS been much more organic material and therefore CO2 sequestered on earth than is present in the atmosphere once life gained more than a tenuous foothold in ALL habitats. Go to the ocean floor and you will find many meters of organic ‘sludge’ in many places that dwarfs the amount of algae in the water column above. The same is true in most of the land surface as well. with many more megatons of carbon present in standing stock or soil horizons than is present in the atmosphere.
Frankly, the CO2 issue is absurd since life sucks out all the CO2 in the atmosphere it possibly can above the limitations of life. The biosphere controls the current atmospheric gas composition, and humans hardly budge the needle.

July 10, 2013 11:01 am

BioBob says:
July 10, 2013 at 10:58 am
the point is that there has ALWAYS been much more organic material and therefore CO2 sequestered on earth than is present in the atmosphere once life gained more than a tenuous foothold in ALL habitats.
Except that life hadn’t 3 billion years ago.

July 10, 2013 11:06 am

Re: Gary Hladik I skimmed the paper. Under “Methods” I found this:

Continental configurations, topography, planetary rotation rate, ocean heat transport, cloud droplet sizes, land-based glacial ice, and surface vegetation [!!!!] are assumed to be those of the present day. Thus here we isolate the effects of reduced solar insolation and increased greenhouse forcing.”

Good catch, Gary. Thanks. They didn’t even mention atmospheric pressure. Musta slipped their minds.
Gospel In, Garbage Out (GIGO) Really!? You are going to spend 6000 (cpu?)-hours on Janus and not even try to get the basic uncontested parameters of the Achaean right? surface vegetation… assumed to be… present day.
Get at clue, CU!. Talk to a geologist. There was no surface vegetation in the Archean!.

BioBob
July 10, 2013 11:06 am

lsvalgaard says:
July 10, 2013 at 10:45 am
Except that there were’nt any of those critters around 3 billion years ago, either.
==========================
likely true, and there probably wasn’t much in the way of limestone, either.
and we don’t know much about the surface temperatures back then except they were quite likely hotter. so the humans back then would have had to wear thicker soles on their shoes /sarc
if we go back far enough they would have had to swim around in the aggregating dust and debris particles between all the comets and asteroids about to form the planet too…I would think /sarc
this too shall pass it said on the bathroom stall….

July 10, 2013 11:09 am

Stephen Rasey says:
July 10, 2013 at 11:06 am
<i?There was no surface vegetation in the Archean!.
and that probably kills the paper dead.

July 10, 2013 11:10 am

Stephen Rasey says:
July 10, 2013 at 11:06 am
There was no surface vegetation in the Archean!.
and that probably kills the paper dead.

BioBob
July 10, 2013 11:10 am

Leif — petty again — read what I said — not what you thought I said…
“once life gained more than a tenuous foothold in ALL habitats.”
in any case, that’s the THEORY anyway, and since none of us was around, as usual it’s all ASS-U-ME

July 10, 2013 11:13 am

BioBob says:
July 10, 2013 at 11:06 am
and we don’t know much about the surface temperatures back then except they were quite likely hotter.
What we know is that they allowed for liquid water, and THAT is the Faint Sun Paradox.
There have been some discussion here about the distance to the Sun being smaller.
Here is a recent assessment of that idea: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1306-3166-Faint-Sun.pdf

higley7
July 10, 2013 11:14 am

Relying on greenhouse gases to explain anything is the road to failure. No gas at any concentration in the atmosphere can detectably warm the climate. They simply cannot warm the surface, defying the laws of thermodynamics.
However, as our Sun is effectively a pulsar and our ice ages due to interactions of 45 and 160 million years fluctuations in energy input, we have not problem with a warm Sun. The fact that we have methane and/or oil anywhere that we drill deep enough indicates that our planet’s core is neutron rich material from an asymmetric supernova explosion and carbon and hydrogen are products of this material.
The Sun is not the helium burning star we were taught. It is generating energy the same way Earth is, by neutron repulsion energy, which is actually more energetic than helium fusion, and is not that as hot inside as they claim, which is why when sunspots blow back the surface it is not hotter than the surface inside—it should be if it is burning hydrogen. Other processes are at work that heat its surface, however. Have you ever wondered how a solar wind leaves the Sun’s surface at 6000 deg C and reaches over 1 000 000 deg C a million miles out? It should be slowing down not accelerating. What accelerates charged particles? Electrical potential gradients. A hydrogen-burning Sun cannot create such forces.
The warm young Sun problem is derived from assuming the Sun to be something that it is not.

July 10, 2013 11:14 am

Leif, my apologies regarding spelling your name. However, are we still ‘guessing’ at what makes the Earth’s surface warmer? Strange that we place so much credence in energies that cannot physically increase the Wien peak.
The radiation from 288K cannot be focussed or condensed to produce anything above 288K. The solar flux however can be condensed and focussed to reproduce even at Earth’s surface a massive, entropically significant energy source ov many thousands of degrees. This undermines the physical reasoning of back radiation and the ‘greenhouse gas theory’. 168W of temporally averaged solar flux is available for work. The 330W of ‘back radiation’ calculated nonsense is unavailble for work within this thermal gradient. Surely a man of your understanding can appreciate that 168Wsolar is massively more signicant than 330 calculated Watts of long wave?

July 10, 2013 11:15 am

BioBob says:
July 10, 2013 at 11:10 am
Leif — petty again — read what I said — not what you thought I said…
“once life gained more than a tenuous foothold in ALL habitats.”

I ASS-ume that ALL habitats include land, in which case my assessment holds, no no pettiness there, just pointing out that your comment was irrelevant.

July 10, 2013 11:19 am

nuwurld says:
July 10, 2013 at 11:14 am
168W solar is massively more significant than 330 calculated Watts of long wave?
And what has that to do with the faint Sun paradox? That 168W would have been something like 110W back then.

Outrageous Ampersand
July 10, 2013 11:19 am

First post for me, but I’ve been a reader for years.
It seems to me that the Earth must have had a much thicker atmosphere back in the day, which others have pointed out. This makes the surface hotter.
Solar wind has been slowly eroding away the atmosphere over the eons. As the sun gets brighter and releases more energy, the solar wind gets stronger. This erodes the amosphere faster.
In this way the atmosphere becomes thinner as the sun gets brighter, which helps maintain a stable surface temperature.

July 10, 2013 11:25 am

higley7 says:
July 10, 2013 at 11:14 am
The warm young Sun problem is derived from assuming the Sun to be something that it is not.
No need to hijack the thread by rebutting all that is wrong with you comment. Let me just remark that your comment is high-quality nonsense.

July 10, 2013 11:27 am

Leif, I appreciate your avoidance of the question. To answer yours, the article ‘relies’ on the ‘greenhouse effect’ and ‘back radiation’. Hence the mention of CO2 concentration.
Is 168W of solar energy the same as 330W of calculated, but unavailble back radiation? Can you use both for power?

BioBob
July 10, 2013 11:30 am

Really, Leif, I will leave the aspects and details of the faint sun paradox, sunspots, sundogs, sun-yat-sen, etc to your own desires & devices.
But whenever you wish to discuss the role of life on earth,which likely involves the last 2 billion years or so, I will feel free to contribute and point out your ignorance. Just for your info, plant life in the oceans ALONE managed to oxygenate the atmosphere just fine, thank-you-very-much, so the contribution of plants on land was not required.
As my post of 11:28 indicates, at some point everything is irrelevant, from some point of reference or view.

Chad Wozniak
July 10, 2013 11:33 am

@lsvalgaard –
I still think “settled,” with reference to theory per se , is not appropriate. Tried-and-true practice is different, however, as you point out, but again this is experience rather than pure theory at work.

BioBob
July 10, 2013 11:33 am

erm, 11:06 post but whatever

Chad Wozniak
July 10, 2013 11:40 am

The full title of the book I referred to above concerning the postulated rarity if intelligent life in the universe is “Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe,” the authors are Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee. Essentially they argue that a sequence of too many highly improbable coincidences have to occur for life to advance to the point it has on Earth, for this to happen more than a few times throughout the universe.

July 10, 2013 11:53 am

The continental area of Earth was smaller back then [in the Archean] so there was less weathering of the land and a lower release of minerals to the oceans
I don’t know whether this is any truth in this statement at all. I am skeptical on many respects.
First, 3 billion years ago, plate tectonics was probably in high gear. Higher volcanism, higher collision rates. Some doubt the crust was thick enough to subduct, but I believe the crust was too thin not to hold together. If there were oceans, and the statement implies much more than today, then there was water-cooled thin crust on a more fluid mantle. Overturning is guaranteed. Once it starts, it doesn’t stop.
Second, there was little free oxygen in the atmosphere, whatever it’s surface pressure. What oxygen that was being created by oceanic algae was consumed in the reduction of solution iron to create the great “banded” beds of iron-ore.
Third, what rain there was must have been very acidic. Chemical Erosion could have been high, much higher than mechanical. I’d bet money that erosion was higher than today.
Fourth, where did the oceanic water come from. If it came from comets, then conceivably, there was much more exposed land than today, not less.
Fifth, the end of the Archean, deep oceanic basins are known to have existed by the presence of banded iron formations, chert beds, chemical sediments and pillow basalts… [Wiki Archean:Paleoenvironment] If you can believe deep ocean basins existed, then tectonics must have been working and by consequence, there must have been continents, too.
Incidentally, the banded nature of the iron ore beds is proof of repeated global cataclysmic climate changes over a span of nearly a billion years. After all, the conditions to start and stop each band are evidence of changes in ocean composition of ions, gasses, and life.