• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The Faint Young Sun Paradox

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,045
52,816
Guam
✟5,224,417.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
From AI Overview:

The Faint Young Sun Paradox is a climatological and astrophysical contradiction: stellar physics dictates the early Sun was roughly 30% dimmer during Earth’s first two billion years, which should have frozen the planet solid, yet the geological record shows early Earth had liquid water and supported life.

Thoughts?
 

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,931
7,658
✟374,569.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
From AI Overview:

The Faint Young Sun Paradox is a climatological and astrophysical contradiction: stellar physics dictates the early Sun was roughly 30% dimmer during Earth’s first two billion years, which should have frozen the planet solid, yet the geological record shows early Earth had liquid water and supported life.

Thoughts?

The presence of early earth amosphere, its composition, higher levels of UV irradiance from the sun and difference in earth's albedo solve the "paradox".

I believe there is some lunar tidal impact as well? Although I remember that being a little controversial maybe 5-10 years ago, as different teams have come up with wildly different estimates as to temperature contribution.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

'Cuz Mary Shelley was right !!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
26,651
12,389
Space Mountain!
✟1,515,932.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
From AI Overview:

The Faint Young Sun Paradox is a climatological and astrophysical contradiction: stellar physics dictates the early Sun was roughly 30% dimmer during Earth’s first two billion years, which should have frozen the planet solid, yet the geological record shows early Earth had liquid water and supported life.

Thoughts?

My thoughts?


 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,045
52,816
Guam
✟5,224,417.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,045
52,816
Guam
✟5,224,417.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yep. It's good enough for my "taste." ;)

Can this rebuttal take a hike, since it infringes on your taste?

From AI Overview:

1. The Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis

The Solution: Early Earth maintained a mild climate due to a massive "super-greenhouse" effect driven by elevated levels of CO₂, methane, or ammonia.

The Rebuttal:

Geological analyses (such as studies of ancient soil compositions) frequently fail to find the extreme CO₂ concentrations required.

Furthermore, high levels of methane would cause organic haze, which reflects sunlight back into space and creates a cooling effect, deepening the paradox
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

'Cuz Mary Shelley was right !!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
26,651
12,389
Space Mountain!
✟1,515,932.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Can this rebuttal take a hike, since it infringes on your taste?

From AI Overview:

1. The Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis

The Solution: Early Earth maintained a mild climate due to a massive "super-greenhouse" effect driven by elevated levels of CO₂, methane, or ammonia.

The Rebuttal:

Geological analyses (such as studies of ancient soil compositions) frequently fail to find the extreme CO₂ concentrations required.

Furthermore, high levels of methane would cause organic haze, which reflects sunlight back into space and creates a cooling effect, deepening the paradox

Ask the AI to take into account the content of the two articles I linked and see what it says. I'd be interested in hearing what you find out.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,045
52,816
Guam
✟5,224,417.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ask the AI to take into account the content of the two articles I linked and see what it says. I'd be interested in hearing what you find out.

Until I do -- (which I won't) -- but until I do, NASA rules, doesn't it?

Simple question:

Is it a paradox or not, in your opinion?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

'Cuz Mary Shelley was right !!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
26,651
12,389
Space Mountain!
✟1,515,932.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Until I do -- (which I won't) -- but until I do, NASA rules, doesn't it?
I never said that NASA rules, AV. I merely presented another plausible explanation. You can take it or leave it since it's not important to me that you agree.
Simple question:

Is it a paradox or not, in your opinion?

It's not really a paradox since our knowledge of the deep past (like that of the Hadean Eon) is highly fragmentary, unrepeatable and mostly inaccessible.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,045
52,816
Guam
✟5,224,417.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I never said that NASA rules, AV. I merely presented another plausible explanation. You can take it or leave it since it's not important to me that you agree.


It's not really a paradox since our knowledge of the deep past (like that of the Hadean Eon) is highly fragmentary, unrepeatable and mostly inaccessible.

Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
6,371
5,179
✟386,013.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Until I do -- (which I won't) -- but until I do, NASA rules, doesn't it?

Simple question:

Is it a paradox or not, in your opinion?
Of course you won't because you are a cop out artist who can't even gets your facts right given it was ESA not NASA which confirmed the science of primordial asteroid impacts dominating the Earth not comets by ironically finding the D/H ratio of comets is not similar to what is found in Earth's oceans.
Instead the D/H ratio of meteorites which originates from asteroids does.


Here is what AI overview states.

Yes, primordial asteroid impacts do provide a highly plausible solution to the faint young sun paradox. Rather than disproving the physics of the dimmer youthful Sun, this impact-driven model explains how the early Earth stayed warm enough to host liquid water and early life. [1, 2]

1. The Impact-Driven Greenhouse Mechanism​

Research led by teams like the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) models how massive cosmic bombardment during the Hadean and early Archean eons acted as a planetary thermostat: [2, 3]

  • Lakes of Lava: Primordial asteroids—some scaling over 100 kilometres in diameter—repeatedly pummeled the planet. These collisions instantly melted vast quantities of Earth's crust, forming widespread, temporary lakes of surface lava.
  • Massive Outgassing: As these giant pools of molten rock cooled, they released enormous volume surges of carbon dioxide ($CO_2$) and other volatile gasses directly into the atmosphere.
  • Thermal Insulation: This impact-triggered greenhouse insulation trapped enough infrared heat to offset the 20% to 30% drop in early solar luminosity, preventing the global oceans from freezing solid. [1, 2, 4]

2. Delivering the Ingredients for Life​

Beyond just heating the planet, this bombardment directly altered early Earth's chemistry to favor emerging biology:

  • Volatiles: The space rocks directly delivered vital life-essential elements, notably sulfur, which was thoroughly distributed across the crust by the energy of the impacts.
  • Destruction and Renewal: While a 100-km asteroid collision would locally vaporize oceans and sterilize the immediate area, the long-term atmospheric enrichment created a net-positive, warm environment where subsurface or deep-sea microbes could thrive. [1, 5]

3. A Combined Solution​

Most climate scientists agree that the paradox spans over two billion years, meaning it likely does not rely on a single, isolated fix. The asteroid bombardment model solves the earliest and most extreme phase of the paradox. [3]
As the cosmic bombardment slowed down over hundreds of millions of years, other sustaining systems gradually took over the responsibility of keeping the Earth warm: [5, 6]
[Phase 1: Early Earth] ──> Primordial Asteroid Impacts & Lava Outgassing (High CO2)


[Phase 2: Middle Earth] ──> Volcanic Outgassing & Enduring Methane-Rich Atmospheres


[Phase 3: Modern Earth] ──> Continental Weathering Feedbacks & Solar Brightening

Through this evolutionary chain of events, the warmth initiated by space impacts was seamlessly maintained by long-term carbon cycle feedbacks as the Sun gradually grew brighter. [6]

✅ Conclusion​

Primordial asteroid impacts provide a critical piece of the puzzle to solve the faint young sun paradox. They mathematically and geologically account for the massive volumes of atmospheric carbon dioxide needed to insulate a young Earth under a faint, dim star. [2, 7]
If you want to explore further, let me know if you would like to look into:

  • How silicate rock weathering acted as the long-term thermostat once the asteroid impacts stopped.
  • The alternative theories involving nitrous oxide (N_2O) generated by extreme solar winds.
  • The physical evidence for liquid water during the Archean eon. [6, 8, 9, 10]

[1] https://astrobiology.nasa.gov
[2] https://astrobiology.nasa.gov
[3] https://www.sciencenews.org
[4] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com
[5] https://www.britannica.com
[6] https://www.britannica.com
[7] https://astronomynow.com
[8] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com
[9] https://www.youtube.com
[10] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,045
52,816
Guam
✟5,224,417.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Of course you won't because you are a cop out artist who can't even gets your facts right given it was ESA not NASA which confirmed the science of primordial asteroid impacts dominating the Earth not comets by ironically finding the D/H ratio of comets is not similar to what is found in Earth's oceans.

Looks like NASA to me.

In fact, it looks like "NASA Astrobiology" to me.

Even the link is astrobiology.nasa.gov and has the NASA avatar.

Of course, if it's NASA passing on ESA to us, then fine.

Let's call it heresay or something.

Plagiarizing maybe?

I don't know how those things work.

Here is what AI overview states.

Fair enough.

Is that explanation good enough to stop calling it a paradox then?
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Reconstruction 3 will come
Mar 11, 2017
25,835
18,661
56
USA
✟485,371.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
My thoughts?


Oh boy. I would like to hear the questions after that talk. (The link is to the slides.) The model requires a mass loss from young solar-type stars that the slides themselves clearly state *HAS NOT BEEN OBSERVED*.

The atmosphere was dominated by gases we now call greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and methane) and when photosynthesis evolved in cyanobacteria and started polluting the atmosphere with oxygen, the methane oxidized to CO2 (a less potent GG) and triggered an ice age.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

'Cuz Mary Shelley was right !!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
26,651
12,389
Space Mountain!
✟1,515,932.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Oh boy. I would like to hear the questions after that talk. (The link is to the slides.) The model requires a mass loss from young solar-type stars that the slides themselves clearly state *HAS NOT BEEN OBSERVED*.

The atmosphere was dominated by gases we now call greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and methane) and when photosynthesis evolved in cyanobacteria and started polluting the atmosphere with oxygen, the methane oxidized to CO2 (a less potent GG) and triggered an ice age.

I figure whatever actually happened in the solar past, whether to our minds it is theoretically plausible or not, I'm still here reclining with my soda and chips while I mull over the supposed paradox.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
6,371
5,179
✟386,013.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Looks like NASA to me.

In fact, it looks like "NASA Astrobiology" to me.

Even the link is astrobiology.nasa.gov and has the NASA avatar.

Of course, if it's NASA passing on ESA to us, then fine.

Let's call it heresay or something.

Plagiarizing maybe?

I don't know how those things work.



Fair enough.

Is that explanation good enough to stop calling it a paradox then?
Then I suggest you try reading the NASA link again because the primordial asteroid impact theory originates from the SWRI (Southwest Research Institute) not NASA.

The ESA results favouring asteroid rather than comet impacts came out before the SWRI theory.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

'Cuz Mary Shelley was right !!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
26,651
12,389
Space Mountain!
✟1,515,932.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Looks like NASA to me.

In fact, it looks like "NASA Astrobiology" to me.

Even the link is astrobiology.nasa.gov and has the NASA avatar.

Of course, if it's NASA passing on ESA to us, then fine.

Let's call it heresay or something.

Plagiarizing maybe?

I don't know how those things work.



Fair enough.

Is that explanation good enough to stop calling it a paradox then?

So, why is this 'paradox' something you're bringing up?
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,643
10,494
✟310,986.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I don't know how those things work
And yet you endlessly pontificate about all the many things whose mechanisms, methods and conclusions you don't understand and generally have no interest in understanding. From the perspective of my slightly off-centre normality it looks a mighty peculiar way to conduct a life.
Is that explanation good enough to stop calling it a paradox then?
No. Calling it the "Faint Young Sun Paradox" is a convenient way of identifying the topic at any stage of the process between "What's Going On Here" all the way to "Sorted". Today it's a lot nearer to the latter than the former, but the phrase remains useful. Of course as someone who resents classification systems this flexibility of terminology will horrify you.

It's main value is that it promotes diverse research, exploring a multiplicity of explanations, which enrich other fields of study. Close mind thinking can take a hike.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
20,306
3,252
Oregon
✟1,052,343.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
Thoughts?
The Faint Young Sun Paradox is new to me. So off I go into research mode. One area I looked into was how the age of the sun is determined. That came about because I was wondering if the sun formed some time before the Earth formed. Which, I was thinking, might give it time to more fully heat up. But the radiometric dating of ancient meteorites consistently date to 4.567 Billion years ago, and therefore gives the same approximate age of both the Sun and the Earth.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

'Cuz Mary Shelley was right !!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
26,651
12,389
Space Mountain!
✟1,515,932.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Would you rather discuss the Fermi Paradox?

Nah. I'm not concerned about the potentiality of alien life elsewhere in the universe. To my mind, it's nearly a non-issue and I only focus on the life we know is here on our own Earth, whether Bios, Psuche or Zoe.
 
Upvote 0