Faint Young Sun Paradox Hasn’t Been Rescued

In a stellar evolutionary model, one is to imagine a faint sun only being able to keep the earth at below freezing and wouldn’t warm up for another 2-3 billion years while assumptions in geology claim that water was plentiful and not frozen about 3-4 billion years ago! This problem has riddled scientists for decades.

In 1972, Carl Sagan and George Mullen hypothesized a “super” greenhouse effect that would have prevented the earth from freezing. So scientists began to look for evidence confirming it but a new study found evidence to the contrary…

“A team led by earth scientist Minik Rosing of the University of Copenhagen analyzed iron-bearing rocks in southwestern Greenland that were 3.8 billion years old. They focused on two minerals, magnetite and siderite, that can provide a bellwether of the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Too much CO2, and magnetite can’t form, whereas the opposite is true for siderite.”


“Based on the ratio of the minerals, the team reports in tomorrow’s issue of Nature that CO2 levels during the Archean could have been no higher than about 1000 parts per million—about three times the current level of 387 ppm and not high enough to compensate for the weak sun.”

The articles goes on to say, that it’s premature to discard the greenhouse hypothesis, claiming temperatures back then were at least as high as they are today. The greenhouse hypothesis is the only mechanism known to man that could keep the planet warm, there is none other so naturally they would hang on to it. Also, scientists who are caught in up the evolutionary story tend to act as if they know this or that, but there is no basis for any of it, but rather say it’s a “long chain of further refinements of our understanding.” Did you see much understanding of what they are talking about and how close they think they are to rescuing their theory? To have a chain of understanding there must be solid links!

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Faint Young Sun Paradox Hasn’t Been Rescued

  1. Michael, you STILL have not answered our questions – what are you trying to hide ???
    I’m not going to repeat the questions here, you know what they are, so do come up with answers, instead of just submitting yet another silly post …

  2. I shall repeat the questions, because a new reader might wander by who has not seen them.


    (1) Show us the blog hit tally to justify your challenge to Eelco’s estimate that your readership is minimal.

    (2) Describe your qualifications to discuss or critique any field of science, in response to Olorin’s CV.

    You did say that you “had” evolution in high school and college. Since almost everything you have said about evolution is false, we have two possibilities. First, you do understand evolution and what you said about it are deliberate lies. Second, the claim to have had evolution is a lie and your statements about evolution proceed from mere ignorance.

    Your choice.

    The only unacceptable choice is

    .

    silence.

  3. “This problem has riddled scientists for decades.”

    Michael, we’re not sure which meaning of the verb “riddle” you have in mind here—

    1. To pierce with numerous holes; perforate: riddle a target with bullets.

    2. To spread throughout: “Election campaigns have always been riddled with demagogy and worse” (New Republic).

    3. To put (gravel, for example) through a coarse sieve.

    .

    I’m conjuring up some bizarre mental images of wind whistling through a bunch of foraminous astronomers.

    ==Soc P.

  4. “I’m conjuring up some bizarre mental images of wind whistling through a bunch of foraminous astronomers.”

    Brrrr … are you trying to give me a nightmares ? It is almost bedtime for me …

  5. Don’t forget the substantive review of Paul Nelson’s “Signature in the cell,” which Michael promised to the faithful last August.

    Which brings up a Paul Nelson procrastination. Today is the 6-year anniversary of Nelson’s promise to define his concept of ontogenetic depth “tomorrow.” (Nelson claims that OD can measure the diversity of a species since it was created, thereby providing a tool for determining the biblical kinds. Yet another failed prediction.)

  6. Michael: “The greenhouse hypothesis is the only mechanism known to man that could keep the planet warm, there is none other so naturally they would hang on to it. ”

    Yet another failure of elementary reading comprehension. Michael only remembers the stuff that agree with his preconceptions. The “only mechanism” that could keep Earth warm? Read on, Michael:

    Science Now: “As to the question of what kept the planet warm instead of CO2, he says his research points to two possibilities. First, Earth’s land masses were much smaller billions of years ago, meaning that the oceans, which generally are darker than continents, could absorb more of the sun’s heat. Second, because life was brand new, organisms were manufacturing little of the gases that help clouds form. So, more sunlight reached the surface.”

    Two more possible mechanisms mentioned in the same paper.

    Reason #88 why people laugh at creationists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s