Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Faint Young Sun Paradox

faint young sun paradox liquid water earth solar radiation

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1    Still Waters

Still Waters

    Deeply Mysterious

  • 43,374 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • Sometimes it's better to keep the mystery unexplained.

Posted 29 April 2013 - 07:51 PM

Here’s a climate puzzle — one that goes back to Earth’s infancy some 4.5 billion to 2.5 billion years ago. The sun was much dimmer back then. Far less solar radiation reached the planet. Earth should have been a frozen wasteland. But all geologic signs point to a young planet awash in liquid water, with the first life-forms emerging. Scientists call this conundrum the “faint young sun paradox.”

http://www.sciencene...Faint_Young_Sun

Posted Image

#2    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    A complete moral vacuum

  • Member
  • 30,151 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garmisch-Partenkirchen

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 29 April 2013 - 08:06 PM

Faint Young Sun? Isn't he Kim Jong-Un's second in command?


I do hope that wasn't racist. :innocent:

If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.

- Philip K. Dick.


#3    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,797 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 29 April 2013 - 08:20 PM

The planet was far more geologically active back then, and there is strong evidence to suggest that life emerged due to geothermal processes rather than solar processes.Even if the surface of the oceans were deep frozen there would have been many deep water seas for life to grow in. I really don't think its that difficult a problem.

The same is true of Mars which had an atmosphere and liquid water before its core went cool.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#4    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 39,759 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 29 April 2013 - 08:52 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 29 April 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

The planet was far more geologically active back then, and there is strong evidence to suggest that life emerged due to geothermal processes rather than solar processes.Even if the surface of the oceans were deep frozen there would have been many deep water seas for life to grow in. I really don't think its that difficult a problem.

The same is true of Mars which had an atmosphere and liquid water before its core went cool.

Br Cornelius

And puzzle over...

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#5    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 7,002 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 04 May 2013 - 12:32 PM

I was going to guess.. Internal heat.

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#6    Razer

Razer

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,570 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In front of my laptop.

Posted 04 May 2013 - 10:42 PM

I'll throw another one out there, the sun constantly loses mass.  Our orbit around the sun today should be further out than it was billions of years ago since less mass means less gravitational pull on the planets.

I'm guessing a combination of a denser atmosphere, a more geologically active planet (as Cornelius pointed out), and a slightly closer orbit to the sun would be enough to offset the difference in solar radiation.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users