Talk:Faint young Sun paradox

Questions and doubts. Comments please
1: The article does not seem to mention Theia at all, nor accretion (incidentally, it seems fairly inconsistent with some other WP articles on Earth prehistory, which are somewhat mutually incoherent, but never mind that for now). Such a collision, plus possibly collisions extending into the Hadean, surely would have caused significant heating. I have seen speculations of extensive crustal melting resulting from such impacts, with little or no non-gaseous water on the planet for extended periods. Now, I have no fish to fry, but the mass of our current oceans exceeds our total atmospheric mass by orders of magnitude, not even counting even larger volumes of deep mantle moisture. If a lot of that water constituted the atmosphere of the day, it surely would have dwarfed the greenhouse effect of the CO2, either then or now, CO2 being a weaker greenhouse gas anyway? Not to mention CH4 and other organics of the day? Even after most of the steam had settled out as a warm liquid, the atmosphere could have remained humid for a long time, maybe even during the period of initial abiogenesis. Even after the surface had frozen, it would take some 4km deep water a long time to freeze all the way down. The transition pre-life, pre-cellular period, even if it was followed by a snowball, might well have produced biochemical forms that would not have been harmed by indefinite freezing, and in evolutionary terms, might have hit the ground running in originating true life forms during the eventual thaw. The frozen crust might conceivably even have played a vital protective role at certain stages. Yes?

2: Even in a snowball Earth, there would have been a permanent phase at all times of molten water between hot rock and ice (in many local regions at least). There must have been far more vulcanism, and many more smokers than now. There also must have been a lot more radioactive heating 4GY ago than now. Snowball or not, complete or not, there never can have been a time when there was not a lot of molten water near the planetary surface. No?

3: So: I am no planetologist, though I would be willing to contribute some time to such an initiative by qualified editors, but is it not time to do some work, not necessarily to resolve such issues between the articles, but at least to put them into a healthy state of mutual perspective and possibly to resolve some questions not yet addressed? JonRichfield (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2019 and 28 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gretashum. Peer reviewers: Real YC.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Volcanic Activity Hypothesis
The VAH portion of the article is very poorly written. In fact, significant research on my part yielded no such consistent hypothesis. Although Volcanic Activity plays into many theories, this particular one seems somewhat invented on the author's part. Especially considering the original copy (before I edited it) read, "We think this accurately solves the Faint Young Sun Paradox", I think we can deduce the author of said section had a more subjective attitude than Origin Science and Wikipedia should tolerate. I am deleting this section. --Mastodizzle176 (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Question
If, hypothetically, in the time of a faint young sun and a snowball earth, there would have been (earth like) live on venus, would it be possible that anything (bones, skelettons and such) would have survived through the present conditions on venus? 84.160.244.63 21:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt Wikipedia is the right place for this question. Try a science forum or somesuch.
 * Zuiram 20:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This question may be asked at Reference desk/Science. --Eleassar my talk 16:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Incoherences
... between this article and Sun. Well, was it 70 or 75%? Is it normally called problem or paradox? Earth has always had constant temperature or the oceans have frozen? We should search for references... --euyyn 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

energy balances
This article states that the sun's output was less in the past, and thus the earth's surface temperature may have been cooler. Some offsetting effects with green gases are mentioned, which may have negated this. But I do not see a discussion of another effect -- maybe it's not important. I have posted the below comment in the Sun article, as well as here:

Neither this article nor the faint young sun subsection of the Sun article addresses the fact that the Sun was probably significantly more massive at the time (due to the blowoff by the solar wind in the intervening period, as mentioned in the Sun article -- though in connection with the future decrease in the solar mass). This would result in an earth orbit closer to the Sun, thus offsetting the lower intrinsic solar brightness. The radius of the orbit is roughly inversely proportional to the Sun's mass, while the solar flux intercepted at earth's orbit is inversely proportional to the square of the orbit radius. So, if the solar mass was roughly 20% bigger than today, that would have completely compensated for the lower, 70% luminosity. Even if the mass difference was smaller, it seems this effect could still have been a significant contributor to the liquid water, in addition to possible greenhouse gases mentioned here. Are there any references as to how much mass has been blown off from the Sun since it was formed, or references discussing this potential effect?24.58.175.197 (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)john wilkinson


 * Yes, mass loss could solve the Faint Young Sun Paradox. Wood et al. (2002) suggested, based on Hubble observations of nearby Sun like stars, that the solar wind was 1000 times more massive when the Sun was young. Increasing the presant day Solar mass loss rate given in Noerdlinger (2008) 100-200 fold, the Sun could have lost 5 to 10% of its mass. --Diamonddavej (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nir Shaviv uses as well the solar wind in his papers about the young sun paradox. --Polentario (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thick atmosphere hypothesis
I've just read as proposed on this webpage that the atmospheric density in the Mesozoic would have been hundreds of times higher than now thus make the atmosphere retain heat much better, and not only retain it better but spread heat more evenly across the globe.

Now, not to start some original research, but this current article states that it's paradoxic because of the known Solar output of back then and the known atmospheric composition, but it fails entirely to take into account the atmospheric density and its effects, which I believe shows how a thick atmosphere could conveniently solve the paradox. But instead all we see is "there were perhaps more greenhouse gases even though evidence points to the contrary" or that thing about solar winds.

Just saying, perhaps the article should say something along the lines of "It has also been suggested that the atmospheric density of back then would have been much higher". --89.127.179.216 (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

nonsense sentences
Quote from the article: The minimum around 2,4 billion years goes along with a cosmic ray flux modulation by a variable star formation rate in the Milky Way. Minimum of what?

Besides, isotopic evidence from the geochemical record is able to trace either an of the cosmic ray flux[5](14C and 10Be) and climate change based on δ18 Oxygen measurements of sediments[11]. This sentence does not make sense and so does the following sentence. Either are in line with climatical variations till the most recent past[5]. Northfox (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Huronic glaciatins, so a mimium of temperature
 * 2) T goes in line with CR in smaller isochemic proxies, will correct typo BR --Polentario (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Common sense, anyone?
The scientific method tells us that if a theory contradicts facts then we must discard it and not try to explain away the facts. Now, in the article it is stated that there is the "contradiction between observations of liquid water early in the Earth's history and the astrophysical expectation that the Sun's output would be only 70% as intense during that epoch as it is during the modern epoch". Conclusion? The Sun's output was the same billions of years ago (given constant Earth's size and orbit)! This simple resolution to the paradox isn't even stated in the article! --Shee-un (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately your theory also contradicts the facts about stellar evolution. Therefore it must be discarded.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, how can you say that in light of the article's name? Since when stellar evolution became as clear as day or since when extrapolation of data becomes a fact? Maybe the Sun gives constant output, but only to some point in time; maybe the Sun outputs exactly the right amount of energy that is needed for any given planet at any given time... I do not encourage physicists to drop the whole Sun's physics theory just because in the past the Sun wasn't that different then it is today. I only suggest to revisit some parts of it. --Shee-un (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to correct myself. The Minton and Malhotra (2007) paper suggests the possibility that the paradox may be explained by a more massive early Sun. A greater mass would result in a higher luminosity. However, this hypothesis would require a much higher mass loss rate than is expected via the standard solar model (to arrive at the present day solar mass). So yes, this seems like one possibility, but some evidence of a much higher mass loss rate (orders of magnitude higher) would be needed to lend credence to this hypothesis. &mdash;RJH (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no "facts" about stellar evolution. It is all theory, and contradicted by numerous observations.  This "paradox" is just one of many.Scowie (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Earth orbit
Earth orbit is decaying 20m/yr (measured relativistic decay). If there were no gas giants in the vicinity of the Sun when Earth was condensed, then the Earth orbit was at its' beginning there where Mars is now. That is roughly 200 million km from the Sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.42.100 (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable citation for your assertion. Thank you.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I must correct myself. Source I was reading was:
 * http://www.scribd.com/doc/13057928/Planets-acceleration-and-orbital-decay
 * This source is speculative.


 * But it turns out that there is consensus on the relativistic Earth orbit decay to be 3.5 × 10−13 m per year (calculated from Einstein field equations). This is negligible to affect Earth solar irradiation in the past.


 * I found some measured data. It seems that the cumulative effects of charge, solar wind and solar gravitational push (similar as Earth - Moon) due to the faster solar rotation amount to 15 cm/year Earth orbit increase. This would place Earth roughly 1 million kilometers closer to the Sun 4.5 billion years ago (not too much).
 * http://www.topnews.in/tidal-interaction-making-earth-and-sun-push-each-other-away-2173555


 * Thanks for checking.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that Earth’s atmosphere might simply have been much thicker in the past. This would explain liquid water at Earth’s early years. Atmosphere might have been depleted over time, to find it as is at present. I could not find any data on past Earth’s atmospheric pressure evolution. This article is helpfull:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape

What about this explanation? That there is tidal coupling between sun-earth like between moon-earth? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17228-why-is-the-earth-moving-away-from-the-sun.html#.UjdN2z9iL1I SergeyKurdakov (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Radiogenic and tidal heating are too small to account for these climate-scale changes. Tidal heating is important on other planets of course, but it will not serve as an explanation for our discrepancy here. I can't find any support for them in peer-reviewed literature, so I'm going to delete these sections. If I hope that's all right. Gretashum (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Er
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Why would the Sun having 70% less output have a role in Earth not maintaining its liquid ocean? 174.93.64.185 (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It means that there was less energy reaching the Earth. Thus, all else being equal, this would mean that everything is generally colder. On the modern Earth, the mid-latitudes (Mongolia, Minnesota, &c.) get 70% of the energy of the equator. If the Sun were 70% as bright today, you could be getting the climate of Minnesota in parts of the tropics. Probably worse, in fact. A snowball Earth scenario would seem more likely. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The oceans and atmospheres act to moderate the temperatures, otherwise we would be a lot like the moon where the direct sunlight side is 100C and the areas near the poles are around -200C. With 70% of the energy, assuming the greenhouse effects and everything else remain the same (they won't) our tempreature would be 70% of what it is today, or around 201K(-72C). Likely, it would be even cooler because of the ice-albedo effect, maybe as cool as -100C, or colder than anywhere measured on Earth in the last 100 years. Bacca2002 (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530152034.htm has an article suggesting Venus used to be two protoplanets. Their orbits became chaotic and pushed Earth further out to its current position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.37.181 (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Neglected in mention is, the thinner crust of the Earth that would result in increased vulcanism and thermal output. Also, the heating effect of the Late Heavy Bombardment. Add those effects to a more conventional solar mass loss during the early solar life and one is much closer to observed data.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I just read the sciencedaily article – at least on the surface the theory seems pretty absurd and nonexplanative: the guy presents earth orbital wandering as an explanation, which seems like a good reason, but the range of the faint young Sun paradox is about 1-1.5 billion years decrementally, so Earth should prefer to wander slowly and continuously, but the model provided instead refers to a sudden cataclysmic event that would have been most unlikely after the end of the cataclysmic formation of the Moon-Earth system, signifying about the end of the hot-accretion/oligarchic-growth phase of the inner solar system. Such a cataclysm as this Venus pair juggle-around most plausibly belongs to the hot-accretion/oligarchic-growth, but the young Sun paradox appears afterwards. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 09:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Er" was my immediate reaction too. The intro is much too vague. The missing information is:
 * Earth's geological history, meaning mostly around 4.6 to c:a 3 billion years ago,
 * the Sun is expected to have been faint (i.e. not delivering warmth enough) because of stellar models, which predict c:a 70% of the energy flux that Earth receives today, for the early Sun,
 * perhaps some other clarification
 * Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 09:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wolf and Toon paper
I just reverted a well-meaning copyvio. The paper is

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Faint young Sun paradox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080920152250/http://geosci.uchicago.edu:80/~archer/JournalClub/walker.1981.WHAK.pdf to http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/JournalClub/walker.1981.WHAK.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Solar Flux Theory
The page shows a theory where the sun was much more active early on and lost 5-10% of the mass.

If that's indeed the case, wouldn't Earth have been at an orbit 5-10% closer in the past and thus would account for a 10-20% luminosity change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacca2002 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * @Bacca2002