<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		xmlns:media="http://video.search.yahoo.com/mrss/"	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Life Under A Faint Sun</title>
	<atom:link href="http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/03/life-under-a-faint-sun/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/03/life-under-a-faint-sun/</link>
	<description>A science salon hosted by National Geographic Magazine</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 01:21:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2-alpha</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: David B. Benson</title>
		<link>http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/03/life-under-a-faint-sun/#comment-38279</link>
		<dc:creator>David B. Benson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 04:46:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=149690#comment-38279</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you, Doug Sipp.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you, Doug Sipp.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug Sipp</title>
		<link>http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/03/life-under-a-faint-sun/#comment-38097</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug Sipp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2013 02:31:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=149690#comment-38097</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi David (author of previous comment) - the painting is &quot;The Fighting Temeraire&quot; by JMW Turner. You can use TinEye.com to do a reverse image search on unidentified images you find on the web (which is how I found this one).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi David (author of previous comment) &#8211; the painting is &#8220;The Fighting Temeraire&#8221; by JMW Turner. You can use TinEye.com to do a reverse image search on unidentified images you find on the web (which is how I found this one).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David B. Benson</title>
		<link>http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/03/life-under-a-faint-sun/#comment-38052</link>
		<dc:creator>David B. Benson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2013 02:27:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=149690#comment-38052</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Speaking of which --- Carl, a painter, etc., for that painting?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Speaking of which &#8212; Carl, a painter, etc., for that painting?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/03/life-under-a-faint-sun/#comment-38050</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2013 02:14:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=149690#comment-38050</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I assume geothermic heat doesn&#039;t solve the problem so my question is, why?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I assume geothermic heat doesn&#8217;t solve the problem so my question is, why?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andre Kuhlman</title>
		<link>http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/03/life-under-a-faint-sun/#comment-38031</link>
		<dc:creator>Andre Kuhlman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:54:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=149690#comment-38031</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[not to change topics, but I had a bit of a chuckle when I saw this picture. This is for any James Bond fans on this site (if there are any) but In Skyfall, when Bond meets &quot;Q&quot; they where looking at this same painting.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>not to change topics, but I had a bit of a chuckle when I saw this picture. This is for any James Bond fans on this site (if there are any) but In Skyfall, when Bond meets &#8220;Q&#8221; they where looking at this same painting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Juhi</title>
		<link>http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/03/life-under-a-faint-sun/#comment-38019</link>
		<dc:creator>Juhi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:10:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=149690#comment-38019</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Long time reader and lurker who&#039;s one of your &#039;lay person&#039; readers with no formal degree in science.

Just wanted to say thank you for writing articles that just reel me in and keep me hooked till the very last word. Even more you make me curious to find out more - for example I think I am going to be spending some time on the paleobiology site and learn some more about the different eras (proterozoic etc.)

May you continue to keep your readers hooked for many more years to come!

&lt;strong&gt;[CZ: Thanks for the encouraging words!]&lt;/strong&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Long time reader and lurker who&#8217;s one of your &#8216;lay person&#8217; readers with no formal degree in science.</p>
<p>Just wanted to say thank you for writing articles that just reel me in and keep me hooked till the very last word. Even more you make me curious to find out more &#8211; for example I think I am going to be spending some time on the paleobiology site and learn some more about the different eras (proterozoic etc.)</p>
<p>May you continue to keep your readers hooked for many more years to come!</p>
<p><strong>[CZ: Thanks for the encouraging words!]</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Torbjörn Larsson, OM</title>
		<link>http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/03/life-under-a-faint-sun/#comment-38007</link>
		<dc:creator>Torbjörn Larsson, OM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 01:16:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=149690#comment-38007</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[:-) I&#039;ll meet your relevant passage with what my own: &quot;It therefore remains to be seen whether carbon dioxide concentrations in agreement with geochemical evidence are suﬃcient to oﬀset the faint young Sun.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <img src='http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' />  I&#8217;ll meet your relevant passage with what my own: &#8220;It therefore remains to be seen whether carbon dioxide concentrations in agreement with geochemical evidence are suﬃcient to oﬀset the faint young Sun.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Torbjörn Larsson, OM</title>
		<link>http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/03/life-under-a-faint-sun/#comment-38006</link>
		<dc:creator>Torbjörn Larsson, OM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 01:12:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=149690#comment-38006</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ah, now I see: there seems to be an excellent review under &quot;As early as the mid-1960s [pdf]&quot;. I&#039;ll have a read, but I don&#039;t see Paris et al - the review leaves CO2 as an open possibility.

However Ohmoto et al has been &quot;convincingly challenged&quot;.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, now I see: there seems to be an excellent review under &#8220;As early as the mid-1960s [pdf]&#8220;. I&#8217;ll have a read, but I don&#8217;t see Paris et al &#8211; the review leaves CO2 as an open possibility.</p>
<p>However Ohmoto et al has been &#8220;convincingly challenged&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Torbjörn Larsson, OM</title>
		<link>http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/03/life-under-a-faint-sun/#comment-38005</link>
		<dc:creator>Torbjörn Larsson, OM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 00:52:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=149690#comment-38005</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sorry about my lousy formatting, I was in a hurry. Also, do you know that the edit box is a minute 2 row window in Chrome?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry about my lousy formatting, I was in a hurry. Also, do you know that the edit box is a minute 2 row window in Chrome?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Torbjörn Larsson, OM</title>
		<link>http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/03/life-under-a-faint-sun/#comment-38004</link>
		<dc:creator>Torbjörn Larsson, OM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 00:49:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=149690#comment-38004</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An immediate problem with the Wordsworth-Pierrehumbert model is that it takes the atmosphere towards hydrogen hydrodynamical escape at ~ 30 % H2, which removes massive amounts of all of it as other molecules are swept with IIRC. (Vague memories from an astrobiological course.)

But since Kasting did his grand work on early Earth atmospheres in the 80&#039;s-90&#039;s, there has been a lot of progress on GW prompted by AGW. Only ~ 3 - 5 parts/thousand CO2 is needed, so there is no conflict with the geological record. 

&quot;However, geological evidence seemed to indicate that the atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Archaean and Proterozoic were far too low to keep the surface from freezing. With a radiative-convective model including new, updated thermal absorption coeﬃcients, we found that the amount of CO2 necessary to obtain 273 K at the surface is reduced up to an order of magnitude compared to previous studies.&quot;

[&quot;Warming the early Earth - CO2 reconsidered&quot;, Paris et al, preprint arxiv:0804.4134v2, 2008].

Also, the geological record allows for a lot more CO2 now. 

&quot;Siderite is absent in many palaeosols (both pre- and post-2.2-Gyr in age) because the O2
concentrations and pH conditions in well-aerated soils have favoured the formation of
ferric (Fe 3+)-rich minerals, such as goethite, rather than siderite. Siderite, however, has formed throughout geological history in subsurface environments, such as euxinic seas, where anaerobic organisms created H2 -rich conditions. The abundance of large, massive siderite-rich beds in pre-1.8-Gyr sedimentary sequences and their carbon isotope ratios indicate that the atmospheric CO2 concentration was more than 100 times greater than today,
causing the rain and ocean waters to be more acidic than today. 

We therefore conclude that CO2 alone (without a signiﬁcant contribution from methane) could have provided the necessary greenhouse effect to maintain liquid oceans on the early Earth.&quot;

[&quot;Evidence from massive siderite beds for a CO2-rich atmosphere before 1.8 billion years ago&quot;, Ohmoto et al, Nature 2004.]

&lt;strong&gt;[CZ: Thanks for these references. You might want to check out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4449.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2011 review I linked to&lt;/a&gt;. Here&#039;s one relevant passage: &quot;Geochemical data therefore suggest that CO2 partial pressures were likely smaller than a few hundred times pre-industrial levels in the late Archean and early Proterozoic, meaning that carbon dioxide alone would most likely have been unable to pro- vide enough warming during these times.&quot;]&lt;/strong&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An immediate problem with the Wordsworth-Pierrehumbert model is that it takes the atmosphere towards hydrogen hydrodynamical escape at ~ 30 % H2, which removes massive amounts of all of it as other molecules are swept with IIRC. (Vague memories from an astrobiological course.)</p>
<p>But since Kasting did his grand work on early Earth atmospheres in the 80&#8242;s-90&#8242;s, there has been a lot of progress on GW prompted by AGW. Only ~ 3 &#8211; 5 parts/thousand CO2 is needed, so there is no conflict with the geological record. </p>
<p>&#8220;However, geological evidence seemed to indicate that the atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Archaean and Proterozoic were far too low to keep the surface from freezing. With a radiative-convective model including new, updated thermal absorption coeﬃcients, we found that the amount of CO2 necessary to obtain 273 K at the surface is reduced up to an order of magnitude compared to previous studies.&#8221;</p>
<p>["Warming the early Earth - CO2 reconsidered", Paris et al, preprint arxiv:0804.4134v2, 2008].</p>
<p>Also, the geological record allows for a lot more CO2 now. </p>
<p>&#8220;Siderite is absent in many palaeosols (both pre- and post-2.2-Gyr in age) because the O2<br />
concentrations and pH conditions in well-aerated soils have favoured the formation of<br />
ferric (Fe 3+)-rich minerals, such as goethite, rather than siderite. Siderite, however, has formed throughout geological history in subsurface environments, such as euxinic seas, where anaerobic organisms created H2 -rich conditions. The abundance of large, massive siderite-rich beds in pre-1.8-Gyr sedimentary sequences and their carbon isotope ratios indicate that the atmospheric CO2 concentration was more than 100 times greater than today,<br />
causing the rain and ocean waters to be more acidic than today. </p>
<p>We therefore conclude that CO2 alone (without a signiﬁcant contribution from methane) could have provided the necessary greenhouse effect to maintain liquid oceans on the early Earth.&#8221;</p>
<p>["Evidence from massive siderite beds for a CO2-rich atmosphere before 1.8 billion years ago", Ohmoto et al, Nature 2004.]</p>
<p><strong>[CZ: Thanks for these references. You might want to check out the <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4449.pdf" rel="nofollow">2011 review I linked to</a>. Here's one relevant passage: "Geochemical data therefore suggest that CO2 partial pressures were likely smaller than a few hundred times pre-industrial levels in the late Archean and early Proterozoic, meaning that carbon dioxide alone would most likely have been unable to pro- vide enough warming during these times."]</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
