Re: "Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the Last 485 Million Years"

On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 19:46:25 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

On 9/29/24 13:45, William Hyde wrote:

James Nicoll wrote:

In article <vd9rlv$1dcog$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde  <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

of direct observation does not agree with this view.
>
As to the current warming the question is academic, as the pattern of
warming shows us clearly that this is not due to  an increase in solar
output.

>
Is this a good time to mention the faint young Sun paradox?
>
For people unfamiliar with it, is the question of how to
reconcile the young sun being 30% dimmer with the young Earth
having liquid water. All things being equal, the Earth should
have been well below freezing (on average) but it wasn't. So
all things weren't equal.

 
 
Always a fascinating topic for me.
 
This is not resolved, but the most common idea is that the thick
atmosphere of the young earth, filled with CO2, H20 and possibly other
infrared absorbers (NH3, for example) kept the earth warm. But there is
no consensus on the composition of that atmosphere.  Perhaps there
wasn't much in the way of greenhouse gases.

First we should not call it the Young Earth because that
is a creationist theory. I learned that when I searched on the
term.

Young Earth Creationists believe (or believed) everything was created
in 4004 BC, just as Bishop Ussher computed.

But "the young Earth" is the actual Earth, just very very new.

Many terms have multiple meanings.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"