Discussion:
Did massive solar flares set up conditions for life on early Earth?
(too old to reply)
Garrison L. Hilliard
2016-05-26 09:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Did massive solar flares set up conditions for life on early Earth?

A new model suggests that the bombardment of charged particles, thanks
to the active young sun, could have yielded conditions favorable to
life on early Earth. If correct, it could solve a long-standing
paradox.

By Eva Botkin-Kowacki, Staff writer MAY 24, 2016

A tantrum-throwing baby sun might have triggered the chemical
reactions that made life on Earth possible, according to a new model
proposed by NASA scientists.

For life as we know it to emerge, the planet needed to be warm and
wet. Those conditions are evident as the sun beats down on Earth
today, but 4 billion years ago the sun was not as strong. In fact,
this young sun was so faint – at about 70 percent of today's
brightness – that early Earth should have been more of a snowball than
a tropical paradise.

And yet, some 3.8 billion years ago, life arose.

Recommended: Do you know Planet Earth? Take the quiz.
How was it that early Earth had liquid water and was warm enough for
life to emerge, but the sun was not nearly the heat source it is
today? Scientists call this the "faint young sun paradox."

The volatility of the young sun may actually resolve this problem,
according to a new paper published Monday in the journal Nature
Geoscience. And this process could inform scientists in the hunt for
life on other planets, too.

The young sun wasn't just bombarding the early Earth with heat waves.
The model is a bit more complex, as lead author Vladimir Airapetian
explains, using human infants as a metaphor:

"Since birth, stars, like babies, undergo evolutionary emotional
changes," Dr. Airapetian, a researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight
Center, tells The Christian Science Monitor.

Human babies, Airapetian describes, are very emotional at first. They
scream, they cry, they throw tantrums. Throughout all of these
outbursts, they expel energy. Baby stars are similarly restless. They
frequently spew out massive clouds of solar plasma in what's called a
coronal mass ejection.

"Eventually they slow down in their emotions," Airapetian says. "So
today our sun is a pretty emotionally stable star."

But 4 billion years ago, these bursts of plasma would have been
frequent, perhaps daily. And those charged particles streamed away
from the young sun and toward the young Earth.

As that solar plasma bombarded the early Earth, the magnetosphere,
which forms a sort of protective bubble around our planet against
solar wind, was compressed. This distorted magnetosphere would have
allowed the charged particles to seep deep into the atmosphere.

Scientists suspect that the atmosphere was largely composed of
nitrogen molecules, N2 , much as it is today. These charged particles
would have forced both nitrogen and other molecules to split apart
into free atoms. Then, these atoms would have bonded in new
combinations.

One of the results of these chemical reactions would have been nitrous
oxide, commonly known as laughing gas. Nitrous oxide, N2 O, is a very
powerful greenhouse gas, 300 times as potent as carbon dioxide.

This abundance of nitrous oxide would have blanketed the Earth and
trapped heat, making it so that the surface of our planet was warm
enough to support liquid water and the development of life.

But water and warmth are not all the ingredients for life created by
this process.

Other free atoms could bond together to form hydrogen cyanide, HCN,
which, although poisonous, is thought to be a precursor to amino acids
and nucleic acids, building blocks of life. And that HCN that arose
low enough in the atmosphere would have become trapped in raindrops
and fallen into bodies of water on the Earth, where it could have
given rise to those building blocks.


Our suns adolescence was stormy—and new evidence shows that these
tempests may have been just the key to seeding life as we know it on
Earth.

This model may nicely set up prebiotic conditions on early Earth, but
James Kasting, a geoscientist at Pennsylvania State University who was
not part of the study, says "I don't think their mechanism could work
even under the most favorable assumptions."

The problem, according to Dr. Kasting, lies in how much N2 O would be
necessary to produce a sufficient warming effect.

Some of the N2 O molecules would be dissociated into atoms again
thanks to ultraviolet radiation. And although Airapetian says the
model takes into account the net production of N2 O, Kasting says that
not enough would be produced in the lowest parts of the atmosphere to
create sufficient warming.

The model has a maximum N2 O concentration between about 25 and 37
miles above the Earth's surface, Kasting points out. But they would
have a much more significant effect at a height of around 6 miles or
less. As such, he says, the model needs some sort of downward
transport mechanism to carry more N2 O molecules closer to the surface
of the Earth in order to work.

Debate over the faint young sun paradox is not new, Kasting says in a
phone interview with the Monitor. "The faint young sun problem has
been solved many times," he says. "But I'm sure it will be resolved
many more times in the future."

"We argue about what the details of the solution are," he explains.
"There are plausible solutions for the faint young sun problem, but
it's very difficult to prove that any one of them is actually
correct."

Another popular explanation was that early Earth's atmosphere was
twice as thick as it is today, providing a warm blanket over the
Earth. But recent fossilized air bubbles suggest that the opposite was
true. In fact, the air pressure may have been less than half what it
is today, according to a study published earlier this month.

So why debate over details of prebiotic conditions?

It's all about knowing what to look for in the hunt for
extraterrestrial life. Airapetian says that it might be most fruitful
to look for the beginnings of life on another planet. And
understanding the specific conditions that yielded life on our own
planet could help narrow the search.

"My ultimate goal is to find a planet like Earth in the process of
making life," Airapetian says. "I call it pregnant Earth 2.0."




http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0524/Did-massive-solar-flares-set-up-conditions-for-life-on-early-Earth

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
Andrew Rawlings
2016-05-27 12:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Hi Garrison,

Thank you for the interesting article.
(I've edited your email a little, mainly by adding in a few links from
the
Christian Science Monitor article.)

I'm not disputing the effect on the early Earth of the solar flares
but IMO
it was not very important to the commencement of life on Earth.

The Earth is thought by many to have had a few global or near global
ice-ages ('snowball Earth').
The most recent being about 650 mya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
Life survived quite well.

As far as I know, no one has disproved (or even tried to disprove) the
theories published in recent scientific articles (a couple of years
ago)
setting out how life commenced in alkali white smoker volcanic vents
(not
the more popular acidic smoker vents) under the sea.

Eva Botkin-Kowacki says in the emailed Christian Science Monitor
article
that, "For life as we know it to emerge, the planet needed to be warm
and
wet".
Well undersea volcanic vents are "warm and wet" and not reliant on the
Sun
in any way.

BTW in the article, there is no mention of methane that is a very
effective
greenhouse gas and I think was in the early Earth's atmosphere.

Regards,


Andrew
J




On Thu, 26 May 2016 05:26:50 -0400, Garrison L. Hilliard
Post by Garrison L. Hilliard
Did massive solar flares set up conditions for life on early Earth?
A new model suggests that the bombardment of charged particles, thanks
to the active young sun, could have yielded conditions favorable to
life on early Earth. If correct, it could solve a long-standing
paradox.
By Eva Botkin-Kowacki, Staff writer MAY 24, 2016
A tantrum-throwing baby sun might have triggered the chemical
reactions that made life on Earth possible, according to a new model
proposed by NASA scientists.
For life as we know it to emerge, the planet needed to be warm and
wet. Those conditions are evident as the sun beats down on Earth
today, but 4 billion years ago the sun was not as strong. In fact,
this young sun was so faint – at about 70 percent of today's
brightness – that early Earth should have been more of a snowball than
a tropical paradise.
And yet, some 3.8 billion years ago, life arose.
Recommended: Do you know Planet Earth? Take the quiz.
How was it that early Earth had liquid water and was warm enough for
life to emerge, but the sun was not nearly the heat source it is
today? Scientists call this the "faint young sun paradox."
The volatility of the young sun may actually resolve this problem,
according to a new paper published Monday in the journal Nature
Geoscience. And this process could inform scientists in the hunt for
life on other planets, too.
The young sun wasn't just bombarding the early Earth with heat waves.
The model is a bit more complex, as lead author Vladimir Airapetian
"Since birth, stars, like babies, undergo evolutionary emotional
changes," Dr. Airapetian, a researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight
Center, tells The Christian Science Monitor.
Human babies, Airapetian describes, are very emotional at first. They
scream, they cry, they throw tantrums. Throughout all of these
outbursts, they expel energy. Baby stars are similarly restless. They
frequently spew out massive clouds of solar plasma in what's called a
coronal mass ejection.
"Eventually they slow down in their emotions," Airapetian says. "So
today our sun is a pretty emotionally stable star."
But 4 billion years ago, these bursts of plasma would have been
frequent, perhaps daily. And those charged particles streamed away
from the young sun and toward the young Earth.
As that solar plasma bombarded the early Earth, the magnetosphere,
which forms a sort of protective bubble around our planet against
solar wind, was compressed. This distorted magnetosphere would have
allowed the charged particles to seep deep into the atmosphere.
Scientists suspect that the atmosphere was largely composed of
nitrogen molecules, N2 , much as it is today. These charged particles
would have forced both nitrogen and other molecules to split apart
into free atoms. Then, these atoms would have bonded in new
combinations.
One of the results of these chemical reactions would have been nitrous
oxide, commonly known as laughing gas. Nitrous oxide, N2 O, is a very
powerful greenhouse gas, 300 times as potent as carbon dioxide.
This abundance of nitrous oxide would have blanketed the Earth and
trapped heat, making it so that the surface of our planet was warm
enough to support liquid water and the development of life.
But water and warmth are not all the ingredients for life created by
this process.
Other free atoms could bond together to form hydrogen cyanide, HCN,
which, although poisonous, is thought to be a precursor to amino acids
and nucleic acids, building blocks of life. And that HCN that arose
low enough in the atmosphere would have become trapped in raindrops
and fallen into bodies of water on the Earth, where it could have
given rise to those building blocks.
Our suns adolescence was stormy—and new evidence shows that these
tempests may have been just the key to seeding life as we know it on
Earth.
This model may nicely set up prebiotic conditions on early Earth, but
James Kasting, a geoscientist at Pennsylvania State University who was
not part of the study, says "I don't think their mechanism could work
even under the most favorable assumptions."
The problem, according to Dr. Kasting, lies in how much N2 O would be
necessary to produce a sufficient warming effect.
Some of the N2 O molecules would be dissociated into atoms again
thanks to ultraviolet radiation. And although Airapetian says the
model takes into account the net production of N2 O, Kasting says that
not enough would be produced in the lowest parts of the atmosphere to
create sufficient warming.
The model has a maximum N2 O concentration between about 25 and 37
miles above the Earth's surface, Kasting points out. But they would
have a much more significant effect at a height of around 6 miles or
less. As such, he says, the model needs some sort of downward
transport mechanism to carry more N2 O molecules closer to the surface
of the Earth in order to work.
Debate over the faint young sun paradox is not new, Kasting says in a
phone interview with the Monitor. "The faint young sun problem has
been solved many times," he says. "But I'm sure it will be resolved
many more times in the future."
"We argue about what the details of the solution are," he explains.
"There are plausible solutions for the faint young sun problem, but
it's very difficult to prove that any one of them is actually
correct."
Another popular explanation was that early Earth's atmosphere was
twice as thick as it is today, providing a warm blanket over the
Earth. But recent fossilized air bubbles suggest that the opposite was
true. In fact, the air pressure may have been less than half what it
is today, according to a study published earlier this month.
So why debate over details of prebiotic conditions?
It's all about knowing what to look for in the hunt for
extraterrestrial life. Airapetian says that it might be most fruitful
to look for the beginnings of life on another planet. And
understanding the specific conditions that yielded life on our own
planet could help narrow the search.
"My ultimate goal is to find a planet like Earth in the process of
making life," Airapetian says. "I call it pregnant Earth 2.0."
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0524/Did-massive-solar-flares-set-up-conditions-for-life-on-early-Earth
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
Loading...