It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Danish scientist solves environmental paradox -- New ammo for the global warming theorists?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:58 AM
A danish/greenlandish scientist has solved a paradox that has been bothering astronomers and geologists for over 40 years.

The following is a google translation of this news page:

The world renowned Danish-Greenland geology Professor Minik Rosing has released a scientific paradox that has plagued astronomers and geologists for 40 years. The result is not only important for understanding our planet's geological history, but can also have far reaching implications for climate research.

The weak sun paradox
The sun and the earth was created for small 4.5 billion years ago. But a young star must first have time fusion engine before it really sends energy out. Therefore the earth should have been frozen in the first 3 billion years. But all geology shows that it was certainly not.

- The current scientific explanation for the paradox has since the 1990s been that the young earth was kept warm because of an extreme greenhouse effect, said Professor Minik Rosing. 30 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is 100 times more CO2 than we have today

No extreme greenhouse effect
But Minik Rosing has studied the oldest rocks in the world, the rocks at Isua in Greenland. They are 3.8 billion years old.

- Tests show that the CO2 content of the young Earth was much higher than today. Only 0.9 per thousand, said Professor Minik Rosing.
Ergo, there was no extreme greenhouse effect on the young Earth.

No paradox
But what about the paradox. It is probably still?
- No, says Minik Rosing. There is nothing paradoxical.

Minik Rosing and his research colleagues have, through the stones found a simple explanation. The young Earth was largely covered by sea. The continents were only starting to emerge, so there was almost no mainland.

Seawater is dark, and when cloud cover was also thinner, the soil was better at keeping in the heat because the sun's rays were not reflected back into space to the same degree as today.

Impact on climate debate
Minik Rosing findings have great significance for today's climate, because it shows that atmospheric CO2 content has remained much more constant than previously thought.

- It is not the case that the Earth of its own motion fluctuates wildly in CO2 content, says Minik Rosing. So the anthropogenic changes that we observe now is striking even seen with geological eye.

As I understand the last paragraph, what he means is that we should pay more attention to the changes we are seeing as being man made? Is that understood correctly?

Though I will say that this doesn't make up my mind to choose either side of the fence. I'm not convinced in any way that what is happening is not a completely normal evolution in a cycle kind of way.

What are your thoughts people? Does this affect your views on the alledged man made "global warming"?

EDIT: I have taken the liberty to edit the translation, as the google version was quite a bit off!

[edit on 1/4/10 by flice]

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:01 AM
The centre of the earth is missunderstood. The data points to a growing earth, and one that warms itself from the inside out amoung many other things. Of course the theory is far too out there to be taken seriously by the mainstream scientific community. But once I started exploring the possibility open-mindedly so many anomalies just make perfect sense. I still dont know what is in the centre of the earth but the gaia hypothesis would suggest it is intelligently controlled. This would be true of all planets. For the heating it explains why pluto is warming while flying away from the sun, it explains why the oceans warm from the bottom up, even though warm fluid should stay on the surface if it is being warmed by sunlight. Energy could be converted into mass in the centre which would radiate thermodynamically to the surface if the mass was not formed at room temperature but rather as magma, some of which is forced through cracks to the surface. The centre may be like a conversion point from ZPE or radial ether flux (gravity) to matter with heat by product as the new matter cools. If the centre knew what it was doing, water atmospheric gasses minerals even organics (oil) the lot of it would just be created in the perfect proportions rather than the one in a million chance of Coalescence from space with the addition of some dino blood etc. Of course this would put the chance of other habitable planets through the roof. The earth would be setting up a chance for symbiosis with the life on its surface, with the risk of that life turning parasitic. I find it hard to explain this concept and im yet to find someone liguistically gifted enough in the right field to put their research together but the point im trying to make is that anomalies like the ones in your post are just expected to be the case once your paradigm shifts into the strange possibility of the planet being more than we thought, the mistake has been in history before and I think were on the cusp of another flat/round earth type battle.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:06 AM
the translation is HORRIBLE

where is his paper, it should be in english if he is at least in the scientific community

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:54 AM

Originally posted by Faiol
the translation is HORRIBLE

where is his paper, it should be in english if he is at least in the scientific community

Its not HORRIBLE. There are a few machine errors though.
Here is an english version:

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:46 AM
reply to post by Faiol

WTF!! Are you suggesting the majority of the scientific community speaks english and other languages have to be translated to yours. Would you be willing to translate all your posts for the rest of the world? You do know only 5% of people in the world speak english as their first language. More pople speak mandarin or spanish, english comes in about third so your in the minority you know. I hope it was just a missunderstanding of your post.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:48 AM
The more consumable version from the ScienceDaily link SS provided:

"The analyses of the CO2-content in the atmosphere, which can be deduced from the age-old Isua rock, show that the atmosphere at the time contained a maximum of one part per thousand of this greenhouse gas. This was three to four times more than the atmosphere's CO2-content today. However, not anywhere in the range of the of the 30 percent share in early Earth history, which has hitherto been the theoretical calculation. Hence we may conclude that the atmosphere's CO2-content has not changed substantially through the billions of years of Earth's geological history. However, today the graph is turning upward. Not least due to the emissions from fossil fuels used by humans. Therefore it is vital to determine the geological and atmospheric premises for the prehistoric past in order to understand the present, not to mention the future, in what pertains to the design of climate models and calculations," underscores Minik Rosing.

In sum, it is commonly thought that CO2 levels were pretty high during early earth history (a few thousand ppm). However, Rosing is suggesting that it was not so high, only being around 1000ppm.

We can reach that level if we try hard enough. And we have a nice toasty sun to work with cf. early earth.

ABE: and the abstract from Nature...

Nature 464, 744-747 (1 April 2010) | doi:10.1038/nature08955; Received 13 July 2009; Accepted 9 February 2010

No climate paradox under the faint early Sun

Minik T. Rosing1,2,4, Dennis K. Bird1,4, Norman H. Sleep5 & Christian J. Bjerrum1,3

Environmental niches in which life first emerged and later evolved on the Earth have undergone dramatic changes in response to evolving tectonic/geochemical cycles and to biologic interventions1, 2, 3, as well as increases in the Sun’s luminosity of about 25 to 30 per cent over the Earth’s history4. It has been inferred that the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 and/or CH4 compensated for the lower solar luminosity and dictated an Archaean climate in which liquid water was stable in the hydrosphere5, 6, 7, 8. Here we demonstrate, however, that the mineralogy of Archaean sediments, particularly the ubiquitous presence of mixed-valence Fe(II–III) oxides (magnetite) in banded iron formations9 is inconsistent with such high concentrations of greenhouse gases and the metabolic constraints of extant methanogens. Prompted by this, and the absence of geologic evidence for very high greenhouse-gas concentrations10, 11, 12, 13, we hypothesize that a lower albedo on the Earth, owing to considerably less continental area and to the lack of biologically induced cloud condensation nuclei14, made an important contribution to moderating surface temperature in the Archaean eon. Our model calculations suggest that the lower albedo of the early Earth provided environmental conditions above the freezing point of water, thus alleviating the need for extreme greenhouse-gas concentrations to satisfy the faint early Sun paradox.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by melatonin]

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:52 AM
reply to post by polarwarrior

well, here we learn that all papers should be written in english to be validated into the international community, maybe accepted into an international scientific magazine

thats why, even you like it or not, english is still the global scientific language in this western side;

the paper in english probably exists if he really made a study about it and its not just an opinion, we just need to find it to understand better

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Faiol]

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:40 AM
The fact that the climate is changing all over the world really can't be disputed except by the people trying to make the masses believe it isn't happening. The causes seem to me to be less important because look around, the damage is done.
Just in my area alone in the last 20 years the climate has changed drastically. Not to mention strange new migrations of animals not native to this area appearing and others disappearing. Just a note to all those who don't think global warming is real: wake your a$$ up!

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by kadyr80

Nobody disputes global warming happens, the evidence is there. But Man made global warming is a completely different matter.

top topics


log in