4.7 Article

Organic haze, glaciations and multiple sulfur isotopes in the Mid-Archean Era

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 269, 期 1-2, 页码 29-40

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2008.01.040

关键词

glaciation; mass-independent fractionation; Archean; paleoclimate; S isotopes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We use sulfur (S) isotope signatures within ancient sediments and a photochemical model of sulfur dioxide (SO2) photolysis to interpret the evolution of the atmosphere over the first half of Earth's history. A decrease in mass-independent sulfur isotope fractionation has been reported in Archean rocks deposited between similar to 2.7 Ga and similar to 3.2 Ga, and is reinforced by new S isotope data that we report here. This pattern has been interpreted by some as evidence that atmospheric oxygen (O-2) was elevated during this time. In this paper, we argue against that conclusion, and show that it is inconsistent with other geochemical data. In its place, we propose a new model that can explain the sulfur isotope record that can also avoid conflicts with independent constraints on O-2 and account for concurrent glacial deposits. Specifically, we suggest that prior to the rise of O-2 excursions in the sulfur isotope record were modulated by the thickness of an organic haze. This haze would have blocked the lower atmosphere from the UV fluxes responsible for the anomalous sulfur photochemistry and would have caused an anti-greenhouse effect that triggered the glaciations. We used a photochemical model to verify that a haze could have affected the isotopic signal in this manner, and to examine how changes in atmospheric methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations could have controlled haze thickness. Finally, we combined the resulting relationships with climate models and sulfur isotope and glacial records to deduce a new evolutionary sequence for Archean climate, surface chemistry, and biology. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据