Access
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
News and Views
Nature 442, 873-874 (24 August 2006) | doi:10.1038/442873a; Published online 23 August 2006
Open Innovation Challenges
-
Methods to Analyze Consumer Emotions
The Seeker is looking for methods to analyze consumer emotions. This Challenge requires only a writ...
-
Single-cell Analysis Platform
This Challenge is looking for novel approaches to analyzing changes at a single-cell level. This is...
nature jobs
Faculty Positions in Cancer, Cardiovascular and Metabolic Diseases, Immunology
- Institute de Recherches Cliniques de Montreal
- Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Endowed Professorship
- Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis
- St. Louis, MO 63110 United States
Earth Sciences: Signature required
L. Paul Knauth1
Abstract
Most geologists agree that Earth's atmosphere was oxygen-free until 2.4 billion years ago. But the latest sulphur-isotope measurements from sedimentary rocks suggest otherwise.
Newly embraced scientific paradigms usually have their share of lingering critics, quiet sceptics and bewildered agnostics. Nevertheless, few doubt the recently established consensus that Earth's atmosphere was completely oxygen-free before a great oxygenation event 2.
- L. Paul Knauth is in the School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-1404, USA.
Email: knauth@asu.edu
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS
These links to content published by NPG are automatically generated.
NEWS AND VIEWS
Palaeoclimate Oxygen's rise reducedNature News and Views (30 Aug 2007)
Ocean chemistry Iron and brimstoneNature News and Views (03 Dec 1998)
Biogeochemistry Deepening the early oxygen debateNature Geoscience News and Views (01 Apr 2009)
See all 4 matches for News And ViewsRESEARCH
Supplementary InformationNature Geoscience Article (01 Apr 2009)
Isotopic evidence for microbial sulphate reduction in the early Archaean eraNature Letters to Editor (01 Mar 2001)

