<h1>Possibly, but they don't apply to today's world</h1>

<p>I'm reasonably sure, without having read the book but having looked at summaries online, that Dauvillier was arguing that the conditions on Earth when life first developed were such that life would not have developed if the Earth were 2 C warmer. </p>

<p>First of all, you would need to specify from what baseline the 2 C rise was measured. There are many times in the past where the Earth was at least 2 C warmer than the present and covered in advanced life (possibly up to 10 C warmer at time during the Mesozoic). <a href="https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been" rel="nofollow noreferrer">NOAA</a> suggests that parts of the Neoproterzoic saw global temperatures of 90 F and up, and of course life managed to persist through that. </p>

<p>Since his book is about biogenesis in general, there isn't much comparison to the conditions on Earth today. On that early Earth where life developed, the sun was much weaker (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a paradox not completely resolved</a>). There was no oxygen and much more carbon dioxide, ammonia, and/or methane, depending on who you ask. There were also (obviously) no photosythesizing plants and no biological component to the carbon cycle. </p>

<p>Life has profoundly changed how the Earth <em>is</em>. The atmospheric dynamics of the early Earth are not comparable to those of our Earth, and thus a 2 C rise then has almost nothing to do with a 2 C rise now. </p>

<p>Again, I haven't read the book so I can't asses what specific theories Dauvillier made about the early Earth. However, it could be possible that both things are true: a 2 C rise 4.5 billion years ago would have sterilized the Earth forever, and a 2 C rise today would not. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-22T04:04:17.437Z
I re-read this answer twice, the first time I was distracted because it was not what I was looking for. Now the information is interesting but I can not use them. If I do not mistake, Dauvillier was referring to the temperatures known in 1965, and made a projection for the future, considering the various cycles starting from the origins of course. I would like to verify Dauvillier's work in the light of today's knowledge, to be update my own and, depending on whether it is still valid or not to adjust accordingly. Of course, if he was right, in principle, I woud  also try to give him credit.
Tonix Jesse
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-27T01:04:18.233Z
Just based on the fact our understanding of the early earth's atmosphere has changed in the last fifty years I am willing to bet it is inaccurate.
John
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-27T07:59:03.443Z
@ john, Basically, on the sole basis of your knowledge, you "bet" (against me, or who?) That dauvillier was wrong. I do not think it is a response complying with the SE rules. I ask moderators to check.
Tonix Jesse
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-21T15:15:11.200Z
2017-04-21T15:15:11.200Z
kingledion
<p>Dauvillier, through his studies, demonstrate that a rise of 2 degrees, of the average temperature of the planet represents a point of no return, beyond which an irreversible process would trigger, which would bring the earth to become unfit to originate carbon based forms of life. 
My request does not concern the accuracy of the  2°C value, (yet I'm curious of course), but the correctness of the arguments that led Dauvillier to such result. 
Is about to know if the path was the right one, while the exact destination my differ.</p>

<p>Would his job, if it were repeated today, in the light of current knowledge, do lead to similar conclusions, or is it based on erroneous assumptions and therefore no longer valid? </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-21T08:16:06.180Z
Please [edit] your question and quote (the main points of) *Dauviller's conclusion*. Questions on SE sites need to be self-contained as much as possible.
Jan Doggen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-21T10:39:07.877Z
I am not sure to understand your request: 1)are you asking to retrive the chapter on the book and write it down here. 2) a reference to the page number.  3) a synthetic summary? For the first two option, both would be an issue for me, since I've read the book many years ago and lost it. I assumed that who had read the book know what I'm talking about anyway. About the third option, I could try to improve what I'have wrote already. (Consider I'm not very skilled with english,as you may have noted). Regards.
Tonix Jesse
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-21T11:19:59.890Z
Meanwhile here is the link to the book (on google books)  http://tinyurl.com/m5z8lhk .
Tonix Jesse
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-21T12:54:25.890Z
@TonixJesse A summary would do, preferably with a reference to the original text for details, but without knowing what Dauvilliers arguments are, how can we possibly consider whether his arguments are still valid?
gerrit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-21T20:53:03.807Z
@gerrit, please, at least read my question, since it appear evident you didn't read the book.  I kindly premised that  " I prefer to have an opinion from people who have read A. Dauvillier's "The photochemical origin of life (1965)" . The summary of Dauvillier's conclusion is included in the question itself, the argumentations are the content of the book, of which I gave the link. It's up to you now, isn't it?
Tonix Jesse
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-21T21:29:01.993Z
Since this question requires knowledge of a certain book, and not of Earth Science, I am nominating it for closing as 'off-topic'.
kingledion
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-21T22:32:05.823Z
@kingledion, Dauvillier is a renowed scientist, I supposed that studies about to the orign of life on earth pertain to earth science, as well climate implications. If I'm wrong in that, just correct me.  I do not think it can be considered acceptable, the threat of denying  the possibility to anyone to answer a question, or me to ask it , on the pretext that you have not read a book.  P.s. Is it here downvoting influencing negatively reputation here? I thought it was just a personal valutation about the usefulness of the reply, not intendend to underevaluate the author. Let me know.Thanks
Tonix Jesse
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-21T23:52:28.550Z
@TonixJesse In my mind, here is what is happening. You ask if an argument is valid. That is on-topic for this site. You don't tell us what the argument is, that is not on topic for the site. I attempt to give an answer that is on-topic. You reject it. Therefore I conclude this is not on topic. I'm not worried about the downvoting or anything, don't worry about that. Both gerrit and JanDoggen asked you to edit in a summary of Dauvillier's conclusion. You don't want to do that, so this is not a good question for this site, and should be closed.
kingledion
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-22T03:23:51.913Z
@kingledon, Dauvillier's reasoning is very complicated and hard to remember for a non specialist as I am. What I can tell is that at a certain point,  as consequence of such complex reasoning about the photochemical origin of life here on earth, he basically affirmed that one fundamental function of the all living organism, is to mantain the value of Co2 and the average temperature of the planet within a certain range (among other things), to mantain the indispensable condition to allow   life to continue to exist. An opinion from who have read this text would be helpful for my researches.
Tonix Jesse
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-25T19:05:42.597Z
Is the Dauvillier part of the question actually necessary? What you seem to be asking is whether the current state of scientific knowledge suggests that a 2C global temperature rise is a point of no return. That's a perfectly reasonable question; you might want consider just asking it, rather than demanding that we read a book from 50 years ago.
Semidiurnal Simon
<climate-change><temperature><history-of-science>
Is the work "The photochemical origin of life" ,by A.Dauvillier, in line of principle still valid today?
Tonix Jesse
# Is the work "The photochemical origin of life" ,by A.Dauvillier, in line of principle still valid today?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-04-21)

Dauvillier, through his studies, demonstrate that a rise of 2 degrees, of the average temperature of the planet represents a point of no return, beyond which an irreversible process would trigger, which would bring the earth to become unfit to originate carbon based forms of life.
My request does not concern the accuracy of the 2°C value, (yet I'm curious of course), but the correctness of the arguments that led Dauvillier to such result.
Is about to know if the path was the right one, while the exact destination my differ.

Would his job, if it were repeated today, in the light of current knowledge, do lead to similar conclusions, or is it based on erroneous assumptions and therefore no longer valid?

**Tags:** climate-change, temperature, history-of-science

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Please [edit] your question and quote (the main points of) *Dauviller's conclusion*. Questions on SE sites need to be self-contained as much as possible.  
> **username_0**: I am not sure to understand your request: 1)are you asking to retrive the chapter on the book and write it down here. 2) a reference to the page number.  3) a synthetic summary? For the first two option, both would be an issue for me, since I've read the book many years ago and lost it. I assumed that who had read the book know what I'm talking about anyway. About the third option, I could try to improve what I'have wrote already. (Consider I'm not very skilled with english,as you may have noted). Regards.  
> **username_0**: Meanwhile here is the link to the book (on google books)  http://tinyurl.com/m5z8lhk .  
> **username_2**: @username_0 A summary would do, preferably with a reference to the original text for details, but without knowing what Dauvilliers arguments are, how can we possibly consider whether his arguments are still valid?  
> **username_0**: @username_2, please, at least read my question, since it appear evident you didn't read the book.  I kindly premised that  " I prefer to have an opinion from people who have read A. Dauvillier's "The photochemical origin of life (1965)" . The summary of Dauvillier's conclusion is included in the question itself, the argumentations are the content of the book, of which I gave the link. It's up to you now, isn't it?  
> **username_3**: Since this question requires knowledge of a certain book, and not of Earth Science, I am nominating it for closing as 'off-topic'.  
> **username_0**: @username_3, Dauvillier is a renowed scientist, I supposed that studies about to the orign of life on earth pertain to earth science, as well climate implications. If I'm wrong in that, just correct me.  I do not think it can be considered acceptable, the threat of denying  the possibility to anyone to answer a question, or me to ask it , on the pretext that you have not read a book.  P.s. Is it here downvoting influencing negatively reputation here? I thought it was just a personal valutation about the usefulness of the reply, not intendend to underevaluate the author. Let me know.Thanks  
> **username_3**: @username_0 In my mind, here is what is happening. You ask if an argument is valid. That is on-topic for this site. You don't tell us what the argument is, that is not on topic for the site. I attempt to give an answer that is on-topic. You reject it. Therefore I conclude this is not on topic. I'm not worried about the downvoting or anything, don't worry about that. Both username_2 and username_1 asked you to edit in a summary of Dauvillier's conclusion. You don't want to do that, so this is not a good question for this site, and should be closed.  
> **username_0**: @kingledon, Dauvillier's reasoning is very complicated and hard to remember for a non specialist as I am. What I can tell is that at a certain point,  as consequence of such complex reasoning about the photochemical origin of life here on earth, he basically affirmed that one fundamental function of the all living organism, is to mantain the value of Co2 and the average temperature of the planet within a certain range (among other things), to mantain the indispensable condition to allow   life to continue to exist. An opinion from who have read this text would be helpful for my researches.  
> **username_4**: Is the Dauvillier part of the question actually necessary? What you seem to be asking is whether the current state of scientific knowledge suggests that a 2C global temperature rise is a point of no return. That's a perfectly reasonable question; you might want consider just asking it, rather than demanding that we read a book from 50 years ago.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-04-21. Score: 2

# Possibly, but they don't apply to today's world

I'm reasonably sure, without having read the book but having looked at summaries online, that Dauvillier was arguing that the conditions on Earth when life first developed were such that life would not have developed if the Earth were 2 C warmer.

First of all, you would need to specify from what baseline the 2 C rise was measured. There are many times in the past where the Earth was at least 2 C warmer than the present and covered in advanced life (possibly up to 10 C warmer at time during the Mesozoic). [NOAA](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been) suggests that parts of the Neoproterzoic saw global temperatures of 90 F and up, and of course life managed to persist through that.

Since his book is about biogenesis in general, there isn't much comparison to the conditions on Earth today. On that early Earth where life developed, the sun was much weaker ([a paradox not completely resolved](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox)). There was no oxygen and much more carbon dioxide, ammonia, and/or methane, depending on who you ask. There were also (obviously) no photosythesizing plants and no biological component to the carbon cycle.

Life has profoundly changed how the Earth *is*. The atmospheric dynamics of the early Earth are not comparable to those of our Earth, and thus a 2 C rise then has almost nothing to do with a 2 C rise now.

Again, I haven't read the book so I can't asses what specific theories Dauvillier made about the early Earth. However, it could be possible that both things are true: a 2 C rise 4.5 billion years ago would have sterilized the Earth forever, and a 2 C rise today would not.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I re-read this answer twice, the first time I was distracted because it was not what I was looking for. Now the information is interesting but I can not use them. If I do not mistake, Dauvillier was referring to the temperatures known in 1965, and made a projection for the future, considering the various cycles starting from the origins of course. I would like to verify Dauvillier's work in the light of today's knowledge, to be update my own and, depending on whether it is still valid or not to adjust accordingly. Of course, if he was right, in principle, I woud  also try to give him credit.  
> **username_5**: Just based on the fact our understanding of the early earth's atmosphere has changed in the last fifty years I am willing to bet it is inaccurate.  
> **username_0**: @ username_5, Basically, on the sole basis of your knowledge, you "bet" (against me, or who?) That dauvillier was wrong. I do not think it is a response complying with the SE rules. I ask moderators to check.  

---

