Talk:Reducing atmosphere

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Tranparency/Colour

Any information about how transparent a reducing atmosphere is ie what wavelength of EM radiation pass through? (ie; what 'colour' is a reducing atmosphere). Presumably red because, well, Cyanobacteria. Ammonia, Hydrogen, Carbon monoxide, Carbon Dioxide are all colourless gasses! Nitrogen Dioxide / Dinitrogen Tetroxide is coloured but unstable.165.225.80.95 (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC) .[reply]

Confusing paragraph[edit]

"in contrast to the hypothesized early reducing atmosphere evidence exists that Hadean atmospheric oxygen levels were similar to those of today. These results suggests prebiotic building blocks were delivered from elsewhere in the galaxy. The results however do not run contrary to existing theories on life's journey from anaerobic to aerobic organisms. The results quantify the nature of gas molecules containing carbon, hydrogen, and sulphur in the earliest atmosphere, but they shed no light on the much later rise of free oxygen in the air."

Is this an alternative theory, which precludes the early reducing atmosphere? Otherwise it sounds like the article is making conflicting statements. Instead of speaking four times of undifferentiated and contextless "results", either the name of the theory or of its authors should be used, and other wording that makes the disjunction clearer. 194.230.148.166 (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]