From the HARVARD JOHN A. PAULSON SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCES
Explaining a ‘once-in-a-billion-year event’

CREDIT (Image courtesy of NASA)
What caused the largest glaciation event in Earth’s history, known as ‘snowball Earth’? Geologists and climate scientists have been searching for the answer for years but the root cause of the phenomenon remains elusive.
Now, Harvard University researchers have a new hypothesis about what caused the runaway glaciation that covered the Earth pole-to-pole in ice.
The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters. (paywalled)
Researchers have pinpointed the start of what’s known as the Sturtian snowball Earth event to about 717 million years ago — give or take a few 100,000 years. At around that time, a huge volcanic event devastated an area from present-day Alaska to Greenland. Coincidence?
Harvard professors Francis Macdonald and Robin Wordsworth thought not.
“We know that volcanic activity can have a major effect on the environment, so the big question was, how are these two events related,” said Macdonald, the John L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Natural Sciences.
At first, Macdonald’s team thought basaltic rock — which breaks down into magnesium and calcium — interacted with CO2 in the atmosphere and caused cooling. However, if that were the case, cooling would have happened over millions of years and radio-isotopic dating from volcanic rocks in Arctic Canada suggest a far more precise coincidence with cooling.
Macdonald turned to Wordsworth, who models climates of non-Earth planets, and asked: could aerosols emitted from these volcanos have rapidly cooled Earth?
The answer: yes, under the right conditions.
“It is not unique to have large volcanic provinces erupting,” said Wordsworth, assistant professor of Environmental Science and Engineering at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Science. “These types of eruptions have happened over and over again throughout geological time but they’re not always associated with cooling events. So, the question is, what made this event different?”

Geological and chemical studies of this region, known as the Franklin large igneous province, showed that volcanic rocks erupted through sulfur-rich sediments, which would have been pushed into the atmosphere during eruption as sulfur dioxide. When sulfur dioxide gets into the upper layers of the atmosphere, it’s very good at blocking solar radiation. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which shot about 10 million metric tons of sulfur into the air, reduced global temperatures about 1 degree Fahrenheit for a year.
Sulfur dioxide is most effective at blocking solar radiation if it gets past the tropopause, the boundary separating the troposphere and stratosphere. If it reaches this height, it’s less likely to be brought back down to earth in precipitation or mixed with other particles, extending its presence in the atmosphere from about a week to about a year. The height of the tropopause barrier all depends on the background climate of the planet — the cooler the planet, the lower the tropopause.
“In periods of Earth’s history when it was very warm, volcanic cooling would not have been very important because the Earth would have been shielded by this warm, high tropopause,” said Wordsworth. “In cooler conditions, Earth becomes uniquely vulnerable to having these kinds of volcanic perturbations to climate.”
“What our models have shown is that context and background really matters,” said Macdonald.
Another important aspect is where the sulfur dioxide plumes reach the stratosphere. Due to continental drift, 717 million years ago, the Franklin large igneous province where these eruptions took place was situated near the equator, the entry point for most of the solar radiation that keeps the Earth warm.
So, an effective light-reflecting gas entered the atmosphere at just the right location and height to cause cooling. But another element was needed to form the perfect storm scenario. After all, the Pinatubo eruption had similar qualities but its cooling effect only lasted about a year.
The eruptions throwing sulfur into the air 717 million years ago weren’t one-off explosions of single volcanoes like Pinatubo. The volcanoes in question spanned almost 2,000 miles across Canada and Greenland. Instead of singularly explosive eruptions, these volcanoes can erupt more continuously like those in Hawaii and Iceland today. The researchers demonstrated that a decade or so of continual eruptions from this type of volcanoes could have poured enough aerosols into the atmosphere to rapidly destabilize the climate.
“Cooling from aerosols doesn’t have to freeze the whole planet; it just has to drive the ice to a critical latitude. Then the ice does the rest,” said Macdonald.
The more ice, the more sunlight is reflected and the cooler the planet becomes. Once the ice reaches latitudes around present-day California, the positive feedback loop takes over and the runaway snowball effect is pretty much unstoppable.
“It’s easy to think of climate as this immense system that is very difficult to change and in many ways that’s true. But there have been very dramatic changes in the past and there’s every possibility that as sudden of a change could happen in the future as well,” said Wordsworth.
Understanding how these dramatic changes occur could help researchers better understand how extinctions occurred, how proposed geoengineering approaches may impact climate and how climates change on other planets.
“This research shows that we need to get away from a simple paradigm of exoplanets, just thinking about stable equilibrium conditions and habitable zones,” said Wordsworth. “We know that Earth is a dynamic and active place that has had sharp transitions. There is every reason to believe that rapid climate transitions of this type are the norm on planets, rather than the exception.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Perhaps if we asked the folks trying to survive the current snow-blizzard-global warming in the Northeast US they would be easily convinced, and terrified, that ‘Snowball Earth’ is upon us now!
Interesting theory but it also depends on tectonics and continental drift to provide the driving force that allows large scale volcanism to act in precisely the ‘right’ way. Therefore something MUST have happened to the earth previously to imbalance the amount of crust so that all ‘loose’ stuff floating on the core is driven toward what is now the Pacific.
Guesswork on top of guesswork.
A similar volcanic event occurred during the 1-million year Siberian Steppes eruption, which led to global temps falling 10C, and leading to a mass extinction event.
The huge increase in SO2 emissions created sulfuric acid clouds to form in the upper atmosphere, which greatly increased the earth’s albedo, reduced sunlight, inhibited photosynthesis, which lead to dangerously LOW CO2 levels (perhaps below or near 150ppm), which is the minimum CO2 level required for photosynthesis to occur.
Although a full-blown ice-ball earth event didn’t occur during the Siberian Steppes eruption, it did lead to a mass extinction event.
I’m sure all the added H2SO4 substantially lowered oceans pH levels, which may have approached acidic levels towards the end of the Siberian Steppes event.
This volcanism-induced snowball earth hypothesis makes perfect sense….for a change…
So, does that iceball planet include the continents NOT being in their current spots? Plate tectonics always do strange things, don’t they? Iceball earth… okay, but there are reasons it wasn’t an iceball.
So did you guys see the Reuters article that says humans have next to nothing to do with climate change or the Arctic ice cap melting? That it’s all natural cycle stuff?
Seriously, the whole climate-warming-disappearing ice cap-carbon levels business is less about science than it is about money, money, money and grubbing more money to get status and position.
The “evidence” for Snowball Earth is plausibly questioned by Canadian geologists, who are very familiar with glacial formations. I think that their argument is convincing i.e. there was no Snowball Earth. The supposed evidence for “glaciation” can be explained differently and the problem of causation disappears.
Even the ABC has reported a challenge to “Snowball Earth”.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/12/06/2111168.htm
“‘Snowball earth’ was more a slushball”
Seemingly, it really was cold back then, but maybe not that cold. Explanations seem to tally with today’s short attention spans: even though there are a few spare million years in which the causes can develop, everywhere I look the story is distorted to bring in a sudden event. That or a CO2 explanation.
I like Gary Pearse’s comment below: “Science is going into a fantasy phase in desperation for relevance.“. Maybe it was ever thus…
Steve
This paper by Canadian Nick Eyles summarizes I believe the geological evidence that earth never really froze solid, glacial bases remained “water lubricated”:
http://www.brynmawr.edu/geology/documents/Eyles2008Palaeo.pdf
I think the snowball earth hypothesis is almost as wild as Climate Change. we can only guess at the geological arrangement of the continents at the time and thus where the evidence (drop stones etc) might be deposited. It’s also possible that the earth’s wobble changed the location of the poles sufficiently to cause unusual glaciation in what are NOW equatorial regions. The early earth was also more active, this volcanism adds heat at the bottom of the atmosphere which any insulating effect by sulphur would exaggerate. I consider the snowball earth hypothesis to be low probability pseudoscience although I don’t discount chocolate royal earth, (Hemispherical half marshmallows in winter).
Science is going into a fantasy phase in desperation for relevance. It had already gone into a ‘performance’ phase during the latter several decades as numbers of scientists experienced exponential growth (scientists who people written history number several dozens; climate science has some 100k papers published during one decade – the only remarkable discovery of “97% Cook” ).
Lord Kelvin was pooh poohed for stating near the close of the 19th century that science had pretty well discovered all but a few details, but he was essentially correct – yeah, one guy rearranged it all but not much has happened since. Engineers built tools for interesting details to be discovered, but, as with music, the great composers created marvels with a dozen notes and a few octaves, but they essentially used up the pleasing combinations over 300yrs. The 20th Century brought Stravinsky and other abstract desperation to close off the era, but soon music became performance stuff with little in the way of new enduring compositions. Today, the world is flooded with them – all performers.
It’s ironic in my musical analogy that hungry physics came up with ‘string’ theory (dark matter, too but less musical). Anyway, paraphrasing Lord K, hundreds of thousands (millions maybe?) of ‘hard’ scientists, like our Harvard doctors above are perforce performers with a heavy dose of fantasy in their renditions. It is probably why climate scientists have a revulsion for data in the raw and real experiment in place of fantasy ‘experiment’. Hip Tanzanian youth coined a term in Swahili ‘kama kazi’ which translates roughly into ‘like work’ (but not exactly). It’s a good term for what climateers and snowball earth types do.
A minor comment to an otherwise excellent summary of performance science – The quote about nothing left to be discovered might be misattributed to William Thomson, Lord Kelvin:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Thomson
The quote was similar to one by AA Michelson in 1894.
But like so many quotes attributed to Mark Twain, Lord Kelvin deserves to have said it.
Earth may well have been frozen but totally ice-covered not so sure. The colder it is the less evaporation to cause precipitation. So surely if the oceans are totally or even largely ice-covered then there will be no evaporation and no precipitation to cause all the land, especially in the tropics to be covered by ice.
Since land cools a lot quicker than the waters do, the land would have been covered in ice first.
Well, crap. Eventually we’re screwed. Oh well, hopefully the sun will come up tomorrow & life goes on.
But if it doesn’t, remember to blame The Donald and the Russians.
There is so much information and debate in this blog for the non geological.
Could the authors of the discussed paper be invited to reply?
Why it got cool in the cryogenian and no mention of tectonic drift? (Do these guys even believe in it or are they hold-outs against Wegener?)
More atmospheric deus-ex-machina? So only volcanos, bolides and CO2 can change climate? Tectonic plates and ocean circulation just passive onlookers?
Sorry, I’m out, not buying it.
Sorry. This is wrong wrong wrong & wronger than a wrong thing.
I know this because……………………..
..
..
..
(you thought I’d lost it there didn’t ya?)
..
I own a smart phone (that’s beside the point, I’m out catfishing today) *and* a computer (high tech innit) and used the latter to click on a link (there’s no flies on me yanno, I can do hi-tech, *and* I’m really intelligent) and this link made some pretty pictures, with added sound, that supposedly came from The University of Exeter. To do with Global Climate Warming Change
(I only mix with The Very Best, no riff raff here)
These sounds and visions, a lot of them were red-coloured :-/ for some reason, actually mentioned Snowball Earths and they were *most* emphatic that carbon oxide did it. No volcanoes and sulphur and stratospheres and mess and Hercule Province or blah blah. Oh man gimme a break.
Carbon Doidxe is The Cause of Everything – The Interweb told me so.
The ice does the rest, etc. So how did the planet emerge from this iceage, how did it get warmer if the feedback would stop any warming in its tracks?
The only theory that makes sense to me is that with the oceans covered over, precipitation (snow) would have pretty much stopped. As a result any ash produced by volcanoes would not get covered up over time.
As a result, the amount of ash on top of the ice builds up year after year, causing more sunlight to be absorbed and eventually melting enough ice to start the feedback working in the other direction.
Another point is that a covering of ice would insulate the oceans. Since the thermal flux from the earth’s interior would stay the same, this would mean that the oceans would gradually warm.
Talking about big coldy coldy …
Here is true professionalism from the BBC – turning THIS into a story about global warming:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39254974
They dunno, but they’ll know anyway.
What many don’t mention about Tambora are the very cold conditions before as well as after that blow.
Mt Laki in 1783, long, basaltic and super dirty, spewed far more muck than anything since, and we’ve had some whoppers. India (and Australia) still sweltered and parched disastrously by the start of the 1790s.
Here in Oz we boiled the year after El Chichon…
Sure volcanoes affect weather in the short term. If it were possible to measure a global temp (maybe we can, but who cares?) I’m sure we’d see a down blip after a big blow.
Sorry, but I can’t help suspecting that volcanoes are pulled out of the Facile Explanation Drawer by a nervous climatariat to stop our minds from entertaining impure thoughts.
El Chicon only cooled the planet by about 1 degree F. That’s an average. If your area was scheduled for a heat wave, you still would have had a heat wave.
Whole of Oz baked in ’83. Maybe it would have been hotter without Chichon. Maybe. Trivial stuff.
The point is that volcanism has a bit of an effect on temps but it’s a pea-shooter compared to what brings on events like the 2200BC cooling and the LIA.
Mind you, judging by all the fuss from Eyjafjallajökull in 2010, another Laki would make a real mess, especially if its muck caught the jet stream to Europe the way Eyjafjallajökull did. A bit of short-term cooling would be the least of one’s worries. Amazingly, Decade Volcanoes etc are underfunded. I wonder where all the climate dough goes.
The largest glaciation event would be a once in a four billion year event. So the rest of their numbers have to be fact.
Or at least worthy of seaice1’s admiration because … wait for it…”Harvard”.
I don’t recall ever expressing admiration for Harvard.
The Paleoproterozoic Huronian Snowball Earth glaciation might have been bigger, which started about 2.35 Ga. So the Neoproterozoic Sturtian and other Cryogenian Period glaciations are actually the largest of the past more than two billion years, at least.
But maybe it’s like those 500 year floods which happen every century or so.
I’ve been fascinated with global glaciation since early on in my earth science studies, but had to focus on petroleum science to pay the bills.
But the fiction writing bug bit me a few years back… and…
While I’m aware of the impossibility of it happening, I wrote about a quickly occurring snowball earth event as the premise for a YA SciFi novel and published it early last month. (Yes, a climate fiction book unrelated to global warming hype) In the book, I give a different explanation for the original global glaciation events unrelated to any current theory, but that’s to support the fictional narrative of the story.
A geology question if I may.
For oceanic crust the average geothermal flux is ~100 mW/m^2. Given the accompanying geothermal gradient, how long would it take for the gradient to adjust to an overnight increase of the deep ocean temperature of eg 1K and re-establish the flux again?
Both the Precambrian Snowball Earth glacial periods occurred when supercontinents were breaking up:
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1674987112000898-fx1.jpg
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987112000898
Precambrian supercontinents, glaciations, atmospheric oxygenation, metazoan evolution and an impact that may have changed the second half of Earth history
Grant Young
Deposition of the banded iron formations (thanks to O2 released by cyanobacteria in the Oxygen Catastrophe) in the iron ore rich Mesabi Range and other features of the western Great Lakes region appears to have been ended by the Sudbury impact c. 1.8 Ga.
Sigh. Like an alcoholic pouring Gin on his breakfast cereal, they just can’t stop themselves reaching for the carbon dioxide.