This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Geology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment Mid‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Climate change Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

To-do list for Snowball Earth: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2007-05-05 This 'To Do' list contains suggestions that should be addressed before nominating this article for Good Article status. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : List of references at end of article should be linked to from the main text. A 'recommended reading' section may be helpful to include comprehensive references. Copyedit : :The article varies in tone and style from over-casual to very scientific. Grammar is questionable in places. Aim for consistency! There's a lot of editing required to successfully meet clause 1 - 'well written'. Check that the article is compliant with the Wikipedia style guidelines. NPOV : *The article should go further to address both points of view. Verify : All statements should be sourced - try Google Scholar. If it's not possible to source them, consider removal.

Some have claimed that his article is POV-ridden, but I personally find it to go beyond that. The intro and first two chapters is not trying to convince the reader about the validity of this hypothesis, it takes it for granted, and present it more or less as a fact. To the extent of my knowledge is there no consensus regarding this hypothesis, and the article ought to reflect that. --Sparviere (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article begins by identifying this as a hypothesis. As I read it now there is no implication that this hypothesis is widely accepted. The Introduction should describe the hypothesis and characterize its status within the scientific community or within the history of scientific knowledge. As it stands the Introduction is already a mess due to the overeagerness of critical editors to blurt out detailed counterpoints and objections before we've even had a discussion of the hypothesis, its history, and the evidence for it, if any. This hyper-critical approach has already left us with a schizophrenic Introduction. Let's exercise some patience and let the article unfold as it would in a classroom or traditional reference book article. 75.73.91.254 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The geological community generally accepts this hypothesis" Got a reference for this statement? A quick google scholar search of "snowball earth diachronous" will show several hundred counter arguments. Cwmagee (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the party, but yes, that was a ridiculous statement to have had in the article. 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:99C9:143E:34DB:FD6C (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently lists the date of creation of the term "snowball Earth" as 1992, based on the publication of Kirschvink (1992)^[1] but this article^[2] that interviews Paul Hoffman says Kirschvink came up with it in 1989 and that seems to be a pretty reputable source. Is that sufficient to change the date listed in the article? This article^[3] also says 1989 but I'm not sure if that's more convincing since (1) it's written by the same author as the previous article and (2) the source listed in this article is snowballearth.org^[4] and thus a self-published primary source. Thoughts? - Procyonidae (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a snowball earth was defeated in a paper: Comment on ‘The Neoproterozoic (1000-540 Ma) glacial intervals: No more snowball earth?’ by Joseph G. Meert and Rob van der Voo Author links open overlay panelGeorge E.Williamsa1Phillip W.SchmidtbBrian J.J.Embletonc, where it wa shown that all the paleomagnetic data was in error and so, no snowball earth. 76.68.129.192 (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The carbon dioxide levels necessary to thaw Earth have been estimated as being 350 times what they are today, about 13% of the atmosphere." - It isn't clear to me that this kind of CO2 concentration is possible in Antarctic conditions. As you increase the partial-pressure of CO2, the freezing-point of the gas increases, such that at 1 atmosphere it lifts to just -78C. Antarctica can reach -90C. Thus as more CO2 is put into the atmosphere in very cold conditions, it is immediately removed by solidification and no more stays in the atmosphere. Fig (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]