# The next Ice age has been postponed, or not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [July 13, 2015, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-next-ice-age-has-been-postponed-or-not/725007 "2015-07-13T03:03:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-next-ice-age-has-been-postponed-or-not/725007/81 "2015-07-27T08:02:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And as usual whoever pointed at that paper ignored several conclusions and common understanding of what CO2 is doing to the temperature of the earth: I pointed at that paper, and I ignored nothing. It seems, however, that everyone is misinterpreting the reason for me posting the link. I apologise for not being clear. So let me try to state this a little more clearly. 1/ Anthropogenic Global warming is real. 2/ If there were an imminent glaciation in the next few thousand years AGW would act to delay it, or prevent it altogether. 3/ The people who wrote the article and papers in my link have studied the Milankovitch cycles and indicate that the next major glaciation may be as much as 50,000 years from now. 4/ Therefore AGW will probably not act to delay the next glaciation, as there probably wont be any significant reserves of fossil fuels left in 50,000 years time. 5/ However, I should add, that not everyone agrees with Berger and Loutre; the exact effects of the Milankovitch cycles are not completely clear (unless I am mistaken). Nothing in this chain of reasoning “ignores several conclusions and common understanding of what CO2 is doing to the temperature of the earth”. Please don’t assume that any information about climate that might be mildly unexpected is necessarily being presented by a denier of AGW; this is definitely not the case. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-next-ice-age-has-been-postponed-or-not/725007/82 "2015-07-27T08:10:33Z")
Sorry- missed the edit window. I’m talking about the Berger and Loutre paper - you are talking about a different paper. Sorry; misread the thread. Carry on - don’t mind me ; I’m getting old. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-next-ice-age-has-been-postponed-or-not/725007/83 "2015-07-27T19:48:38Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Heh. 😃 And there’s [this](http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174)! Looked for it in vain on xkcd, but Google finally reminded me that I had seen it on phdcomics. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-next-ice-age-has-been-postponed-or-not/725007/84 "2015-07-27T21:01:19Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I wish I had a dime for every one of these “news reports” that takes a (possibly) legitimate incremental scientific advance and turns it into "NEWS FLASH!!! EARTHSHAKING SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH!!! Google shows 4 instances of “[EARTHSHAKING SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH](https://www.google.com/search?q=EARTHSHAKING+SCIENTIFIC+BREAKTHROUGH&rlz=1C1SKPC_enUS368&oq=EARTHSHAKING+SCIENTIFIC+BREAKTHROUGH&aqs=chrome..69i57.470j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=%22EARTHSHAKING+SCIENTIFIC+BREAKTHROUGH%22)”, one of which is this topic, so you would get 3 dimes, except none of the hits are news stories. So you get no dimes. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-next-ice-age-has-been-postponed-or-not/725007/85 "2015-07-28T00:11:24Z")
> [@eburacum45](#): > > Sorry- missed the edit window. > I’m talking about the Berger and Loutre paper - you are talking about a different paper. Sorry; misread the thread. > > Carry on - don’t mind me ; I’m getting old. No problem. As for the matter at hand, more serious conservative media is not falling for this item: > **[No, Sunspots Will Not Cause A New Ice Age](https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewfrancis/2015/07/17/no-sunspots-will-not-cause-a-new-ice-age/)** > > Solar activity isn't going to lead us into new Ice Age. > [@](#): > > The tl;dr version: the Sun is not the strongest driver of climate change on Earth, so any claim linking solar output to major changes in global temperatures should be taken with a big grain of salt. The point stands, the solar scientists may be correct about their model, correct about the conclusion about what the sun will do, but it remains mostly a magnetic issue, the attempt at making this a very important effect that will change the course of the currently observed global warming does not follow from the research that was done. And it is telling that the lead scientist had to backpedal and clarified that there was no mention in the research about any ice age coming soon. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-next-ice-age-has-been-postponed-or-not/725007/86 "2015-07-28T03:02:40Z")
> [@eburacum45](#): > > So let me try to state this a little more clearly. > > 1/ Anthropogenic Global warming is real. > 2/ If there were an imminent glaciation in the next few thousand years AGW would act to delay it, or prevent it altogether. > 3/ The people who wrote the article and papers in my link have studied the Milankovitch cycles and indicate that the next major glaciation may be as much as 50,000 years from now. > 4/ Therefore AGW will probably not act to delay the next glaciation, as there probably wont be any significant reserves of fossil fuels left in 50,000 years time. > 5/ However, I should add, that not everyone agrees with Berger and Loutre; the exact effects of the Milankovitch cycles are not completely clear (unless I am mistaken). I would suggest that the word `imminent` is misplaced. If AGW is imminent, then the next glaciation wouldn’t be. Yeah, `imminent` and `glaciers` don’t go together very well. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-next-ice-age-has-been-postponed-or-not/725007/87 "2015-07-28T04:13:29Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > How odd … > > [snip] > > Cold fusion _was_ published in a peer-reviewed publication … but point taken, _Science_ magazine is better viewed as commercial media on par with _SciAm_. It was published in a peer-reviewed paper, but then the media blew it way out of proportion for the ensuing scientific revolution it brought about. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I would suggest that the word `imminent` is misplaced. If AGW is imminent, then the next glaciation wouldn’t be. Yeah, `imminent` and `glaciers` don’t go together very well. He was saying that if the climate driving factors were otherwise driving for a glaciation, AGW would stop it. That’s all he meant by “imminent”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-next-ice-age-has-been-postponed-or-not/725007.md?page=4)