New Scientist: CO2 Emissions have Delayed the Next Glacial Period

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… We might even be currently living at what would have been the onset of this next glacial period …”

We now know how much emissions have delayed the next glacial period

Changes in Earth’s orbit drive long-term glacial cycles, but a new forecast suggests this ancient pattern is being disrupted for tens of thousands of years due to human-induced global warming

By James Dinneen
27 February 2025

Where previous studies tried to link changes in orbit to specific periods like the onset of an ice age, Stephen Barker at Cardiff University, UK and his colleagues took a new tack. They looked at the overall patterns of how glacial periods, also called ice ages, fade and return during the intervening “interglacials”. This enabled them to link changes in orbit with changes in ice – despite fuzziness in the ice record over the past million years.

The phasing of obliquity and precession that preceded the Holocene suggests glaciation would be likely to be well underway between 4300 and 11,100 years from now. We might even be currently living at what would have been the onset of this next glacial period. “Of course, that’s only in a natural scenario,” says Barker.

The more than 1.5 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide humans have emitted into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution are expected to cause enough warming to disrupt this long-term glacial cycle.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2470262-we-now-know-how-much-emissions-have-delayed-the-next-glacial-period/

The abstract of the study;

Distinct roles for precession, obliquity, and eccentricity in Pleistocene 100-kyr glacial cycles

STEPHEN BARKERLORRAINE E. LISIECKIGREGOR KNORRSOPHIE NUBER AND POLYCHRONIS C. TZEDAKIS

Abstract

Identifying the specific roles of precession, obliquity, and eccentricity in glacial-interglacial transitions is hindered by imprecise age control. We circumvent this problem by focusing on the morphology of deglaciation and inception, which we show depends strongly on the relative phasing of precession versus obliquity. We demonstrate that although both parameters are important, precession has more influence on deglacial onset, whereas obliquity is more important for the attainment of peak interglacial conditions and glacial inception. We find that the set of precession peaks (minima) responsible for terminations since 0.9 million years ago is a subset of those peaks that begin (i.e., the precession parameter starts decreasing) while obliquity is increasing. Specifically, termination occurs with the first of these candidate peaks to occur after each eccentricity minimum. Thus, the gross morphology of 100-thousand-year (100-kyr) glacial cycles appears largely deterministic.

Read more: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp3491

I’m a bit suspicious about claims elevated CO2 levels have disrupted the natural glaciation cycle, because there is no need for the CO2 to be transformed into something else in order to affect a radical change in atmospheric CO2 content.

The amount of CO2 dissolved in sea water is 16x greater than all the CO2 in the air, so current atmospheric CO2 levels are insignificant compared to total ocean CO2 content, even when you include all the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere.

CO2 solubility in water changes rapidly with changing ocean temperature. If Milankovitch insolation changes were to cool a large patch of sea water, the atmospheric CO2 level would plummet, just like it did during the last glacial maximum. A cooler ocean would have no trouble swallowing anthropogenic CO2 in addition to natural CO2, because the carrying capacity of the ocean is so much greater than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Let’s hope the coal doesn’t run out. We might need it.

4.8 33 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

79 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ed Zuiderwijk
March 3, 2025 7:01 am

If we would tomorrow burn all known fossil fuel reserves (if that would be possible and without a rampant biosphere gorging on it) the atmospheric CO2 content would triple or quadruple to 2000 ppm. That would raise the temperature at sea level by at most 2C. If the CO2 content would be a Precambrian 6000 ppm, it would reach at most 3C. Our contribution of 140 ppm to the earlier 280 ppm will stave off the next ice age? Don’t let me laugh.

Coeur de Lion
March 3, 2025 8:09 am

I’m enormously sceptical about any form of human influence on the climate. Forces much too huge . Why didn’t COVID deindustrialisation show up on the Keeling curve? Glaciers were melting in 1850.

MarkW
March 3, 2025 8:42 am

For years they have been denying the existence of the Little Ice Age. Now the story is that not only did the LIA exist, it would have kept going and gotten worse had mankind not started burning fossil fuels.
If that’s the case, Stopping the production of more CO2 would be the worst thing they could do for the climate.

Westfieldmike
March 3, 2025 11:33 am

So how come co2 has been much higher in the past?

Edward Katz
March 3, 2025 2:12 pm

All the more reason to ban electric vehicles, heat pumps, coal- and natural-gas fired energy generating stations as well as to demand that people fly to all destinations and consume more red meat. Without these efforts, we’re likely to be in the grip of a new Ice Age around 6300 A.D. and is it possible to prepare for it in the time period between now and then?

March 3, 2025 3:17 pm

I may have missed something, but there doesn’t seem to be any mention of how much “global warming” has supposedly delayed the onset of the next glaciation by. It’s due to start in earnest in the next 5-10k years, but will that be delayed by 20k years, or by 1 week, or 1 week +/- 20k years? These questions of magnitude do tend to matter somewhat.

Also….
“The more than 1.5 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide humans have emitted into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution are expected to cause enough warming to disrupt this long-term glacial cycle.”

Are they suggesting that the miniscule changes to climate so far observed would be sufficient to override the changes in orbital mechanics that drive the ~100k year glacial cycle? That’s just absurd.

observa
March 3, 2025 4:08 pm

Fast currents or slow currents more sea evaporation or less you’re still all doomed-
Melting ice hits brake on world’s strongest sea current

Reply to  observa
March 5, 2025 7:27 am

If it’s “bad” it is caused by human-induced climate change. Regardless of the direction or magnitude.

If you believe that, I’ve got five bridges in NYC to sell you.

antcam
March 7, 2025 1:57 pm

If we have to worry about a change in climate, we should rather worry about the next glaciation, not 2 to 5°C warming. And if we could geoengineer earth to prevent bad climate, we should be pre-warming it ahead of the next glaciation. Oh, wait! That is what we are supposedly doing by warming globally by burning and emitting CO2!