Has Earth Seen Its Last ‘Ice Age’?

By Ross Pomeroy

Hundreds of millions of Americans are presently besieged by a massive arctic blast and winter storm. Luckily for them, it will only be temporary. That wasn’t the case 20,000 years ago…

Between 26,500 to around 19,000 years ago, gargantuan glaciers covered around a quarter of Earth’s land area year round. Their frigid reach extended to the areas that are now Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, and Boston. The average global temperature was then about 46 degrees Fahrenheit (8 degrees Celsius), 11 degrees F (6 degrees C) cooler than the global annual average today. It was a chilly time to be alive.

And make no mistake, humans were alive. Though much of our species sheltered around the equator at the time, some did live in cooler regions such as central Europe, not far from the glaciers’ icy reach. Clothing, constructed dwellings, fire, and omnivory all helped our ancestors outlast the cold.

When that great freeze ended and the ice retreated about 11,700 years ago, then humanity really started to thrive. Buoyed by the warmth of the current “interglacial” period, humans have been able to propagate pretty much everywhere on the surface of Earth.

But what if this period of relative warmth we’ve enjoyed were to come to an end? What if Earth entered another “ice age”?

First off, Earth is technically in an ice age right now, defined as a time when both of the planet’s poles are covered with ice. What people actually mean when they talk about an “ice age” is a “glacial period.” This is when the ice at the poles creeps toward the equator. These glaciers reflect the sun’s rays back into space, making the Earth colder, which allows the glaciers to spread further, which chills the Earth even more – a positive feedback loop.

Glacial periods are initially triggered by subtle changes in Earth’s orbit as well as its tilt and wobble. These factors collectively affect how much solar radiation the Earth receives. Such changes are cyclic and predictable, which means that we have the ability to gauge when another glacial period is on the way. So when will that be?

Current estimates suggest that we have at least 10,000 more years of relative warmth, and perhaps as many as 200,000. Why the wide range? Because we are ourselves drastically altering the climate by burning fossil fuels. The more we burn, the longer we delay the next glacial period.

In a study published in December, a team of researchers estimated that under current conditions, the next ice age is expected 50,000 years into the future. If we emit twice as much carbon as we have so far, which we’re on pace to do in the next five decades, the next ice age will begin in 100,000 years. The researchers say we could delay glaciation by up to 200,000 years from present, but by then an ice age is likely unavoidable.

Professor Andreas Born at the University of Bergen’s Department of Earth Science isn’t so sure. 

“If a new ice age were to come, cities like Oslo, Stockholm, and Chicago would be covered by several thousand metres of ice. In that case, it’s probably highly unlikely that humans would allow this to happen again, as long as there’s a society,” he told ScienceNorway. “That could mean that the last ice age was actually the last ice age.”

Over the next tens of thousands of years, it’s reasonable to assume that humanity will have pioneered numerous ways to geoengineer the planet’s climate on rapid timescales, so another ice age could very well be preventable. But if not, humans will likely have hundreds or even thousands of years to adapt as polar ice returns to claim the land at lower latitudes. It won’t appear as suddenly as America’s current cold snap.

This article was originally published by RealClearScience and made available via RealClearWire.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
4.3 4 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
14 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scarecrow Repair
January 29, 2026 6:09 am

Over the next tens of thousands of years, it’s reasonable to assume that humanity will have pioneered numerous ways to geoengineer the planet’s climate on rapid timescales, so another ice age could very well be preventable. But if not, humans will likely have hundreds or even thousands of years to adapt as polar ice returns to claim the land at lower latitudes. It won’t appear as suddenly as America’s current cold snap.

My first reaction is to agree, because I’ve always thought this. But considering how badly politicians have panicked the populace into the last 30-40 years of climate catastrophe hand-wringing and wasting so much money and resources to make life worse and stall innovation, I have zero doubt that politicians will eff things up even worse in the future.

January 29, 2026 6:10 am

It is just a little ice age caused by the grand solar minimum (2020-2053) similar to that seen in 17 century which was called Maunder minimum https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243

Bob Weber
Reply to  Valery Smith
January 29, 2026 6:34 am

Don’t be silly, we are not in a grand solar minimum now, not even close.

Even the previous solar cycle #24, the lowest cycle in 100 years at the time, was more powerful than the Dalton Minimum of the early 1800s, which was still far and away more active than the Maunder Minimum. The Maunder was also entered into gradually, so don’t expect a sudden fall before 2053. Some have predicted higher solar activity into the 2050s.

comment image

Longer-term orbital factors aren’t the only condition for ice grown. The Little Ice Age has been attributed to low solar activity before and during the Maunder Minimum. Of course the LIA was a blip compared to previous longer glacial periods, real ice ages.

It is just a matter of time before the next grand solar minimum occurs, several are likely before the next orbital-induced, more widespread glaciation. Ten thousand more years would be a long time to go without a GSM.

LT3
January 29, 2026 6:19 am

I do not agree, if it never warms above freezing in Kamchatka, what can technology do about that? Evacuate people and move them to a place that is not inundated with several meters of snow and ice. It is not known what has caused the warming, and it is highly likely that it is not natural, point being that there is so much ignorance of how Earth’s climate works on both sides of the fence, how could you postulate that humanity will master it one day, when everyone is clueless.

Reply to  LT3
January 29, 2026 6:56 am

“it is highly likely that it is not natural, point being that there is so much ignorance of how Earth’s climate works on both sides of the fence”

With all that supposed ignorance on both sides of the fence, what makes you conclude it’s not natural? You know more than everyone else?

SxyxS
Reply to  LT3
January 29, 2026 7:04 am

That’s the thing.

Lack of energy is almost always the problem,
not the abudance of it.
While we can succeed in blocking the sun in terms of warming, countering a new ice age will be almost impossible, as we can not produce(nor direct) the needed energy, if we don’t do a significant jump on the Kardashev scale – and this scale is pure fantasy.

Sparta Nova 4
January 29, 2026 6:22 am

“a positive feedback loop”

I will be delighted the first time someone properly uses the term feedback, not this social/common context driven definition, but the control theory definition.

I will be delighted the first time someone properly uses the expression feedback loop, not this social/common context driven definition, but the control theory definition.

The incoming solar EM energy reflecting off ice or water or anything else is not a positive feedback loop by the concise definitions in control theory.

Define the loop in this context. A loop is a transfer function from input to output and with a transfer function from output fed back to input.

By using the lexicon of the trans-reality alarmists, we are granting them unearned credibility.

Tom Halla
January 29, 2026 6:28 am

The irony is that if the “global warming” models are correct, and GHGs are really the control over temperature, the only real dispute is over whether warming is a benefit or a detriment.
The hysteria is over a supposition that any warming from the Little Ice Age is tantamount to Armageddon.

January 29, 2026 6:46 am

Maybe 🤔😏

January 29, 2026 6:54 am

When the glaciers advance again, the greens will be begging us to burn as much coal as possible.

Bryan A
January 29, 2026 7:01 am

If some Scientist, aided by modeling, is saying our alterations of the atmosphere could stave off the effects of the next negative turn in the Milankovitch Cycles (the next glaciation) then basically were screwed and the ice is already on the march.

Allen Pettee
January 29, 2026 7:09 am

I’m not convinced humanity will be around in 1000’s of years to test this. Why? Just look at global fertility rates, most of the world is well below replacement.

Reply to  Allen Pettee
January 29, 2026 7:33 am

” Just look at global fertility rates, most of the world is well below replacement.

Google says the birth rate in Islam is dropping. Having just been there, Egypt & Jordan have a lot of kids running around with pregnant mothers.

January 29, 2026 7:12 am

“Because we are ourselves drastically altering the climate by burning fossil fuels. The more we burn, the longer we delay the next glacial period.”

It would be a nice “save” if this were physically possible, but the influence of incremental CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is not up to the job of “altering the climate.” This is because the computed increase in the atmosphere’s static IR absorbing power is massively overwhelmed by dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation. The modelers know this.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=drive_link

Thank you for listening.