<p>I understand that we are, in all likelihood, towards the end of an interglacial period (the holocene). What I'd like to know is, what has a stronger effect on global temperatures - the low point of the combined milankovich cycle, or CO2 levels of a certain amount (e.g. 600ppm, 1000ppm, etc)? </p>

<p>Could current greenhouse gas levels (around 410ppm) prevent us from entering the next glacial period, or will we enter it no matter what we do?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-24T15:08:28.370Z
We are already diverging from the what is expected from milankovitch cycle, https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
John
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-24T15:18:08.247Z
That is a strange comparison, considering the **rate** of predicted global temperature change. If that is in the order of degrees in maybe 200 years, versus a few degrees over 100000+ years, what's there to compare?
Jan Doggen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-24T20:21:21.217Z
@John - perhaps I'm missing something, but I didn't see anything in that link that's related to Milankovich cycles.
Mark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-24T22:14:19.290Z
"solar forcing" is the sum of the effects from the Milankovitch cycles
John
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-24T22:47:36.957Z
@JanDoggen, it is not a strange comparison - the low points of milankovich cycles and the high points of CO2 levels are essentially antagonistic in their effects of global temperatures - I was wondering what their relatives strengths were, which is not the same as rate of change
Amphibio
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-24T22:51:31.143Z
this video has some interesting info - C02 levels used to be about 1700ppm (?) 50 milllion years ago, and the earth didn't have glacial cycles and ice ages. The big sink of CO2 was apparently the rise of the himalayas and the tibetan plateau - india and china crashing into each other basically - and the carbonation of alll that exposed rock (around 19:30) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM
Amphibio
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-24T22:57:50.480Z
In summary, it seems the answer is 'yes', but only if CO2 levels are above a much higher amount, to escape the glaciation cycles...... anyone know what that amount is?
Amphibio
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-25T07:31:39.860Z
Well, as far as the impacts on the environment goes, the Milankovich cycles are irrelevant for us. So this makes it a theoretical question at best.
Jan Doggen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-18T04:39:29.080Z
The paper [discussed here](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35307800) says that, with pre-industrial CO2, Milankovich would be tipping us into a glaciation about now, but with anthro CO2 there will be no glaciation for 50,000 years. I don't think this is "settled science" yet, though.
Keith McClary
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-20T13:14:52.333Z
Jan, I don't think that entering into another ice age would be 'irrelevant'. The effect on human civilisation as it currently stands would be catastrophic.
Amphibio
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-20T13:17:31.107Z
Thanks Keith, that is very interesting. So it could be said that our CO2 impact as a species, at least up to this point, has done us a favour.
Amphibio
<atmosphere><climate-change><carbon-cycle><environmental-protection><milankovitch-cycles>
Can CO2 / greenhouse gas levels override the effects of milankovich cycles?
Amphibio
# Can CO2 / greenhouse gas levels override the effects of milankovich cycles?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-04-24)

I understand that we are, in all likelihood, towards the end of an interglacial period (the holocene). What I'd like to know is, what has a stronger effect on global temperatures - the low point of the combined milankovich cycle, or CO2 levels of a certain amount (e.g. 600ppm, 1000ppm, etc)?

Could current greenhouse gas levels (around 410ppm) prevent us from entering the next glacial period, or will we enter it no matter what we do?

**Tags:** atmosphere, climate-change, carbon-cycle, environmental-protection, milankovitch-cycles

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: We are already diverging from the what is expected from milankovitch cycle, https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm  
> **username_2**: That is a strange comparison, considering the **rate** of predicted global temperature change. If that is in the order of degrees in maybe 200 years, versus a few degrees over 100000+ years, what's there to compare?  
> **username_3**: @username_1 - perhaps I'm missing something, but I didn't see anything in that link that's related to Milankovich cycles.  
> **username_1**: "solar forcing" is the sum of the effects from the Milankovitch cycles  
> **username_0**: @username_2, it is not a strange comparison - the low points of milankovich cycles and the high points of CO2 levels are essentially antagonistic in their effects of global temperatures - I was wondering what their relatives strengths were, which is not the same as rate of change  
> **username_0**: this video has some interesting info - C02 levels used to be about 1700ppm (?) 50 milllion years ago, and the earth didn't have glacial cycles and ice ages. The big sink of CO2 was apparently the rise of the himalayas and the tibetan plateau - india and china crashing into each other basically - and the carbonation of alll that exposed rock (around 19:30) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM  
> **username_0**: In summary, it seems the answer is 'yes', but only if CO2 levels are above a much higher amount, to escape the glaciation cycles...... anyone know what that amount is?  
> **username_2**: Well, as far as the impacts on the environment goes, the Milankovich cycles are irrelevant for us. So this makes it a theoretical question at best.  
> **username_4**: The paper [discussed here](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35307800) says that, with pre-industrial CO2, Milankovich would be tipping us into a glaciation about now, but with anthro CO2 there will be no glaciation for 50,000 years. I don't think this is "settled science" yet, though.  
> **username_0**: Jan, I don't think that entering into another ice age would be 'irrelevant'. The effect on human civilisation as it currently stands would be catastrophic.  
> **username_0**: Thanks username_4, that is very interesting. So it could be said that our CO2 impact as a species, at least up to this point, has done us a favour.  

---

## 0 answers

