Can I see these (Milankovitch) cycles on a timeline...
Absolutely — you can see Milankovitch cycles on a timeline, and scientists routinely plot them over the past and future million years. Since you asked for a timeline rather than an image, I’ll give you a clear, structured, text‑based timeline that shows how each cycle evolves and where we are within it, grounded in the sources retrieved.
Below is a synthesized timeline based on the orbital‑element data described in the scientific literature, including the VSOP model referenced in the search results.
🌍 Milankovitch Cycles on a Timeline (Past → Present → Future)
This timeline shows the approximate phases of each cycle over the last 200,000 years and the next 100,000 years — the range most relevant for glacial–interglacial transitions.
1. Eccentricity (100,000‑year cycle)
Controls: How circular or elliptical Earth’s orbit is.
Timeline
Interpretation
We are in a low‑eccentricity phase, which naturally favors cooling, not warming.
2. Obliquity (41,000‑year cycle)
Controls: The angle of Earth’s axial tilt.
Timeline
Interpretation
We are in a low‑eccentricity phase, which naturally favors cooling, not warming.
2. Obliquity (41,000‑year cycle)
Controls: The angle of Earth’s axial tilt.
Timeline
Interpretation
Precession is currently in a cooling‑favoring configuration.
🌡️ Putting All Three Cycles Together on a Timeline
Past 200,000 years
Eccentricity peaked ~125k years ago → strong precession → warm Eemian interglacial.
Obliquity high → strong seasons.
Combined forcing produced major glacial–interglacial swings.
Today
All three cycles are aligned in a way that should produce long‑term cooling:
Low eccentricity
Decreasing tilt
NH summer at aphelion
This matches the scientific consensus that Milankovitch forcing today is weak and trending toward glaciation, not warming.
Next 50,000–100,000 years
Eccentricity will remain low for tens of thousands of years.
Tilt will reach its minimum in ~10,000 years.
Precession will shift NH summer toward perihelion in ~11,000 years, temporarily increasing summer insolation — but eccentricity will still be low, so the effect is muted.
🧭 How to Interpret This Timeline
Natural orbital forcing is currently weak and cooling‑oriented.
Without human influence, Earth would be slowly trending toward the next glacial period.
Modern warming cannot be explained by these cycles, because they are all in phases that reduce solar forcing.
If you want, I can also:
show a combined insolation curve (text‑based) for 65°N,
map future glacial timing scenarios,
or give you a simplified ASCII diagram of the cycles over time.
Show me how they combine mathematically to produce insolation curves at 65°N...
If you’d like, next step could be:
we walk through a single time slice (e.g., Last Glacial Maximum vs today) and compare the terms numerically, or conceptually decompose a published 65°N insolation curve into its 41k vs 23k vs 100k components.
What is bothering me: the planet moving around is a geometry problem, but also a physics one. Surely the tweeks cannot be cleanly cumulative...
You’re tugging on exactly the right thread—this isn’t just a neat geometric overlay; it’s a dynamical system with interference, feedbacks, and approximations baked in.
Let’s separate the layers.
1. The orbit itself: not three knobs, but one evolving trajectory
Physics first:
Earth’s motion is governed by Newtonian gravity (plus small relativistic corrections) in an N‑body system (Sun, planets, Moon). The “three Milankovitch cycles” are not three independent dials; they’re ways of describing how a single, physically determined orbit evolves over time.
Eccentricity, obliquity, precession are orbital elements, not causes.
They’re extracted from a full dynamical solution and then treated as slowly varying parameters.
The cycles appear because the gravitational problem has characteristic frequencies—resonances, beats, and quasi‑periodic terms.
So the physics is solved first; the “three cycles” are a compressed description of that solution.
4. Where “not cleanly cumulative” really bites: climate response
If you want the place where your intuition is most right, it’s not the orbital mechanics, it’s the climate system’s response:
Ice sheets, oceans, CO₂, vegetation, albedo, circulation → all nonlinear, thresholdy, hysteretic.
The same insolation pattern can produce different outcomes depending on initial conditions and internal feedbacks.
That’s why the 100k glacial cycle is not a simple mirror of the 100k eccentricity cycle—eccentricity is weak; the big response is a nonlinear climate system reacting to a modulated precession/obliquity signal.
So:
Insolation decomposition ≈ quasi‑linear, geometric.
Climate response ≈ strongly nonlinear, path‑dependent.
5. A cleaner way to phrase it
Instead of:
“Three cycles tweak the orbit and their effects add up.”
It’s more accurate to say:
“The N‑body gravitational system produces a quasi‑periodic evolution of Earth’s orbit and spin.
When you project that evolving orbit onto high‑latitude, seasonal insolation, you can approximate the result as a superposition of a few dominant frequencies (obliquity, precession, eccentricity).
The climate system then responds to that combined insolation signal in a nonlinear, feedback‑rich way.”
Your discomfort is basically a good physics instinct: the “three cycles” story is a compressed, pedagogical view of a much more entangled dynamical system.
If you want to go one level deeper, we could pick one: e.g., how precession frequencies arise from torques by Sun + Moon on an oblate Earth, and how that couples to orbital eccentricity.
Could you map future glacial timing scenarios...
Here’s the big picture: orbital forcing alone would very likely bring the next glacial inception within ~50,000 years, but anthropogenic CO₂ can delay that by tens of thousands of years or more. Let’s map that explicitly.
1. What “natural” glacial timing looks like
If you strip out human influence and just run an Earth system model with orbital forcing plus internal feedbacks:
Result: glacial inception is expected around 50,000 years from now.
Why not sooner? Because:
Eccentricity is low for the next tens of kyr → weak precession forcing.
Obliquity is heading toward its minimum → cooling tendency, but not yet in a configuration that strongly triggers ice growth.
So the “natural” expectation is: a long interglacial, then gradual inception near the next favorable orbital configuration.
This lines up with generalized Milankovitch theory work (Ganopolski and others) that explicitly couples ice sheets, CO₂, and orbital forcing.
2. How anthropogenic CO₂ shifts that timing
The key physical point: ice‑age inception is exquisitely sensitive to summer insolation + background greenhouse level. Raise CO₂ enough, and even “glaciation‑friendly” orbital states can’t grow large ice sheets.
Recent modeling (Earth system models with dynamic ice sheets and interactive CO₂) finds:
Historical emissions only (~500 PgC):
Do not strongly delay glacial inception.
Inception still occurs around 50,000 years from now, close to the natural case.
Roughly double that (~1000 PgC total):
Pushes the system out of the glaciation window for the next favorable orbital configuration.
Delays inception by another ~50,000 years, to roughly 100,000 years from now.
Beyond that, higher and more persistent CO₂ levels can:
Keep the climate in an interglacial‑like state through multiple precession/obliquity cycles,
Meaning no large Northern Hemisphere ice sheets for >100 kyr, depending on how long CO₂ stays elevated.
3. How this ties back to the cycles you’ve been dissecting
From the orbital side alone:
Over the next 100 kyr, we’ll pass through:
A tilt minimum in ~10 kyr, then rising again (obliquity cycle).
Several precession phases where NH summer lines up more with perihelion (stronger summers).
Slowly changing, still‑low eccentricity, so precession forcing remains modest.
In a pure Milankovitch‑only world, the combined insolation at 65°N eventually crosses the threshold where:
NH summer insolation weakens enough,
Ice sheets can start to grow and persist,
Feedbacks (albedo, CO₂ drawdown, circulation changes) amplify that into a full glacial.
Anthropogenic CO₂ effectively raises that threshold:
The same insolation curve that would have triggered glaciation under preindustrial CO₂ now just produces a cooler interglacial, not a full ice age.
Only when orbital forcing becomes strongly glaciation‑favorable again (tens of kyr later) does the system cross the new, higher threshold.
4. The cleanest way to phrase the future
If you want a one‑line, physically honest summary:
Without human emissions, the next glacial inception would likely occur in ~50,000 years; with substantial anthropogenic CO₂, models suggest it can be delayed by at least one full orbital “opportunity,” pushing glaciation out toward ~100,000 years or more, depending on how much carbon we emit and how long it lingers.
If you’d like to go more granular, we can sketch a “timeline” of orbital states vs. glaciation windows—e.g., which future precession/obliquity combinations would normally be glaciation candidates and how CO₂ changes their fate.
Short answer: no, not yet—based on current best estimates, we haven’t emitted enough CO₂ to push the next ice age out to ~100,000 years.
Here’s the clean version.
Where we are relative to glacial delay
Historical emissions so far: roughly 500 PgC (petagrams of carbon) since industrialization.
Earth system simulations (with dynamic ice sheets + interactive CO₂) find that:
With natural conditions (no human CO₂), glacial inception would likely occur in about 50,000 years.
With ~500 PgC (roughly today’s cumulative emissions), glacial inception timing is not significantly delayed—it still occurs near that ~50,000‑year mark.
With ~1000 PgC (about double today’s cumulative emissions), the next glacial inception is delayed by about another 50,000 years, i.e., pushed out toward ~100,000 years from now.
So the “push it to ~100,000 years” regime corresponds to substantially more carbon than we’ve already emitted, and it assumes that a large fraction of that CO₂ (or its climatic effect) persists on multi‑tens‑of‑thousands‑of‑years timescales.
How to interpret that physically
There’s a critical relationship between:
Summer insolation at 65°N, and
Background CO₂ level,
that determines whether ice sheets can nucleate and grow (glacial inception) or not.
Today’s CO₂ has already prevented glacial inception under the current very low‑insolation configuration (we “should” be close to glaciation by orbital criteria alone), but:
That’s about avoiding an ice age now,
Not yet about skipping the next major glaciation window 50 kyr from now.
To skip that future window, models suggest you need higher and/or more persistent CO₂ than today’s level.
Direct answer in your terms
Have we already locked in a 100,000‑year delay?
→ No, not according to current modeling.
Are we high enough to suppress glaciation now and for some tens of thousands of years?
→ Yes—today’s CO₂ is already sufficient to keep us out of glacial inception under present orbital conditions.
If you’d like, we can sketch a “phase diagram” style view: insolation on one axis, CO₂ on the other, and where today’s climate sits relative to the glacial–interglacial bifurcation line.
Ice Ages don't happen overnight: what is inception?
Here’s the clean, geologically accurate meaning of glacial inception — and why it’s very different from “an ice age starting overnight.”
❄️ What Glacial Inception Actually Means
Glacial inception is the beginning of the long, slow process by which permanent Northern Hemisphere ice sheets start to grow again.
It is not:
the sudden onset of an ice age
a rapid global freeze
anything noticeable on human timescales
Instead, it is the moment when summer warmth becomes insufficient to melt all winter snow at high northern latitudes (especially Canada and Siberia). That leftover snow persists year‑round, thickens, and begins the multi‑millennial climb toward continental ice sheets.
🧊 What happens during glacial inception?
1. Snow survives the summer
This is the key threshold. If summer insolation at ~65°N is low enough, winter snow doesn’t fully melt.
2. Snow compacts into firn, then ice
Over centuries, persistent snow layers compress into glacial ice.
3. Ice sheets begin to expand
Small patches of permanent snow become:
local ice caps
regional ice fields
eventually continental ice sheets (Laurentide, Fennoscandian)
4. Feedbacks kick in
Once inception begins, several amplifiers accelerate cooling:
Ice–albedo feedback: more ice → more sunlight reflected → cooler climate
CO₂ drawdown: oceans absorb more CO₂ as they cool
Circulation changes: altered jet streams and ocean currents reinforce cooling
But all of this unfolds over thousands to tens of thousands of years.
🕰️ Timescale: How long from inception to full ice age?
A full glacial maximum (like 20,000 years ago) typically takes:
~10,000–20,000 years after inception
So even if glacial inception began tomorrow (it won’t), the world would not be in a full ice age for many millennia.
🌍 Why this matters for your earlier questions
You were absolutely right to sense that:
Milankovitch cycles are geometric and physical
Their effects are not “cleanly cumulative”
Ice ages are not triggered by a single orbital switch
Glacial inception is the threshold crossing, not the ice age itself.
And today’s CO₂ levels have already prevented inception under the current orbital configuration — which, by natural cycles alone, should be favorable to cooling.
But we have not yet emitted enough CO₂ to skip the next major inception window 50,000 years from now.
If you want, I can map:
the exact insolation threshold for inception
how CO₂ shifts that threshold
or how inception unfolded in past cycles (e.g., MIS 5d, MIS 7, MIS 9)
Just tell me where you want to go next.
Let's say we all think pushing the next inception to 100,000 years is a good idea; and we keep pumping the necessary CO2 into the atmosphere... how bad could the weather get?
Good, this is the right uncomfortable question to ask.
If we deliberately keep CO₂ high enough to push the next glacial inception out to ~100,000 years, we’re talking about a multi‑degree, multi‑millennial hothouse, not just “a bit warmer and no ice ages.”
Here’s a grounded sketch of “how bad the weather gets” in that kind of world.
1. Rough warming levels we’re implicitly talking about
To delay glaciation to ~100,000 years, studies point to roughly double today’s cumulative emissions (~1000 PgC), with elevated CO₂ persisting for tens of thousands of years. That’s broadly in the 3–4 °C+ warming range relative to pre‑industrial, depending on Earth system sensitivity and feedbacks.
At those levels, the background climate looks like this:
No large Northern Hemisphere ice sheets for at least one full extra orbital “opportunity”
Sea level many meters higher (eventually tens of meters over millennia as Greenland + parts of Antarctica respond)
Global patterns of heat, rainfall, and circulation fundamentally reorganized
The “weather” you feel is that background state plus amplified extremes.
2. What “bad weather” means in a 3–4 °C+ world
Not: constant apocalypse.
Yes: a world where extremes are so frequent and intense that they reshape infrastructure, agriculture, and habitability.
Key features:
Heat extremes
Far more frequent and intense heatwaves; what is “rare” now becomes common.
Wet‑bulb temperatures in some regions approach or exceed human physiological limits for unprotected outdoor work.
Precipitation and storms
More intense downpours and flood events as a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture.
Stronger tropical cyclones on average, with heavier rainfall.
Longer, deeper droughts in some mid‑latitude and subtropical regions.
Cryosphere and sea level
Near‑complete loss of summer Arctic sea ice; major glacier retreat globally.
Multi‑meter sea‑level rise over centuries, continuing for millennia—locking in chronic coastal flooding and eventual relocation of many coastal cities.
Ecosystems and food
Large‑scale biome shifts (e.g., forest → savannah in some regions).
More frequent crop failures from heat, drought, and extreme rainfall clustering.
For a place like southern Quebec, that translates to:
Hotter, longer summers with more frequent dangerous heatwaves.
Heavier rain events and flood risk, but also higher odds of summer drought spells.
Winter still exists, but is shorter, with more freeze–thaw, rain‑on‑snow, and ice‑storm type events.
3. The multi‑millennial part: why this isn’t just “2100 is rough”
To hold off glaciation for ~100,000 years, you’re not just spiking CO₂ and then letting it drop—you’re effectively committing to:
Elevated greenhouse forcing over many tens of thousands of years, because:
A big chunk of CO₂ persists in the atmosphere–ocean–biosphere system for 10⁴–10⁵ years.
Ice sheets, sea level, and ecosystems respond on those same timescales.
So the question becomes less “how bad is the weather?” and more:
What does a permanently de‑glaciated, high‑CO₂ Earth look like as the new normal?
Answer: a planet with:
No large Northern Hemisphere ice sheets
Much higher seas
A poleward‑shifted storm track and climate zones
A biosphere and human system that have been forced to reorganize around chronic extremes
4. The trade‑off in plain language
You’re basically proposing a bargain:
Avoid future ice sheets (no new Laurentide over Quebec, no kilometer‑thick ice crushing Montreal in 60,000 years),
In exchange for locking in a hot, high‑energy climate system with:
More violent hydrological cycles,
Higher baseline temperatures,
Long‑lived sea‑level rise,
And a lot more “weird weather” as the default, not the exception.
From a physics standpoint, that’s coherent. From a lived‑experience standpoint, it’s a choice to trade slow, distant glaciation risk for near‑term and long‑term chronic climate stress.
If you want to push this further, we could:
Sketch a “glaciation vs hothouse” phase diagram (CO₂ vs insolation),
Or zoom in on what a 3–4 °C world specifically means for eastern Canada’s seasons, agriculture, and infrastructure.
No comments:
Post a Comment