[Mike Darancette]

105,000 figures are very general and could have a 500-1,000 year error margin either way.

Physics being what it is I would think that a cycle based on planetary movement would be quite accurate.

[dirtboy]

Physics being what it is I would think that a cycle based on planetary movement would be quite accurate.

Climate being what it is, there often are lags for varying reasons. Plus the solar output isn't constant either, and that can affect the onset of cycles - the Little Ice Age was marked by hardly any observed sunspots during that time.

[Strategerist]

Physics being what it is I would think that a cycle based on planetary movement would be quite accurate.

The interrelation between the various Milankovitch cycles and their expression in earth temperatures is extremely complex. Can't really be used to predict future ice ages. One Science paper from 2002 predicted this interglacial would last another 50,000 years.

Anyway, the ideas that we're "overdue" for an ice age or that were going to have an ice age 7 years from now from this ridiculous forgery of an article are utter nonsense.