Weird. Maybe, I've got a logical mistake in my thinking
Will #Steffen et al 2018 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1810141115 warned in "Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene" of a "Hot House Earth" .
A term that got negative press all over and the paper is still discredited in public opinion among the non-scientific community, at least.
A Hot House Age is merely the term for an ice-less age in which the poles are not covered by kilometres of ice. That is called an Ice House Age.
#Talento et al 2021 https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1275/2021/ modelled what happens to ice ages #glacial |s in several emission scenarios.
Today's CO2 concentration is already moving the next #iceage to later than what the #Milankovic cycles would dictate.
Scenarios for (in my opinion fictitious, unachievable) emissions of 1000 or 3000 Pg C move the next fullblown ice age to 600ky and 900ky from now.
Almost a million years. No ice age.
But the #AMOC is going to collapse: the convection in the Subpolar Gyre in the 2030s; the Northern branch of AMOC might tip before 2050 to later inevitably collapse, too.
Certainly that increases ice mass in Greenland, Europe, and Eurasia, and Arctic Sea Ice grows back, too. And all this AMOC-related ice grows and grows, each year puts more snow on the ever increasing ice layer.
I don't know how much ice is needed to meet criteria for a glacial definition.
But all that Eurasian ice also buries the boreal forests under it, ie removes their carbon from the cycle. And puts an ice plug on leaking methane from #permafrost in that area. (Tho not the permafrost in the far East. I gather, that area is not prone to ice sheets from Atlantic influences and needs other triggers to form? It wasn't covered by ice in #MIS11, 420ky ago. )
Weird isn't it, that ice mass models like Talento's don't factor in ever-increasing ice mass in low-to medium emission scenarios. Hm.