Possibly. Indeed in the late ’60s and early ’70s there was actually concern that the input of aerosols into the atmosphere due to industrial pollution was accelerating the onset of the next ice age. At this point in (scientific) history, it was becoming clear that the Pleistocene ice-age cycles were driven (or at least paced) by orbital variations. The implication was clear even then: we should have been on our way into the next ice age. And this concern was part of what drove the development of climate models to investigate the radiative impact of aerosols. And of course the radiative impact of the CO2 that accompanied them could not be ignored either. One key insight from understanding both radiative physics and atmospheric chemistry of aerosols and CO2 was that the sulfate aerosols were relatively short-lived in the atmosphere whereas the CO2 would persist for centuries or more.

There were papers, symposia, and a number of articles in the popular media (Time, Saturday Review, etc.) talking about the possibility of a coming ice age. And remember that at the time, there had been a ~ 30-year cooling trend that began around the late ’30s-early ’40s.

From this perspective global warming would indeed look like a “net positive.”

If we take the long view is it likely that “short-circuiting” the next glacial cycle could turn out to be net positive? I guess the bottom line is as you said “time will tell”.

The magnitude of “what we don’t know” is what compels me to focus on seeking out “no regrets policies”. We don’t know how GHG and future glaciation will interact over the range of plausible GHG concentrations. We don’t know what future glaciation will look like if GHG concentrations were held constant at any given value.

I do wish the scientific advocates would begin to give a balanced view of the priorities for both management and mitigation. A big investment in management is going to be required regardless of GHG concentrations over next 200 hundred years, and similar to mitigation, is much cheaper when addressed sooner.

Howard, W. R., 1997, A warm future in the past: Nature, v. 388, p. 418-419.

The other problem, more difficult to assess, is that the Pleistocene cycles Chapman is referring to occurred in a context of atmospheric CO2 and CH4 (methane) varying (cyclically) in a band which we have now exceeded by about the amplitude of those cycles. So we may be dealing with different boundary conditions than those associated with the glacial-interglacial cycles. There are a variety of views of how, or if, our addition of GHGs may have forestalled the next glaciation.

For a fairly accessible treatment of this question, see Bill Ruddiman’s Scientific American article:

Ruddiman, W. F., 2005, How did humans first alter global climate?: Scientific American, p. 46-53.
Free preview online at: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-did-humans-first-alte

For more scientifically detailed treatment see Bill’s “Overdue Glaciation” paper:

Ruddiman, W. F., Vavrus, S. J., and Kutzbach, J. E., 2005, A test of the overdue-glaciation hypothesis: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 24, p. 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2004.07.010

or

Dave Archer’s “Moveable Trigger” paper:

Archer, D., and Ganopolski, A., 2005, A movable trigger: Fossil fuel CO2 and the onset of the next ice age: Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, v. 6, p. Q05003. doi:10.1029/2004GC000891

Both Dave and Bill make the case that we already have or soon will, “short-circuit” the next glacial cycle with GHGs. Time will tell.