Reposted from the NoTricksZone
By P Gosselin on 29. May 2022
A recent flurry of scientific publications refute climate model claims of a weakening Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC).
The latest Klimaschau looks at the latest scientific findings on the Gulf Stream. An excellent review on the latest AMOC science. Here I present the results in English.
Climate panic-makers like the Potsdam Institute like to claim the Gulf Stream is showing ominous signs of slowing down and thus threatening to send Europe into a deep freeze. Their dodgy models have predicted a decline of its strength, due to anthropogenic climate warming.
Surprise: Gulf Stream has strengthened
But as the Klimaschau explains, lots of new findings show that the opposite in fact appears to be happening: “The Gulf Stream Extention has increased steadily over the last century…The heat transport into the Nordic Seas has increased steadily in volume and temperature over the last century.”
The press release reports that Lars H. Smedsrud, professor at UiB and researcher at the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, have examined 100 years of research results to see how the ocean transport has evolved.
The researchers were surprised to find such consistent results showing a steady increase, which entails that the Gulf Stream’s extension into the Nordic Seas “has strengthened”. With the surprising volume increase, the total heat transport has increased with 30 percent.
Smedsrud and his team examined changes in relation to ice melting in the Arctic, glacier melting on Greenland and CO2 uptake from the atmosphere.
“While we have expected an increase in temperature, there is nothing about global warming that would suggest an increase in volume transport. But the increase is consistent with both stronger winds and declining sea ice covers. In addition, we see an increase in the vertical and horizontal ocean circulation in the Nordic Seas and the Arctic,” the press release says. “How the ocean circulation will evolve in the future, is still uncertain.”
Another study: yet to find any slowdown
In another recent study by Canzos et al, 2022, titled: “Thirty Years of GOSHIP and WOCE Data: Atlantic Overturning of Mass, Heat, and Freshwater Transport“, the authors found that across-ocean systems monitoring the currents on the water column have yet to find any slowdown.
The authors analyzed hydrographic data collected for the last 30 years and built a model for each decade of the circulation of the Atlantic. Their results: They found “no changes in time in the Atlantic Ocean for each hydrographic section”.
This all contradicts claims by alarmist authors appearing in, for example, Nature which suggest the AMOC is weakening. The Rahmstorfian cherrypicked results were later challenged by Kilbourne et al, 2022.
AMOC highly variable
Yet another recent paper by Neil Fraser and Stuart Cunningham titled: “120 Years of AMOC Variability Reconstructed From Observations Using the Bernoulli Inverse” found lots of variability in the AMOC volumetric flowrate since 1900:
Image: Cropped from Klimaschau.
The authors say they were unable to find any significant AMOC weakening trend over the past 120 years, thus refuting the panic claims of Rahmstorf.
The missing AMOC weakening was also newly confirmed by a team of experts from Germany, Great Britain, France and the United States of America in an article in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. According to the GEOMAR press release: “The analyses show that the AMOC has weakened and strengthened repeatedly over the past decades. This appears to be mainly part of a natural change that recurs at the rate of several decades.” The researchers add they have been “unable to identify whether there is already an underlying longer-term weakening.”
More on this on Tuesday…stay tuned!
Should I cancel my Miami Beach vacation and re-schedule for England?
It would take a lot more than 30% to get me back in the North Sea, I’d stick to Miami if I were you.
The North Sea is not on the Gulf Stream, it is Cornwall, South Wales, Ireland and western Scotland.
And they’re still all bloody chilly!
You are too late. All that heat is gone into the night sky over the Arctic and we are cooling back down. But you can buy beach property cheap up there if you still choose to believe the AGW nonsense..
I think you might want to stick with tolerable heat rather than barely tolerable cold. On the cusp of June, we had sleet this morning on the North East coast of England. Any extra heat the gulf stream can send us would be most welcome. Cold is weather and heat is climate, and we have always been at war with Eastasia!
Not many guns in England.
this would be consistent with a warm European atlantic countries.
This is how the Earth’s climate works. Heat from the tropics (where more energy comes in than goes back into space) is transferred to the Poles, where more energy goes out than comes in.
In this way, the Earth maintains an equilibrium temperature.
The Arctic appears to be getting warmer, but in reality it just means that more heat escapes into space.
But you can’t make any money off a theory like that.
No sign of the Griff-ter. He’s ne3ver around for the actual sciency stuff.
As the mixed layer keeps shrinking, with the cold waters going down to the bottom of the ocean pushing up the warm layers thinning them – when this collapses and no more cold water going to the bottom and no warm waters being pushed to the poles, the push pull that happens will end and it will get cold again. Until enough warm water gets stored (like the Little Ice Age) with a deepening mixed layer to start the cycle again, slowly squeezing the mixed layer until the 90% cold water oceans(0-3 degrees) right now becomes enough to stop the cycle and we get into a deep ice age again.
Here is a chart of interest…
Getting chilly as time passes! Where’s the Gulf Stream increase when you need it
Gone to not-detrended downcycles everyone. Oh, when will they ever learn? Oh, when will they ever learn?
Gulf Stream safe if wind blows and Earth turns
Carl Wunsch 2004
Nothing more to say as answer 😀
No, that´s not how it works. The circulation is driven by the heat, not the cold. Heating at the equator-area drives the current to the pole, as long as it´s colder up north, it will continue. And it will always be colder in the arctic. It´s a very weird idea that a heat engine is driven by the cold reservoir and not the hot reservoir. It´s not called a cold engine, is it? Of course you need a temperature difference, a potential, but it´s the heat that drives it. And it´ll continue to run as long as there´s a delta T. It´s self regulating. Constant input from the sun means constant average temperature of the planet. With small oscillations around the average. Any hotspot is balanced by a coldspot. Any claims contrary to this means energy creation and that´s a physics abomination. After rain comes sunshine, after heat comes cold, and it´s anchored around the average Earth temperature, approximately 14C.
The findings of the head post are quite significant. The Arctic is where the anomalies have been affected the most. It is heat transport that is being recorded by the use of anomalies, not the warming of the planet.
This is emphasized by the short and abrupt anomaly impact, and next week its gone. The use of the anomaly record does not serve any real purpose other than identify a short term aberration. This is exacerbated by no one doing any follow up analysis on what actually happened to cause the anomaly. The blind have no chance of ever seeing reality.
Greenland ice melt is recorded in short bursts, as soon as the warm wind stops, the ice stops melting. Arctic Sea ice area is mostly affected by wind intrusion causing compaction and breakup, hence its rapid transition from a declining area to rapid increase during September. The warmer sea has the affect of weakening the ice from below.
Regards, and keep up the great work you do.
Exactly right, Paul.
Reduced sea ice coverage at extreme latitudes increases water evaporation, cooling the ocean by evaporative heat loss, but warming the air (“Arctic amplification”). W/r/t water temperature, is a negative (attenuating/stabilizing) feedback loop:
warmer water temp → less sea ice coverage → more evaporation → cooler water temp
Based on Nimbus-5 observations, Zwally, et al. 1983 reported that:
It’s an important effect, as the NSIDC explains:
In another article NSIDC says:
As you mention, the Earth’s polar regions have net-negative radiation budgets. That is, they radiate more energy than they absorb from sunlight. That is always the case in Antarctica, even in summer.
That’s also true in the Arctic, except for a brief period (about a month) near summer solstice, when the Sun is at its zenith, and solar radiation absorbed approximates or barely exceeds radiation emitted. That means reduced ice coverage increases radiant energy LEAVING the ocean MORE than it increases the amount of solar energy absorbed by it.
Increased evaporation also presumably increases the salinity of the upper layer of the ocean. Colder, saltier water is denser, so it seems plausible that reduced ice coverage near Greenland and Iceland could accelerate thermohaline circulation.
So, the ice acts as a negative feedback, slowing the heat loss from the warm water coming from the equator and tropical regions, right? Evaporation and cloud formation and thence thunderstorms act as a negative feedback to the ocean abdorbing too much heat, and the ice at the poles acts to slow the heat loss.
So there are natural brakes to any runaway climate condition. Is that correct?
Ice slows heat loss more than water? Really? Test that in a couple of buckets. Fill one with ice and one with water, stick one hand in each bucket and experience the difference in heat loss.
That’s not the scenario we’re talking about. You’re talking about transferring heat TO the water from something WARMER. We’re talking about the opposite: transferring heat FROM the water to something which is COLDER than the water..
The water can get no colder than about -2°C, and it is typically significantly warmer than that. The air, OTOH, is usually much colder than that.
If there’s an insulating layer of ice on the water, the top of the ice is usually much colder than the liquid seawater, and that cold surface cannot heat the air very much. But when there’s no ice, the air is in contact with constantly mixing liquid water, which is guaranteed to be warmer than -2°C. That much warmer (liquid) surface heats the air much more rapidly than a sheet of ice would.
Yes, PCman999, I agree.
“but warming the air”
Actually, evaporation of water drops both the temperature of the water surface AND the air. This is demonstrated in swamp coolers. Then the water molecules dump the heat away from the surface when condensing into clouds, and at the same time blocks solar heat from entering the system. Then the rain falls and the cold water cools the surface even more. The water cycle is cooling, from start to finish. We live on a water- and air-cooled planet. Self regulating.
“An evaporative cooler (also evaporative air conditioner, swamp cooler, swamp box, desert cooler and wet air cooler) is a device that cools air through the evaporation of water.”
Evaporative cooler – Wikipedia
That’s a different scenario. Swamp Coolers are for cooling hot air. They put water vapor into the air near what’s called the “web bulb temperature.” If the air temperature is high, and the humidity is low, the wet bulb temperature will be well below the air temperature, so putting that cool water vapor into the air has a cooling effect.
But those aren’t the conditions of our scenario. In the Arctic and Southern Oceans, the air is cold, not hot. It is usually well below freezing, and much colder than the water. So with open water you get substantial heat transfer from the warmer water to the colder air, and little cooling from the “swamp cooler effect.”
“Rahmstorfian”…. good one….right up there with “Mann-tastic”….
Well, shocked I am, shocked I tell you. Who ever would have imagined an increase in CO2 would not reduce the gulf stream to a mere trickle of heat. I am sure that nice Michael E Mann and that lovely Al Gore, told us we are affecting ocean circulation because some plant growth enabling CO2, has been increasing this past century.
It seemed so reasonable when they talked about it. I even went to have a final look at the snow with my children after Mann and Gore said “the children would not know what snow was”. I would have gone to have another look at the snow earlier this year, but could not get there because there was too much erm….snow? The best part of a generation has passed since they first alerted us to the, no more snow hypothesis….
You don’t think they might have been wrong do you?
I wonder why they thought that the poles warming up a little bit would shut down the Gilf Stream? Magical CO2 in their thinking would increase temps, more at the poles they say, than at the equator, but there would still be a huge delta in temps between them and the co2 would help the current to stay warm until it got to the poles – at least following the logical conclusions of their theology.
The warmunists aren’t even consistent in their beliefs
Oh and I forgot, extra CO2 at the poles would enhance COOLING at the poles, by increasing radiation out to space. Heat can’t be lost to outer space via conduction or convection, only by radiation – where H2O and CO2 have just the right emission bands to work at the temperatures involved. (Please correct me if I got something wrong).
That’s why a ‘runaway greenhouse effect’ caused by CO2 emissions is not likely, regardless of the conditions on Venus.
Who ya gonna believe; your lyin’ eyes or the models?
It’s going to take a fair amount of money to adjust the data to match the models. No worries. The printing pre$$e$ are still nice and hot from the last multi-billions that were printed.
Hey! I think I just discovered something else that isn’t in the models. The FRPPHI** effect.
People are confusing correlation and causation. The U.S. started printing gazillions in funny money about the same time as CO2 began to increase. But the scientists got it wrong and homed in on CO2 rather than all that money being printed.
This can be verified or falsified by a simple experiment. Cut deficit spending to zero for the next 50 years and watch what happens to the GAST.
**FRPPHI: Federal Reserve Printing Press Heat Island effect.
We will power our way into the future by burning money! Much better use than letting the politicians abuse it.
You heartless so and so! what will happen to all those Ukranian Nazi freedom fighters if you Yanks stop the money printing?
Cme on Man!
You must be happy to hear that Joe Biden is refusing to send Ukraine the long-range artillery they need to fight off the madman Putin.
Westminster, which is on the east, is producing more hot air than usual at the moment.
Ah but Saint Nicola De Maskus is on the East coast.
2 It’s only twenty years of data?
Looking at the chart in the article cooling in the last 20 years seems fair enough
A better question is where did that heat go during the Little Ice Age. Best we figurer out if there’s a way to keep it warm as that is much, much better for every living thing on the planet.
Spoken like a wise and logical scholar!
You kind aren’t allowed in climate academia anymore – off to the Cancellation Gulog with you!
Peta, (1.) from the sun. Earth’s oceans and atmosphere just convert the energy and shift it around on various cycles. Profiteers claim that CO2 controls that chaotic and dynamic system. And (2.) God favors East England for some inscrutable reason; life ain’t fair.
[Remember America’s war dead today, Memorial Day.]
The energy being carried by the Gulf Stream is only one part of the entire heat transport system known as the Earth’s climate.
A 30% increase in the Gulf Stream is only a small net increase in total heat flow.
“As shown in Figures 4b and 4c, the AMOC is also significantly reduced in the late 21st century, consistent with Schmittner et al. ….. The reduced warming in the northern GoM will have important implications for marine ecosystems, including the spawning of BFT [bluefin tuna] in AMJ [April, May, June]…..Finally, it is important to point out some of the limitations in this study….” Always read the ‘fine print’ (same size print mostly at the end, but some scattered). This one ends with begging for continuing ocean/atmospheric models. Have to wonder how many of these authors have ship time. From—
Liu, Y., S.-K. Lee, B. A. Muhling, J. T. Lamkin and D. B. Enfield. 2012. Significant reduction of the Loop Current in the 21st century and its impact on the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Geophysical Research. 17(C5) https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007555 Open Access
I hadn’t realized that a time machine was now operational: “in the late 21st century.”
“How the ocean citculation will evolve in the future is still uncertain”.
You mean the models don’t tell you what is going to happen?
“Still uncertain”. Takes nerve to say even that after it becomes apparent that everybody who could get a grant was 100% wrong up til now. Decades of telling us that this current was fading and might disappear, 40 years of giving us a range of warming from 1.5C to 4.5C and total inability to tighten up that range. A sane person might wonder if this is science or some kind of political voodoo.
My simple view of ocean circulation is that warm water rises and cold water sinks, while it’s cold at the poles, and warm at the equator. This drives the circulation. One problem is that ice floats and that helps create some funny temperature distributions in the oceans. Another is that continents block free circulation. The water at the equator contains significant kinetic energy. moving at over 1000 MPH, while it has essentially zero at the North Pole, simply rotating at one revolution per day. It doesn’t even get to the South Pole as it is blocked by Antarctica. These all make a simple view not very simple.
Nevertheless, the RPM of the earth is hardly changing, so the driving force is primarily the temperature difference and distance between the equator and the poles. From what I can see, even the climate models don’t show this to be changing much. A pound of water at the equator has to give up about 46 BTU of kinetic energy and 41 BTU of thermal energy while getting to the North Pole. The rest isn’t very accurately modeled.
The spinning earth also moves the land making the relative velocity between the oceans and the land due to earths rotation 0 mph. All the rotation does is determine which way the circulation currents rotate in either hemisphere. Oh, and it does make the earth bulge about its equator a bit.
That’s why the flow is toward the pole, it’s downhill from the equator to the dimples at the poles. The south dimple is covered by a continent.
Coriolis effect. first discussed in the 17th century certainly affects the direction windows blow towards the equator. That must have an impact on surface waters.
Many years ago I worked on an inertial navigation system, pre GPS it was amazingly accurate but one thing that had to be taken into account was Coriolis.
For every gallon moving from the equators to the poles, there is a gallon of water moving from the poles back to the equator.
“Gulf Stream has strengthened”
See? Climate Change!
Yep. Explains where the LIA went.
If there is warming, the ‘earth engine’ should speed up shouldn’t it? Currents moving water poleward from the tropics is part of that system. It has warmed ~1C since 1850 largely from recovery from the LIA. That’s why “getting rid of the LIA” was one of the Whack-a-Moley climate science early objectives.
Many readers will not be aware that sceptics have driven climate science research over most of the past two decades.Their serious critiques were responded to by wholesale adjustments of the data, moving the goalposts (from 1950 when it was accepted that there was little to no affect by humans on T change, to 1850
to steal the natural 0.6C rise since then from the end of the LIA cool period). This and other ‘research’is the Whakamole reactoon
It becomes constantly more difficult to “adjust” the data in any coherent and believable way. I’m sure they won’t give up, however. The next phase of data adjustment will have to be truly atrocious and will probably need to be assisted by a wholesale manipulation of society’s ability to question anything coming from “authority”
Everybody will soon have a Social Credit score (not being on social media will reduce it to zero). Big Brother IS watching.
And your “Basic Minimum Wage” monthly bank account deposit will depend on your Social Credit score.
Absolutely! The Great Reset (Davos Totalitarians) suddenly jumped upon us with the left’s interference in financing, accessing resources and markets for O&G industry, which will double the cost of living globally.
They screwed up supply of the fuel needed to back up renewables (RE) when RE had only reached 10% of the energy mix! Somehow, they thought O&G would remain cheap and would be there on command until they were demissioned.
Sheesh the depth of knowledge of these billionaires that would manage our lives is scary! Dont forget many of them made and still make money on the government dole. Wasn’t Soros manipulator of currency, Steyer a used car magnate?
Governments have jacked up interest rates to fight inflation that was 100% caused by gov policy! This is not too many dollars chasing too few goods. This rise will wipe out much of industry, raise housing costs and rents….
HaHaHaHaHaHa….now its strengthening…..HaHaHaHa.
Climate Scientists. Clueless.
My Cocker Spaniel has more brains than a coven of climate scientists. Throw another newt in the cauldron for me!
Gulf Stream acceleration is presumably transient, but it has been useful for sea-level alarmists, because it has caused a noticeable regional acceleration in sea-level rise over the last decade along the southeastern U.S. coast, from Florida to North Carolina, where the Gulf Stream (part of the AMOC) skirts the coast. (It hasn’t appreciably affected New York, where the Gulf Stream is farther offshore.)
See how the Gulf Stream follows the coastline, from Florida to North Carolina:
So it should not surprise anyone that that section of coastline is strongly affected by variations in the Gulf Stream:
The correlation with the AMOC / Gulf Stream is obvious:
(Those graphs are part of a figure from Jackson et al 2022, which cites Desbruyères et al 2019 as the source.)
The U.S. East Coast has long been known for such sea-level trend fluctuations. Zervas (2009), NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 053, Sea Level Variations of the United States, 1854 – 2006, says:
Gulf Stream variation is probably the cause of those east coast sea-level variations over the last century or so.
In most other places there’s little or no sign of sea-level rise acceleration. For instance, here’s Honolulu, which arguably has the world’s best-sited sea-level measurements:
https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Honolulu (interactive version)
(click image to enlarge it, or see NOAA’s version, here)
You might wonder why I think so highly of the Honolulu sea-level measurement record? There are quite a few reasons:
● Unlike the U.S. east coast, Hawaii is not affected by variations in the AMOC.
● Honolulu has 117 years of continuous, top-quality measurements, from the same location, with no gaps.
● Honolulu’s location near the middle of the Pacific is nearly ideal.
The Pacific Ocean “sloshes east” during El Niños, and “sloshes west” during La Niñas, but Hawaii is near the “teeter-totter pivot point,” so, unlike the other long Pacific measurement records, Honolulu is scarcely affected by it.
● Oahu experiences only small tides, and almost no vertical land motion (though it does move horizontally, about 3″ to the northwest, each year). Oahu is an old, tectonically stable island (several million years old, which is about 4× the age of the Big Island), and the volcanoes on Oahu are believed to have been inactive for well over a million years. So Honolulu’s sea-level trend is typical (about the same as the global average, i.e., about +1½ mm/year = 6 inches/century), and it is not appreciably distorted by vertical land motion.
● Unlike the north Atlantic and Baltic, Hawaii is not appreciably affected by Greenland’s slowly changing gravity field.
There are other sites with measurements going back even further than Honolulu’s, but all of them have either gaps in the records, or less-than-ideal locations. For instance, the Dutch have done a superb job of measuring sea-level for a very long time (for obvious reasons), but The Netherlands is close enough to Greenland that if Greenland’s ice melt were to accelerate (which is the potential source which is most plausible to cause sea-level rise acceleration) the Dutch would see a reduced effect. So, even though the Dutch measurement records are very, very good, they aren’t the best records to use for detecting possible acceleration from Greenland meltwater.
Still, I love this photo of a Dutch dike, next to a farmhouse, and a Dutch sea-level measurement record, because it so nicely puts the sea-level issue into perspective:
● The highly linear trend measured by Honolulu’s tide gauge is typical of most coastal measurement records, which have seen little or no acceleration for at least nine decades. The amount of measured acceleration reported in long tide-gauge measurement records has varied from negligibly positive to negligibly negative. This table from Houston (2021) summarizes the findings of ten of the best such studies:
I drew a pink box around the greatest acceleration reported by any of those studies: a mere 0.0128 ±0.0064 mm/year². A sea-level acceleration of 0.0128 mm/year² continued for 100 years would add a negligible 64 mm (2.5 inches) to sea-level — obviously not worrisome.
It must’ve true – it isn’t in the Grauniad or on the BBC
“…threatening to send Europe into a deep freeze. “
Exactly what you would expect in a warming world
Any loss of arctic sea ice will result in both more evaporation and more cooling of the arctic waters. Both of these will cause arctic water to be come saltier and cooler, making it more dense and making it subside more quickly.
Sinking water in the arctic is what drives the AMOC.
Increase the rate at which water sinks in the arctic and increase the rate at which heat is drawn from points south up to the arctic where it can be efficiently radiated to space.
“there is nothing about global warming that would suggest an increase in volume transport”
Unless that warming is driven by an increase in downwelling short wave, ie visible light.
Well, obviously they did something wrong. Weakening is happening and they’d better find it fast. That is if they want their grant money next quarter.
Ain’t it the truth!
If climate models told me I was me, I would question it.
Scientists are noticing that in the past 25 years the world seems to be getting more La Ninas than it used to and that is just the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say should be happening with human-caused climate change.
Note that last part!
Down is up again much like Putin exact opposite daily lies.
“New Findings Show Gulf Stream “Has Strengthened” Over Past Century”
They don’t show that. They say that ” the Gulf Stream’s extension into the Nordic Seas has strengthened”. The paper is about local flow in the Arctic ocean, as the diagram shows.
In fact, of the Gulf Stream itself, and the AMOC, he says
“Smedsrud explains that global warming could potentially weaken the vertical part of the ocean circulation in the future, the part known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).”
which is in line with the general scientific view.
“which is in line with the general scientific view.”
That’s funny, too.
The temperature data looks detrended which is not wise in this case and with such long cycles involved. Detrending is better suited for data with many cycles in the record.
The science deniers Al Gore and Mann will now claim that co2 is causing so much gulf stream heat transport that it will will turn England into a tropical rainforest with dengue fever and malaria soon to follow. Send them money and we will all be saved.
” Show Gulf Stream “Has Strengthened” Over Past Century ” …
… because Climate ChangeTM, of course! This is s cause that produces every effect and its opposite.
My head hurts now!
If the catrostophists are correct by worrying about the alleged slow down of the AMOC which intgheir opinion will cause a new ice age in Europe, then surely they should welcome that as a “solution” to this catrostopic man made runa way global warming.
Have I got this wrong?
I think it is the fearmongers who have it wrong. They are spreading all the Human-caused Climate Change fear and nothing ever happens to justify such fears. It’s almost like the fearmongers are living on a completely different world than the rest of us. Since the fearmongers don’t live on another world, other than in their heads, we have to figure this kind of thinking is delusional in the extreme.
I pulled this from NOAA’s 2022 Hurricane Prediction, kinda fits with this article:
The increased activity anticipated this hurricane season is attributed to several climate factors, including the ongoing La Niña that is likely to persist throughout the hurricane season, warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea, weaker tropical Atlantic trade winds and an enhanced west African monsoon. An enhanced west African monsoon supports stronger African Easterly Waves, which seed many of the strongest and longest lived hurricanes during most seasons.
Faster ocean circulation as the planet warms is akin to circulation in a pot of water speeding up when the flame underneath is turned up. Isn’t this an implication of the proposed “4th law of thermodynamics,” the law of “steepest entropy ascent”?
To reach equilibrium the heat that is predominantly absorbed in the tropics has to be delivered to the colder poles, and the more heat there is to distribute the faster the delivery system will become.
Isn’t there even a further implication that with more energy more mechanisms of distribution become available and that the most efficient such mechanism (fastest entropy ascent) will push aside the others, so that overturning doesn’t just speed up but becomes more efficient?
Which raises the question of how any “scientist” could have thought that warming would cause ocean circulation to slow down. Sounds like a completely politicized thought process, thinking backwards (how to make a plausible sounding case for politically desired conclusions, however scientifically unsound), instead of thinking frontwards (following reason and evidence).