Essay by Eric Worrall
All bad weather is our fault…
Gulf stream could collapse as early as 2025, study suggests
A collapse would bring catastrophic climate impacts but scientists disagree over the new analysis
Damian CarringtonEnvironment editor
@dpcarringtonWed 26 Jul 2023 01.00 AESTThe Gulf Stream system could collapse as soon as 2025, a new study suggests. The shutting down of the vital ocean currents, called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Amoc) by scientists, would bring catastrophic climate impacts.
Amoc was already known to be at its weakest in 1,600 years owing to global heating and researchers spotted warning signs of a tipping point in 2021.
The new analysis estimates a timescale for the collapse of between 2025 and 2095, with a central estimate of 2050, if global carbon emissions are not reduced. Evidence from past collapses indicate changes of temperature of 10C in a few decades, although these occurred during ice ages.
…
“I think we should be very worried,” said Prof Peter Ditlevsen, at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and who led the new study. “This would be a very, very large change. The Amoc has not been shut off for 12,000 years.”
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/25/gulf-stream-could-collapse-as-early-as-2025-study-suggests
The abstract of the study;
Warning of a forthcoming collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation
Peter Ditlevsen & Susanne Ditlevsen
Nature Communications volume 14, Article number: 4254 (2023) Cite this article
Abstract
The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) is a major tipping element in the climate system and a future collapse would have severe impacts on the climate in the North Atlantic region. In recent years weakening in circulation has been reported, but assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), based on the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) model simulations suggest that a full collapse is unlikely within the 21st century. Tipping to an undesired state in the climate is, however, a growing concern with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. Predictions based on observations rely on detecting early-warning signals, primarily an increase in variance (loss of resilience) and increased autocorrelation (critical slowing down), which have recently been reported for the AMOC. Here we provide statistical significance and data-driven estimators for the time of tipping. We estimate a collapse of the AMOC to occur around mid-century under the current scenario of future emissions.
Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39810-w
If the AMOC collapse occurred it would likely be really bad, temperatures in Europe and North America could plunge, and Europe and North America would likely experience ice age like conditions which could last hundreds, or even thousands of years.
An AMOC collapse is believed to have caused the Younger Dryas, an abrupt return to Northern Hemisphere ice age conditions which occurred 12,900 years ago, which lasted over a thousand years.
But AMOC collapse is a bit like end of snow predictions or ice free Arctic predictions. Climate models predict an Atlantic meridional overturning circulation collapse, so it must happen, right? I mean, we’d never expect climate scientists to perhaps mistake a natural cycle for a dramatic one way shift?
The scientists in the body of the study above admit continuous monitoring of the AMOC only started in 2004, which seems a pretty short baseline to make long term forecasts. But there have been other attempts to reconstruct the recent history of the AMOC, which have produced far less conclusive results.
The evolution of the North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation since 1980
March 2022
Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 3(4)
DOI:10.1038/s43017-022-00263-2
Authors: , Laura Jackson, Arne Biastoch, Martha W. Buckley, Damien Desbruyères, Eleanor Frajka-Williams, Ben I. Moat, Jon Robson
Abstract
The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is a key component of the climate through its transport of heat in the North Atlantic Ocean. Decadal changes in the AMOC, whether through internal variability or anthropogenically forced weakening, therefore have wide-ranging impacts. In this Review, we synthesize the understanding of contemporary decadal variability in the AMOC, bringing together evidence from observations, ocean reanalyses, forced models and AMOC proxies. Since 1980, there is evidence for periods of strengthening and weakening, although the magnitudes of change (5–25%) are uncertain. In the subpolar North Atlantic, the AMOC strengthened until the mid-1990s and then weakened until the early 2010s, with some evidence of a strengthening thereafter; these changes are probably linked to buoyancy forcing related to the North Atlantic Oscillation. In the subtropics, there is some evidence of the AMOC strengthening from 2001 to 2005 and strong evidence of a weakening from 2005 to 2014. Such large interannual and decadal variability complicates the detection of ongoing long-term trends, but does not preclude a weakening associated with anthropogenic warming. Research priorities include developing robust and sustainable solutions for the long-term monitoring of the AMOC, observation–modelling collaborations to improve the representation of processes in the North Atlantic and better ways to distinguish anthropogenic weakening from internal variability. The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) has a key role in the climate system. This Review documents AMOC variability since 1980, revealing periods of decadal-scale weakening and strengthening that differ between the subpolar and subtropical regions.
Read more: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358935843_The_evolution_of_the_North_Atlantic_Meridional_Overturning_Circulation_since_1980
One thing which is missing from today’s forecasts of imminent AMOC collapse is a large body of fresh water which could be the potential trigger for the collapse. The Younger Dryas collapse in Northern Hemisphere temperatures was believed to have been caused by disruption to ocean currents which occurred when a gigantic glacial lake sitting on the North American and Canadian ice sheet abruptly discharged thousands of cubic miles of water into the Atlantic Ocean, though there is evidence a lot of fresh water may have ended up in the Arctic Ocean.
Identification of Younger Dryas outburst flood path from Lake Agassiz to the Arctic Ocean
Julian B. Murton, Mark D. Bateman, Scott R. Dallimore, James T. Teller & Zhirong Yang
Nature volume 464, pages 740–743 (2010)Cite this article
Abstract
The melting Laurentide Ice Sheet discharged thousands of cubic kilometres of fresh water each year into surrounding oceans, at times suppressing the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation and triggering abrupt climate change1,2,3,4. Understanding the physical mechanisms leading to events such as the Younger Dryas cold interval requires identification of the paths and timing of the freshwater discharges. Although Broecker et al. hypothesized in 1989 that an outburst from glacial Lake Agassiz triggered the Younger Dryas 1, specific evidence has so far proved elusive, leading Broecker to conclude in 2006 that “our inability to identify the path taken by the flood is disconcerting”2. Here we identify the missing flood path—evident from gravels and a regional erosion surface—running through the Mackenzie River system in the Canadian Arctic Coastal Plain. Our modelling of the isostatically adjusted surface in the upstream Fort McMurray region, and a slight revision of the ice margin at this time, allows Lake Agassiz to spill into the Mackenzie drainage basin. From optically stimulated luminescence dating we have determined the approximate age of this Mackenzie River flood into the Arctic Ocean to be shortly after 13,000 years ago, near the start of the Younger Dryas. We attribute to this flood a boulder terrace near Fort McMurray with calibrated radiocarbon dates of over 11,500 years ago. A large flood into the Arctic Ocean at the start of the Younger Dryas leads us to reject the widespread view that Agassiz overflow at this time was solely eastward into the North Atlantic Ocean.
Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08954
If say the Greenland Ice Sheet were to form a gigantic glacial lake comparable to Lake Agassiz, that would be a major cause for concern. Such a lake could potentially deliver a devastating impulse of fresh water to the far North, potentially triggering a replay of the environmental catastrophe which some believe caused the Younger Dryas mini ice age.
But to my knowledge, no similar glacial lake exists in today’s world.
In the absence of a credible source of a fresh water impulse on the scale of Lake Agassiz, the lack of clear understanding of exactly what happened 12,900 years ago, short evidential baselines, and the absence of firm observational evidence of a looming AMOC collapse, lets say I’m not about to lose sleep over claims we are approaching an imminent major climate tipping point.
For more information on climate uncertainties and risks, click here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s worse than we thought.
Gulf Stream Could Collapse. Yes, and frogs could grow wings and would then fly and wouldn’t bump their butts when they land. They could, I say.
The ifs, ands and butts of amphibious metamorphosis.
We’ve been here before. Even most of the climate whack jobs long ago admitted that they think the Gulf steam will continue largely as usual.
These amateur authors don’t even know their own climate myths.
Won’t the sky be crowded, what with all the pigs flying as well?
It’s Trump’s fault
It’s alarmism for alarmism’s sake.
Doesn’t the simple fact that western Europe has become slightly warmer over the past half a century indicate that the AMOC has not weakened during that time, rather the opposite? The whole scare sounds to me as internally inconsistent and therefore a complete farce.
In earlier times it was the Rahmstorf hobby to talk about AMOC collapse, and always was debunked at least weeks later 😀
The AMOC has strengthed over recent decades during the warm phase that we are still in. When the flow slows down a little in future, the cool phase of the AMOC will resume probably around mid 2030’s to late 2030’s.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo
The alarmists will likely read this as an immediate collapse rather than the change from the warm AMO phase to the cool AMO phase.
With the ice caps having disappeared already as Al Gore correctly predicted, and the world population having shrunk to 1/4 its 1970s size amid continuing catastrophic famines, we’ll be ill-equipped to deal with this new calamity.
Yes, we must trust the science and the models!!! All the evidence of ice, and people living in prosperity are just disinformation from the ‘vast right wing conspiracy ‘ (also known as taxpayers) – quickly now to the nearest highway! Don’t forget that superglue , I can the points about to trip, hurry!
Like a hot tub: Water temperatures off Florida soar over 100 degrees, stunning experts
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/hot-tub-water-temperatures-florida-soar-100-degrees-stunning-experts-rcna96163
Not sure how this story relates to the supposed hypothetical, maybe, could be, possible collapse of the gulf stream.
Are they confusing 100C with 100F? 212F is the boiling point of water, in case they didn’t know. Nothing is ‘boiling’ in the ocean except around active undersea volcanoes.
And it’s a bit disingenuous to compare it to a hot tub considering that the water they measured it in wouldn’t be deep enough to serve as one.
In German news I read about 38°C…
Gotta be F since Americans never heard of the metric system. 🙂
and it says F
but, let’s not forget, Al Gore said the oceans are boiling and he knows ’cause he got his B.A. in English at Hah-vid, just like Billy Bob McKibben
Look for some reason the sensors are being exposed to air and sunshine instead of surface water. Maybe the last guy who calibrated them didn’t properly mount them in the skimmer on several buoys. Whenever your data says you’ve got the biggest anomaly “evah” it’s time to doubt whether the data is correct.
“it’s time to doubt whether the data is correct.”
I think that’s the prudent thing to do. 🙂
In a shallow bay with murky water, with unusual very light wind from west (land) and not east (sea) in the midafternoon with sun high and no clouds.
I checked our clear water ocean beach temperature—normal.
Water in a small rock pool can get pretty warm in summer!
It gets heated from below as the rocks absorb solar energy.
I just stumbled here this morning. Since there are apparently the NOAA doesn’t include the Manatee Bay data in its coastal data, I checked the NOAA-NCEI Coastal Water Temperature Guide page and checked the 3 buoys across from Manatee Bay on the other side of US-1. All are currently more than 16 degrees F lower than the 101 F claimed by Media Minions. See here and zoom in just north of Key Largo:
https://coastalwatertemperatureguide-noaa.hub.arcgis.com/
I then doubled-checked another page and viola, found Manatee Bay. The sensor must be in a child’s wading pool, for when I looked at the historical graph and see the two 100+ days, the water temperature spiked up 4 degrees in 3 hours, then cooled off 4 degrees in the following 3 hours. This is supposed to be climate?
https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/show_plot.php?station=mnbf1&meas=wtmp&uom=E&time_diff=-4&time_label=EDT
This reminds me of the June day a few years ago when the media exclaimed the hottest day evah in Anchorage, based on a runway temperature at one of the world’s busiest airports. When I checked the actual weather station of record, just a few air miles north, I saw the high for the same day was more than 10 degrees F cooler for the same day: hot-ish but not particularly noteworthy.
But trust Media Minions to give you the REAL story.
“Factors that could have played a role in spiking the water temperature above 100 degrees include:
You scored 50%, which is not a passing grade. Sorry, you don’t progress to the next round. But thankyou for playing “Speculation”, a fun new game for all the family! Please collect your consolation prize of a little education as you leave the studio.
The weak winds part is correct – it says less than 10mph, implying no strong winds that cool things.
Lick the back of your hand and blow upon it gently. Then come back and tell me again that I’m wrong.
The statement was that winds were weaker than usual. The statement was completely correct.
Please read again, this time for understanding instead of something to criticize.
First off, nobody claimed that the air is warming the water, in fact the statement you quote has the air temperature 10 degrees F cooler than the water.
Beyond that, warmer air slows down the rate at which the energy the sun is putting into the water can escape.
Weak winds. By definition when someone talks about weak winds, they are stating that the winds are weaker than normal. Lower winds means lower evaporation.
And less mixing with cooler, deeper water. Since the water is reported as being “murky” I’m sure that there is a strong thermal gradient.
“Factors that could have played a role in spiking the water temperature above 100 degrees include:
Air temperatures in the mid-to-upper 90sThe air is cooler, ergo cannot “play a role in spiking the water temperature above 100 degrees”. Air, like ALL gasses, dissipates heat. Further, even if the air were perfectly still, the surface of the water would still evaporate, and in so doing, cool the surface. Any air movement will aid this process.
Once again, you are the only person here who thinks that anyone is claiming that the air is heating the water.
Are you actually trying to argue that wind makes no difference in how fast water evaporates?
Have it your way. But next time you have a bath, fill the tub with cold water and try to warm it from above with a heat gun that produces 500ºC, then tell us how much of a “role” it played in warming the water. I never claimed that wind speed wasn’t a factor, only that any breeze will aid evaporation, as will warmer air temperatures..
Doesn’t show higher than 33.1c (91.6f) here off the coast of Florida.
But I thought that the ocean temperature couldn’t exceed 30C???
It generally doesn’t except near coasts or inland seas.
That is for “open” oceans
Enclosed areas can often reach higher temperatures.
I covered much of it here:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/97607/
The biggest takeaway/observation with this isolated, NON legit water temperature was the reaction of the MSM……….like a crazed mob pouncing on every iota of extreme weather, blaming it on a climate crisis and turning it into their top story.
“What shocked me is that with thousands of supposedly professional journalists reporting on this, with 100+ stories, most of them seem to NOT have done any checking of the facts………Never mind, journalists today don’t fact check things they want to believe or what they want their readers/viewers to believe.”
“The huge tip off to me was when none of the surrounding water was this hot. But look at the graph above.
After hitting 100 the day before, the temp dropped 9 degrees that night……….then went up 10 degrees in 13 hours.
On 7-26-23 the temperature was down 14+ degrees to below 87 Deg. F.
Just the diurnal spread is a huge tip off that this is extremely shallow water being impacted by the near vertical sun there in July”
Once you have very shallow water, the sand and/or rocks can be warmed by the sun
Then the water warms from below, as all water does.
I’ve seen rock pools in summer that would have been a lot hotter than 100F,
This is a really old scare, revised and repeated. Snore.
“I think we should be very worried,” said Prof Peter Ditlevsen, at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and who led the new study. “This would be a very, very large change. The Amoc has not been shut off for 12,000 years.”
Hmmm, looks like they’ve predicted that interglacial periods last an average of 12,000 years and glaciations come on quick. Now where did I see those historic temperature charts going back 880,000 years
Lord Almighty
Feel the temperature falling
Lower, lower
It’s freezing through to my soul
Global warming
You supposed to set me on fire
My brain is freezing
I don’t know which way to go
You said the temperature would keep getting higher
Like the sweet song of a choir
Now you say the AMOC will expire
With freezing love
Among others, one question would be how long does this “very, very large change” take to occur? In other words, would we have time to mitigate the potential damage? Since it sounds like everything in the North Atlantic region would get very cold, maybe we should keep our coal fired power plants operational.
And our gas stoves
And gas-fired water heaters.
Story: There’s been a lot of research on the flow of Canadian rivers and the subsequent effect on oceans that doesn’t seem to be reflected in the above article.
A second story: great article by Brendan O’Neill on AGW and witchcraft.
“model simulations suggest that a full collapse is unlikely within the 21st century”
wow, I can breath again now- I guess I’ll take THIS hypothetical catastrophe off my worry list
I see in this story lots of “would” and “could” and “if”. When I look at my old chemistry and physics text books- I don’t every see those words.
I was curious. Paper is Nature paywalled, but the SI isn’t.
SI part one, :S1, the maximum likelihood estimator.(MLE). “We need the MLE of the approximate model. The approximate model is an Ornstein-Uhlerbeck process. The likelihood of the parameters given observations is the product of the transition densities.”
That’s a tiny data problem since the AMOC has only been buoy monitored since 2004.
SI part 2: S2 Estimator of tipping time (insert very complex equation). “ The equation cannot be explicitly solved, and the exact distribution is not explicitly known.” Followed by a lot of blah blah translating to so we made it up.
NUTS!
“translating to so we made it up.”
Just more scaremongering by the climate alarmists.
Wasn’t this the plot of that stupid disaster movie?
The year after next
No I’m positive it was called “One lie after another.”
Here to Sometime in the Future
Here we have it again: the key operative word “could”.
It is sometimes replaced by “might”, “may”, “theoretically”, “is projected”, and my all time favorite “is potentially” (an oxymoron, if I ever saw one) . . . but the net effect is the same: I am/we are asserting this, but I/we really don’t know the chance of it being true.
Good grief!
And from the second abstract is this gem:
“Such large interannual and decadal variability complicates the detection of ongoing long-term trends, but does not preclude a weakening associated with anthropogenic warming”
If the available data is all over the place such that it yields no meaningful trend, then you could say that it doesn’t preclude anything in the longer-term. So why did the authors mention one particular scenario? Surely they didn’t have a preconception of what they were hoping to tease out of the data….
Since Chindia is the major driver of all new “global carbon emissions” go take your argument with them and share your concerns.
I’m not eating bugs while China is putting up a new coal plant each week or so.
My local NPR station plays BBC Newshour and I was just listening to a report on this today.
You have my condolences.
From the article: “The Gulf Stream system could collapse as soon as 2025, a new study suggests. The shutting down of the vital ocean currents, called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Amoc) by scientists, would bring catastrophic climate impacts.
Amoc was already known to be at its weakest in 1,600 years owing to global heating and researchers spotted warning signs of a tipping point in 2021.
The new analysis estimates a timescale for the collapse of between 2025 and 2095, with a central estimate of 2050, if global carbon emissions are not reduced.”
Scare us with a 2025 date and then insulate yourself with a 2095 date. Typical alarmist climate science.
“Owing to global heating”
There’s no evidence that global heating, from any source, would be the cause of a collapse of the AMOC. The last collapse we know of was caused by a lot of excess water flowing into the North Atlantic, all at one time.
Are they saying that global warming will cause a new ice age?
I just listened to this report on BBC news this morning. The BBC website says it was published 4 minutes ago. This is what I was referring to in my earlier post.
The interview is with Dr. Peter Ditlevsen.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66289494
The hypothesis that the Lake Agassiz freshwater discharge into the North Atlantic caused the Gulf Stream to shut down, leading to the Younger Dryas, was quite plausible when it was first proposed in the 1980s. But it’s much more complicated than that. As noted in the post, there is evidence that there was a Lake Agassiz discharge into the Arctic Ocean – not the Atlantic – at about 12.9 ka. There was also discharge from Lake Agassiz, Lake Ojibway, Lake Algonquin (and other proglacial lakes) at various times from about 11 ka to about 8 ka. This was probably a more or less continuous discharge with massive floods as ice dams got breached, and it all reached the Atlantic via the Gulf of St. Lawrence. None of this caused the Gulf Stream to stop.
The Lake Agassiz – Younger Dryas hypothesis was a simple and very attractive concept. Like many other simplistic (and subsequently disproved) ideas, it just won’t go away, and it will probably keep resurfacing until a viable alternative hypothesis is proposed to explain the Younger Dryas.
And the thing about the YD that appeals to alarmists is how quickly it started. It may have taken less (possibly much less) than a century for temperatures in Europe to drop dramatically. That’s a scenario that they can threaten us with if we don’t curb our “emissions”; it explains why so much attention is paid by “climate scientists” to trying to show that the Gulf Stream is slowing down and approaching the dreaded tipping point.
So now global warming isn’t going to turn the Earth into a cinder? Global warming is going to turn the Earth into an ice cube?
Sounds a lot like: heads I win, tail you lose.
Not merely global warming but global heating according to Damian, sounds much more dramatic…
The interesting thing about the YD is not the onset, but the end – it ended as fast as it started. I can understand a meteorite, megaflood, etc., etc. dropping the temperature by 5 deg, but can think of no mechanism for it rising 5 deg. a thousand years later. Any ideas?
My favourite hypothesis that I’ve come up with is that the Earth passed through some radioactivity (maybe a metorite, maybe a gas cloud) and all the dating got thrown out until it dissipated.
Thus the Younger Dryas is actually evidence from the last Ice age that’s mis-attributed.
No evidence for this, of course, but it does fot the observations well and does explain why they suddenly drop in an out of the middle of an ice age unexpectedly.
A Dansgaard-Oeschger event warming produces about 10ºC warming in the Nordic Seas region in just 70 years. One of those events ended the Younger Dryas and started the Holocene.
Now make the connection, if you can.. 😉
But, but, the Younger Dryas was extreme cooling. What connection are you looking for? Now my head hurts.
Was the Younger Dryas and the “last shutdown of AMOC” caused by a sudden meltwater pulse, probably caused by the sudden draining of the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence Seaway? Such a sudden flooding of freshwater into the N. Atlantic can’t happen today. Also, if it’s supposedly so warm already, where would all of the cold air come from that would supposedly cause Day After Tomorrow conditions?
In the movie, they made it seem that somehow the cold stratospheric air somehow came down to the surface. Even if it did, the troposphere is so much thicker that the impact would be negligible to temperature.
Also, stratospheric air descending to the troposphere would warm from adiabatic compression. It wouldn’t stay cold!
Gulf Stream collapse again?
If memory serves, a realist professor (whose name escapes me) explained why that can’t happen. For the Gulf Stream to stop, its two causes would need to end: (1) The Sun would need to stop shining, and (2) the Earth would need to stop rotating on its axis.
I’ll check my blog history to see if I can find a link to that article and the Prof’s name.
Regards,
Bob
The MIT professor was Carl Wunsch, and almost 20 years ago (sheesh! I remembered that?) he wrote a letter to Nature published in 2004 about why the Gulf Stream is safe:
Gulf Stream safe if wind blows and Earth turns | Nature
There ya have it,
Bob
Excellent authentic science, Bob!
So it Can’t Collapse… could it be redirected?
The Gulf Stream has never been found to have actually collasped using sea bed fossils that determine marine life living temperatures.
You are correct mentioning redirected because that is what actually happened.
The Gulf stream just fails to move north past the UK towards Iceland and the Arctic ocean. Instead at is coldest phase it moves towards Spain and North Africa. This cools the Northern Hemisphere greatly where the polar ocean front resumes, moves south and forms a very cold gyre in the North Atlantic ocean. Polar species have been found in fossils on the sea bed in this region when this occurs.
There is no scientific evidence a change in the Gulf Stream is possible even in the next 100 years. The timeline used for this research is alarming how short it is and means nothing in the grand scheme of ocean cycles.
Which does not preclude occasional variations in the strength of the gyre, but it and other ocean gyres are wind driven, and so the trade winds would have to stop blowing. By the way, such an event would also probably raise coastal tidal gauges dramatically and lead to further anxiety among professional worriers.
Well if Trump wins in 2024, that’s exactly what will happen.
Unless he is impeached and convicted, and the right people tell us what to do.
Just thinking. Maybe some Vegas bookies are up to a bet. The alarmists would bet on this date?
Story tip – The climate witch trials – spiked (spiked-online.com)
I went wading in the waters off Gulf Coast Florida 2 weeks ago. The water was bathwater warm — not cool at all. In six feet of water the chest is warm and the feet cold. Common in Florida on calm days.
TILT!
I remember swimming in Shasta Reservoir (Calif.) in July when I was young. The surface was quite comfortable. However, diving under the water about five feet, it was uncomfortably cold. That’s the way water behaves. Its called a thermocline.
“I think we should be very worried,” said Prof Peter Ditlevsen, at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and who led the new study. “This would be a very, very large change. The Amoc has not been shut off for 12,000 years.”
So it didn’t shut down during the Minoan warm period, the Roman Warm Period or the MWP but it will now!
He’s super cereal this time!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h05YfP_8UsU
Just more evidence that increasing the beneficial gas, CO2 in the atmosphere has the magical power to transform and destroy the planet by impacts that contradict each other.
From droughts on a massively greening planet.
From biblical flooding on a planet that is supposedly dying from droughts.
From excessive warming causing the planet to be on fire from warming of 1 Deg. C…..even though, so far the warming is causing a booming biosphere.
From an Ice age caused by global warming.
From killing off the good life…..humans, butterflies, tree frogs, honey bees, polar bears, crops, coral reefs, while the exact same conditions feed all the bad life, ticks, mosquitoes, virus’s, bacteria, weeds, fungus and so on that will prey on and destroy the good life not killed by the climate.
This is the typical scare based on a poor understanding of heat transport by the Ocean.
The oceanographers were late to the climate change party and have been trying to get attention since. The reality is that AMOC transport has decreased because atmospheric transport and gyre transport have increased.
Climate change science is a joke. They measure something for a few years, blame any change detected on our emissions, and predict a nightmare scenario in a few decades unless we stop the emissions.
They did the same with Arctic sea ice, they still do despite September Arctic sea ice extent refusing to decrease since 2007.
In a couple of decades, AMOC will reverse the trend and they’ll predict the opposite nightmarish scenario.
This ain’t science is bad comedy, and these guys are bad comedians, not scientists.
Great points, Javier!
I have concluded that making predictions based on models is not science, it’s conjecture. The horrifying thing is policy is being made based on these conjectures. Is that telling us that a hidden agenda is at work, perhaps, just maybe?