Wrong, USA Today, Ocean Currents Aren’t Near Collapse

By Linnea Lueken

A recent article in USA Today, titled “Atlantic Ocean current could collapse soon. How you may endure dramatic weather changes,” claims that a major ocean current system is likely to slow down and collapse as soon as 2025. This claim is based on computer model projections of the future based assumptions about past ocean current behavior and the factors which drive ocean currents. Actual data and its use is limited. The study’s conclusions are unsubstantiated by existing evidence and are contradicted by research which indicates that the Atlantic Ocean currents are likely speeding up.

The USA Today’s article is based on an article published in Nature which examines the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), “a large system of ocean currents that carry warm water from the tropics into the North Atlantic.” The article and the study it references says the AMOC could collapse “by the middle of the century, or possibly any time from 2025 onward, because of human-caused climate change.” The research suggests that freshwater intrusion from Greenland meltwater will change the composition of the water and shut down the ocean conveyor system which moves hot and cold water around the Atlantic.

USA Today reports:

“Such a collapse could trigger rapid weather and climate changes in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere. If it were to happen, it could bring about an ice age in Europe and sea-level rise in cities such as Boston and New York, as well as more potent storms and hurricanes along the East Coast.”

The study itself references a “slowing down” of the current, and assumes that a tipping point will be reached, and uses that assumption along with some statistical analysis to give a window of when that will supposedly happen. The study authors estimate that the AMOC will collapse sometime in the mid-century.

Incredibly, according to USA Today, the researchers claim they have a 95 percent certainty that the AMOC will collapse between 2025 and 2095.

USA Today’s article says studies from 2018 and 2021 agree such a collapse is possible.

The study’s claims are extraordinary, and thus, in the words of Carl Sagan, require extraordinary evidence before they are taken seriously. In the place of evidence, they provide complex statistical analyses.

Even the USA Today acknowledges that the study’s findings “contradict the message of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, in which an abrupt change in the AMOC is considered “unlikely” this century.”

A widely reported 2020 study published in Science came to the exact opposite conclusion with its authors writing “[f]or nearly 25 years the currents have been rapidly speeding up, partly because of global warming.” Climate change can’t be both accelerating and decelerating the same ocean currents simultaneously.

The acceleration was described as equally alarming. The flip-flopping or contradictory views were covered by Climate Realismherehere, and here, for example.

The difference between the studies that predict these polar opposite scenarios is that the recent studies that show acceleration have relied primarily on empirical evidence, such as this one by Oziel, et al. from 2021, and a confirming study that combines modeling and empirical data by Smedsrud et al. also in 2021, but the studies that show slowing seem to based their predictions almost exclusively numerical model outputs.

There is a place for modeling. If properly informed by accurate assumptions, they can be powerful tools, but when model outputs depart from observational or empirical data, model outputs should be questioned. Leaning heavily on climate models to paint an accurate picture of the future is questionable at best, as discussed many times by Climate Realism. Based on the available contradictory evidence, and the limited knowledge base, claiming with 95% certainty that such a collapse is imminent doesn’t ring as particularly scientific.

In regards to the real-world likelihood of such an event taking place, Eric Worrall analyzed these same claims and pointed out that a collapse of AMOC may have occurred in the past, abruptly leading to the Younger Dryas ice age conditions.

However, he explains that the Younger Dryas conditions are believed to have been caused by a sudden, massive, rapid freshwater intrusion, not the gradual melting of a major ice sheet.

Worrall writes:

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.

Since no comparable freshwater glacial lake exists today, this can’t happen. If this theory of how the last AMOC collapse happened is true, it is unlikely that modern conditions can replicate the event.

Concerning data, the Nature study acknowledges:

The AMOC has only been monitored continuously since 2004 through combined measurements from moored instruments, induced electrical currents in submarine cables and satellite surface measurements. Over the period 2004–2012, a decline in the AMOC has been observed, but longer records are necessary to assess the significance.

In fact, based on the limited data, the authors have no way of knowing whether the AMOC speeds up and down cyclically on a multidecadal or multi-century basis, or whether a steady state is the norm.

Despite this fact authors of the study predict with “high confidence” that the “tipping” will happen between 2025-2095, but they also say that these results are “under the assumption that the model is approximately correct, and we, of course, cannot rule out that other mechanisms are at play, and thus, the uncertainty is larger.”

The authors also hedge their bets in the Discussion section of the Nature paper where they write “we can at present not rule out the possibility that a collapse will only be partial and not lead to a full collapse of the AMOC as suggested by some models.”

Despite these acknowledgements of limited knowledge and uncertainty, the authors insist that their statistical analysis represents “clear indicators of imminent collapse.”

USA Today and other media outlets should probably refrain from sounding the alarm so confidently about impending doom, when the authors of the study themselves go to great lengths within the document, if not in their title and abstract, to hedge their bets and acknowledge the numerous uncertainties in both the model outputs and their knowledge about the factors which enhance and diminish ocean currents.

As University of Pennsylvania climate researcher Michael Mann reportedly told USA Today regarding this study, “I’m not sure the authors bring much to the table other than a fancy statistical method. History is littered with flawed predictions based on fancy statistical methods; sometimes they’re too fancy for their own good.”

Linnea Lueken

Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”

4.8 20 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 28, 2023 10:39 am

It all sounds like the AMO to me!

The warming of the Arctic in the 1920s to 50s led to increased rainfall there, in turn leading to greater freshwater fed into the Arctic Ocean from north flowing rivers in Siberia and Canada.

Fresh water of course leads to greater ice and suppression of warm currents from the south. And fed in to the gyre, it spreads around all of the Arctic Ocean, leading to a colder climate and the negative phase of the AMO.

In other words, the same as appears to be happening now.

Proper climate scientists knew all about this decades ago.

Matt G
Reply to  Paul Homewood
July 28, 2023 12:51 pm

The AMO is an important pattern brought about by the change in speed of the AMOC. Over the last hundred years or more since 1860. The AMOC has speeded up, slowed down, speed up, slowed down and recently speeded up. There is a cyclic pattern that means the AMOC will slow down in the near future leading to the next cool phase of the AMO.

Now scientists with this article are trying to blame the incoming AMO cool phase on a collaspe of the AMOC, which the Gulf stream is part off. For anybody that doesn’t know a collaspe has never been found in history and instead the correct term is a redirection. A collaspe indicates it dies, but it actually doesn’t as it moves in a different direction away from the UK, Iceland and the Arctic ocean.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Matt G
July 28, 2023 2:36 pm

The slower MOC from 1995 drove a warmer AMO and Arctic!

Matt G
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
July 28, 2023 5:01 pm

The AMOC speeded up from 1990 until 2010 and very recently slowed down according to this observational network. The slowdowns and speeds up match the AMO until very recently. There is uncertainty associated with the changing of observational network though so it may have messed up very recent data.


That is why there has been different views on very recent AMOC behaviour, some more recently saying it has speeded up rather than slowed down.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Matt G
July 29, 2023 3:55 am

From the other AMOC post a few days ago:

“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.”


Matt G
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
July 30, 2023 3:29 am

That paper mainly mentions AMOC models and shows no data to support it. The paper in my link only mentions observations with data to provide scientific evidence to back it up.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Matt G
July 30, 2023 10:53 am

Yes there is data, below the references.

Matt G
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
July 30, 2023 1:12 pm

I missed the data because I thought the references were at the end, but the problem I have with them is there are all after 1995 so it can’t be compared how they changed from before. The only ones before 1995 are models.

For example even if the data appears it is slightly reducing in speed that could still be an higher level to what it was before. It doesn’t agree with the observational network that has a much longer timescale. What is important are the level steps between different changes.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Matt G
July 29, 2023 6:43 am

You can see here that the MOC strengthened marginally 2010-2018, but remained generally weak.

comment image

Matt G
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
July 30, 2023 3:47 am

That data is from the AMOC at 26N, the data I provided was from 50N.

The AMOC changes little during 26N even during very cold glaicer periods, wheras the difference at 50N+ comparable is huge. That is why it shows no relation to the AMO cool or warm phases.

The AMOC further north is more important in illustrating the AMO and climate changes by the AMOC.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Matt G
July 29, 2023 6:47 am

The Gulf Stream does not appear to slow down, so during low MOC events and regimes, where does the GS flow which is not overturning go?

Matt G
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
July 30, 2023 3:49 am

More of the Gulf Stream remains in the southern loop, so warms the South Atlantic.

Matt G
Reply to  Matt G
July 30, 2023 5:36 am

The GS most northern flow at the surface varies between moving south of Iceland to Spain/North Africa.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Matt G
July 30, 2023 11:02 am

More of the Gulf Stream will warm the AMO and Arctic with a slower MOC.

Matt G
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
July 30, 2023 1:27 pm

How can a reduce in energy from the Tropics and South Atlantic Ocean to the North Atlantic ocean warm the AMO?

This only warms the South Atlantic areas and cools the North Atlantic areas.

You are going completely against the AMOC, DO events and YD theory.

The warm AMO is what brings more rainfall to the Arctic in turn leading to greater freshwater fed into the Arctic Ocean from north flowing rivers in Siberia and Canada. (as Paul mentioned)

Your conclusion is made from incomplete data that only occurs after 1995.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Matt G
July 31, 2023 10:07 am

A reduction in energy from the Tropics would mean the Gulf Stream slowing down, but it does not appear to slow down. A warmer AMO and Arctic means increased poleward heat transport.

The critical point is that the MOC has been generally slower since at least 2007 while the AMO has warmed since then, and which contradicts figures 3 and 4 in the paper which you linked.

Matt G
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
August 1, 2023 10:12 am

No, a reduction in energy from the Tropics does not necessarily mean the Gulf stream appearing to be slowing down because this reduction occurs 45N+ not around 26N-35N/40N for example.

“A warmer AMO and Arctic means increased poleward heat transport.” There is no doubt that this is correct and contradicts your lower MOC view with it.

The Gulf stream changes direction above 45N+ hardly affecting the surface current further south.

Just because the Gulf stream doesn’t appear to be changing after 2004 (your linked data) doesn’t mean it hadn’t changed from years before this time.

The AMO warmed with changes in the AMOC much before 2007 and all you are referring too is a subtle change since. Figure 3 in my link shows the AMOC speeded up after 1987 until about 2008. The AMO has warmed from 1987 that matches the observational network.


Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Matt G
August 2, 2023 1:44 pm

There is no contradiction, a slower MOC means more warm current feeding the high North Atlantic and Arctic.

17 years of the MOC remaining slow and the AMO remaining warm since 2006, that’s the elephant in the room.

The Fraser paper has another issue, it shows the MOC speeding up and reaching the fastest through 1970-1990 while the AMO was in its cold phase. Giving that large disparity between the AMO and MOC series.

The AMO had another cold anomaly in the early 1990’s, most of the AMO warming was from 1995.


Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Paul Homewood
July 28, 2023 2:44 pm

Positive North Atlantic Oscillation conditions speeds up the MOC and drives a colder AMO, regardless of freshwater. Which in theory is what rising CO2 forcing should be doing, but weaker indirect solar forcing of the NAO must have dominated since the mid 1990’s for the AMO to have warmed.


Matt G
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
July 28, 2023 5:34 pm

There is no trend between NAO and AMO/AMOC.

comment image


The 1900’s to 1920’s were strongly NAO positive with a cold AMO and slow AMOC.

The 2010’s were strongly NAO positive with a warm AMO and AMOC uncertain (maybe slowing or likely speeding up)

Maybe around 1987 until 1999 was significantly NAO positive, but the AMO was variable starting cool and ending warm. The transition from cool to warm was when the AMOC started speeding up.


Generally other times have too mixed NAO conditions.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Matt G
July 29, 2023 3:35 am

1995 to 1999 was a decidedly negative NAO regime, as was 2005 to 2012, but you won’t see that by looking at winter only NAO.

Matt G
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
July 30, 2023 4:49 am

The NAO with it being based on pressure differences between the North and South has by far the strongest signal during winter. The reason being is because the biggest temperature difference between the North and Sub-Tropics is around this period. How the NAO affects storms is most noticeable during this period.

That is true regarding 1995 to 1999 around Summer as it was dominated over this period and significantly influenced the yearly NAO.

The winter NAO also shows a negative period around 2005 to 2012.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Matt G
July 30, 2023 11:44 am

There were some well noticeable Arctic cyclones in the negative NAO summers of 2007 and 2012. And a slow MOC event mid 2012 in the RAPID data, nearly as slow as during the negative NAO episodes both ends of 2010 and March 2013.

Tom Halla
July 28, 2023 10:46 am

Will wonders never cease! Michael Mann being reasonable?

Smart Rock
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2023 11:15 am

He should look in the mirror next time he says that.

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2023 1:08 pm

As a narcissist, he can’t stand the idea of anyone being right except himself. His accusation that they had nothing more than “fancy statistical methods” is richly ironic in light of his hockey stick analysis. But such accusations are what we would expect from a narcissist.

Reply to  Thomas
July 28, 2023 3:11 pm

If only they would have gone into the field, done some research, analyzed two or three sediment deposits & called them proxies, and then melded two statistically different modeling methods ….

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 29, 2023 10:31 pm

The irony is off the charts: “History is littered with flawed predictions based on fancy statistical methods” !!

Clyde Spencer
July 28, 2023 10:52 am

If it were to happen, it could bring about an ice age in Europe and sea-level rise …

How can sea-level rise if water is being locked up in snow and ice in Europe? Another ice age, even locally, should result in a lowering of sea level.

Smart Rock
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 28, 2023 11:28 am

USA Today uses “ice age” in a doubly wrong sense. Even if they had said “glacial” or “glacial period” that would still be wrong. The (imaginary) collapse of the AMOC would probably cause a repeat of the Younger Dryas, which would properly be called a stadial. The YD was restricted to Europe – a “local stadial”?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 28, 2023 12:36 pm

Because everything bad that could happen will happen, doncha know!

Reply to  kwinterkorn
July 28, 2023 1:37 pm

On the other hand, nothing bad would ever happen if only we stopped using fossil fuels.

Matt G
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 28, 2023 1:04 pm

Not only are the two together impossible (ice age and sea level rise) if there was an Ice age in Europe it would affect the whole Northen Hemisphere. There has never been an Ice age only in Europe before.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 28, 2023 1:44 pm

Maybe they’ll release all the CO2 sequestered to stop Global Warming and then all the CO2 induced New Global Warming will melt all ice?
(Lather, Rinse, Repeat)

July 28, 2023 11:04 am

Arrgh! It pains me to read that Michael Mann is employed by The University of Pennsylvania rather than The Pennsylvania State University. Mistakes in such trivial facts that are easily researched could make one wonder what other facts that the author asserts are incorrect. And I’m on her side.

Reply to  DonK31
July 28, 2023 11:42 am

Mann recently changed jobs from Penn State to U Penn! Last summer I think.

Reply to  Linnea
July 28, 2023 11:51 am

Career[edit]University positions[edit]In 1999, Mann secured a position as a tenure-track assistant professor in the department of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. He left Virginia in 2005 to become an associate professor in the department of meteorology (with joint appointments in department of geosciences and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute) at Pennsylvania State University, where he was also appointed the director of its Earth System Science Center. He was promoted to full professor in 2009 and to “Distinguished Professor of Meteorology” in 2013.[2]

This is from the wiki site that shall remain nameless as of 2 minutes ago. If this is incorrect, I apologize.

Reply to  DonK31
July 28, 2023 11:54 am

I believe it is incorrect, as Mann’s website bio says otherwise:

“Dr. Michael E. Mann is Presidential Distinguished Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, with a secondary appointment in the Annenberg School for Communication. He is director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media (PCSSM).”

No biggie though, he’s been known as the Penn State guy for ages!

David Blenkinsop
Reply to  Linnea
July 28, 2023 1:54 pm

When the pen that he is writing with has some sort if Pennsylvania logo on it, that means he is writing with a ‘state pen’.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Linnea
July 28, 2023 11:53 am

Sept 1 2022. Just checked because was unaware he left Penn State.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 28, 2023 12:03 pm

Thank y’all for the correction.

Gunga Din
Reply to  DonK31
July 28, 2023 1:47 pm

If only MM had accepted the corrections from M&M!

Curious George
July 28, 2023 11:07 am

Why is there no mention of Argo float data – buoys that drift deep under the ocean surface? This should be the most relevant data for ocean currents..

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Curious George
July 28, 2023 11:27 am

With respect to studying AMOC, the RAPID anchored buoy system was deployed across the entire Atlantic at 26N latitude in 2004. It to date shows roughly decadal variations, but no trend. So the ‘as soon as 2025’ claim is simply absurd.

Rud Istvan
July 28, 2023 11:12 am

If anyone should know about ‘flawed conclusions from fancy statistical models’, it is Michael Mann. Centered principle components, which he invented for his hockey stick, almost always produces a hockey stick from pure red noise. McIntyre and McKittrick showed that over a decade ago.

Peta of Newark
July 28, 2023 11:44 am

as a measure of how crazy that claim was/is, even UK Met Office felt compelled to pitch in…

“””Climate scientists said a paper suggesting the Atlantic Ocean current tipping point could occur as early as 2025 was ‘overdramatised’


Richard M
Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 29, 2023 10:14 am

The -AMO phase change is due around 2025. That should lead to some cooling as it did in the 1960s and 1970s. This paper may be an attempt to blame it all on “climate change”.

July 28, 2023 11:49 am

Another dreadful Non verifiable modeling study that excites the same feeble-minded pseudoscientist people we have long known.

July 28, 2023 12:11 pm

Show us the data on current strengths. It seems hard to get ahold of such data. In part because it is rather complex because these currents, like the Gulf Stream, are three dimensional water bodies, and while surface velocities are easily measured by ships, it takes three dimensional data at mid and deep depth to be able to calculate the actual water transport in some reasonable units, like gigatons per day. Plus further complications arise from gyres and where one current meets another current, and there are opposite currents immediately adjacent to the currents we all talk about (since the ocean surface elevation is constant but for tidal influences).

Anybody who claims to have modeled all that complexity and calibrated it with empirical data is blowing smoke, or lying, take your pick.

J Boles
July 28, 2023 12:20 pm

I love how their models predict opposites, so no matter what happens they feel they were right, so send more funding!

July 28, 2023 12:34 pm

If you are a climate alarmist, accelerating currents are alarming, decelerating currents are alarming….and if there’s no change in currents, well, The Models say there should be, so that’s alarming, too.

July 28, 2023 12:50 pm

This has been all over the usual news outlets

I have a 99 percent certainty that it’s junk

It’s all about keeping the alarm simmering

Reply to  strativarius
July 28, 2023 1:13 pm

Propaganda from propaganda outlets. There’s no need to describe USA Today as “news” (because it isn’t).

Walter Sobchak
July 28, 2023 1:09 pm

Only if the earth stops spinning on its axis can the currents stop. They are powered by two things, the insolation difference between the tropics and the arctic which is a result of the angle of the earths axis to the ecliptic and the earth’s rotation which produceses the Coriolis.

July 28, 2023 1:10 pm

As University of Pennsylvania climate researcher Michael Mann reportedly told USA Today regarding this study, “I’m not sure the authors bring much to the table other than a fancy statistical method. History is littered with flawed predictions based on fancy statistical methods; sometimes they’re too fancy for their own good.”

Broken clocks, twice a day, something like that.

July 28, 2023 1:24 pm

If the AMOC were to collapse, wouldn’t that lead to cooler water off the New England coast, and wouldn’t that lead to fewer and smaller storms?

Matt G
Reply to  MarkW
July 28, 2023 1:48 pm

The AMOC won’t redirect in anyones lifetime, but when it does you don’t want to be living in Canada, Northern and North Western Europe or Russia.

The storms would be tracking much further south because glaciers would build across Canada/North America (northern parts) and Northern Europe and some parts of Russia/Siberia. Siberia though becomes a cold desert with little/no snow.

It would be like the Younger Dryas.

comment image

Peta of Newark
July 28, 2023 1:36 pm

In light of the Met Office jumping up quickly to debunk this garbage – would the really cynical old farts amongst us start to wonder about a ‘False Flag’

i.e. ‘Somebody‘ on the inside (of CliSci) has put up this outlandish story simply that Met office could pop up and debunk it

Folks would then think:Oh wow, look how sensible & reasonable the Met Office is and what fantastically good climate scientists they are.

Folks would then be more believing/trusting in the outlandish junk that the Met Office (and other ‘scientists) comes out with..
Such as
July 4th was World’s Hottest Day Evah”
UK summer temps of 40°C will be tediously cold and boring inside 50 years”
Why (this) July is World’s Hottest Month since records began” here

i.e. This is an attempt to make themselves appear level-headed and reasonable.

To my mind, that is exactly what Global Greening is all about.
= a False Flag attack on skeptics.

CO₂ is NOT the limiting nutrient for plant life on this Earth.
Plants are controlled by bacteria. The soil that plants grow in works as a ‘stomach‘ for all plants and stomachs depend/are on the bacteria they contain.

Bacteria produce CO₂ in their Life Processes so giving them extra would suffocate and slow them down.
Giving them their Liebig Limiter would speed them up and that limiter is (water soluble) Nitrogen

Ulric Lyons
July 28, 2023 2:33 pm

Negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions slow the MOC, and that drives a warmer AMO and Arctic, as from 1995. That’s the result of weaker indirect solar forcing since 1995, and obviously dominated over the rise in CO2 forcing which should increase positive NAO conditions. The Gulf Stream does not actually weaken when the MOC is slower:

comment image

Dave Fair
July 28, 2023 4:49 pm

Michael E. Man: “History is littered with flawed predictions based on fancy statistical methods …” He should know.

July 28, 2023 5:05 pm

We must ask the global boiling advocates, is there any, any, even just one natural climatic phenomenon that is not adversely affected by humans burning fossil fuels?

And when will we “know” when the global climate is juuuuuust right?

It gets crazier by the day. CAGBoiling, the loony gift that just keeps on giving us….BS.

I am appealing to all WUWT readers to replace CAGW with CAGB. No doubt the UN will approve.

July 28, 2023 7:09 pm

Just the Sub Polar Front of the North Atlantic current is 25 x 10^6 tonnes per SECOND, 1 Cu.M=1 Tonne, while the entire Greenland ice melt is 270 x 10^9 Tonnes per YEAR, a year being 365*24*60*60=31.5 x 10^6 seconds. A 3000 to 1 dilution is just not going to affect the thermohaline circulation….

July 28, 2023 8:14 pm

More trash from the alarmists.

Nicholas McGinley
July 28, 2023 8:47 pm

Mann is not at the U of P, but at Penn State.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 28, 2023 10:37 pm

And should be in the other place

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 29, 2023 10:58 pm

At least I am not the only one who did not know he moved.
Penn is not what it was, been true for a long time.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 30, 2023 2:18 pm

Catch up.
The only thing constant is change.
PA has 23 state correctional institutions. When MMann gets put in one
we will know the CO2 Boiling scam has ended.

July 28, 2023 10:28 pm

From the abstract:

We predict with high confidence the tipping to happen as soon as mid-century (2025–2095 is a 95% confidence range). These results are under the assumption that the model is approximately correct, and we, of course, cannot rule out that other mechanisms are at play, and thus, the uncertainty is larger.


And yet you think the AMOC will give up the ghost in less than 2 years’ time!

When I see papers like this, my first thought is SSP8.5 so I check which model has been carefully selected to give the worst possible result to give the scariest headline.

This paper doesn’t mention which model or models have been used. In fact, one of the reviewers (reviewer 3) has asked the same question:

In the abstract, the authors mention the ‘business as usual scenario’. Does this refer to RCP 8.5? This seems oddly specific and does not come back in the article. 

You’d think the paper authors would have a good answer to this, but no: 

We did not have the RCPs, or present SSPs in mind when referring to ‘business as usual’. This was deliberately vague, since what we really assume is the linear-in-time approach to the tipping point. Since we do not assume the driver known, it would in our view not be warranted to refer to a specific future RCP scenario. We have slightly rephrased the sentence in the abstract. 

How on earth did this paper even get published?

Reply to  Redge
July 31, 2023 5:22 pm

I’m confused about how RPC8.5 stops the Earth from spinning on its axis.

Joseph Zorzin
July 29, 2023 2:50 am

Climate Change Won’t Stop The Gulf Stream. Here’s Why.
Sabine Hosenfelder

That the Gulf stream might collapse is one of the scariest consequences of climate change for us here in Europe, at least if you believe the headlines. In this video I’ll explain why the Gulf stream can’t collapse, what the headlines really mean, and what climate change might do to Europe.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
July 29, 2023 10:59 pm

This woman is an idiot.
But she is not wrong about everything, just a lot.

Larry Kummer, Editor
July 29, 2023 5:47 am

Trivia note to this great post: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs” is an old insight. Far older than Carl Sagan.

The great Quote Investigator website found examples going back to 1708.


%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights