
An article published at NewsBreak (NB) titled, Scientists issue urgent warning about mysterious ‘cold blob’ in the ocean: ‘Most likely underestimated’ claims that a “mysterious cold blob” in the Atlantic Ocean signals an impending collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which could have “catastrophic” consequences. This claim is, at best, misleading. In reality, the AMOC is not weakening at an unprecedented rate, nor is it on the brink of collapse—long-term data and historical trends do not support such dire predictions.
As seen above in a satellite data derived image from NASA in 2018, the “cold blob” has been around awhile.
The NB article states, “The decline of the AMOC system is most likely underestimated by current climate models, and its collapse could bring devastating climate changes.” However, this assertion relies heavily on speculative and notably flawed climate models rather than observational data.
The NB articles is based on and cites a recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) which claims that the AMOC is weakening due to climate change. However, like many similar studies, it relies on climate models with unverified assumptions about how the AMOC works and what drives changes in it, and climate model projections based on those assumptions. The study did not look at direct, long-term empirical observations.
For years, climate alarmists have warned about an imminent collapse of AMOC, yet real-world data tells a different story. As Climate at a Glance: Ocean Currents highlights, direct observational data shows no long-term weakening trend in AMOC. The supposed decline is based on incomplete datasets and short-term variability rather than robust, century-scale records. The RAPID array monitoring system in the Atlantic, shows no consistent trend of dramatic weakening. In addition, although the so-called cold blob south of Greenland has been cited before as an indicator of AMOC weakening, temperature variations in this region have multiple causes, not just AMOC changes. Natural ocean variability, changes in atmospheric circulation, and volcanic activity all contribute to regional temperature anomalies.
With approximately 40 years of satellite records, science is unable to determine at the present time whether the “cold blob” is a regular natural occurrence every few decades and whether the blob is driven by ocean currents or is a periodic or recent phenomenon occurring only off of Greenland, resulting from inflows from melting ice.
Furthermore, historical research shows that similar cold anomalies have appeared in the Atlantic before, long before industrial CO₂ emissions became a factor. If a cooling region in the North Atlantic were a reliable indicator of AMOC weakening, then AMOC would have supposedly been on the verge of collapse multiple times over the past several centuries—yet it never did.
Perhaps the most glaring problem with the AMOC collapse narrative is that it keeps changing. Over the past two decades, the same climate activists who now claim AMOC is weakening due to global warming have previously argued the opposite—that warming would strengthen AMOC. As pointed out in Climate Realism: Climate Activists Flip-Flop on Ocean Currents Yet Again, scientists and the mainstream media have repeatedly shifted their position, sometimes arguing that AMOC is accelerating, sometimes claiming it’s slowing and on the verge of collapse, and at other times saying the speed of the current has not changed much at all.
For example, in 2005, NASA reported that AMOC was slowing down, but by 2010, researchers were claiming AMOC was actually speeding up due to Arctic ice melt. Then, in 2015, the narrative flipped back to AMOC slowing, only to shift again in 2018 when another paper suggested that AMOC had been recovering, and the previous conclusions might have been overstated.
When it comes to the AMOC, as with the constantly shifting narrative on monsoons, every time a new study is published, the narrative changes, but regardless of the change, the cause is always attributed to human activity and the results are always going to be catastrophic if governments don’t act. But what are we acting to prevent when the anticipated disaster constantly shifts? Is the AMOC speeding up, slowing down, or remaining about the same? Pick your study.
If AMOC were truly experiencing an unprecedented, human-caused collapse, the narrative shouldn’t be shifting with every new study, but rather the studies should produce consistent results.
The primary problem with the PNAS study and the NB article is the reliance on climate model projections, even though the models past projections have been consistently flawed and the modelers themselves admit, they don’t accurately portray the key metric they were designed to project, that is, global temperatures. As we’ve reported at Climate Realism repeatedly, here, here, and here for example, climate models have consistently overestimated warming rates and failed to account for natural climate variability.
The media’s track record on climate predictions is littered with failed doomsday scenarios. Just a few decades ago, headlines were filled with warnings of an impending ice age. Now, every observable natural fluctuation in weather or climate is blamed on human activity and portrayed as an existential crisis. The NB article fits this pattern, presenting a speculative study as if it were undeniable proof of an impending disaster.
Rather than presenting a balanced view of the scientific debate, the media continually pushes alarming narratives intended not to inform but rather to generate fear. Yet the stories almost always lack empirical backing or even fly in the face of what data actually show. The reality is there is no evidence that AMOC is on the verge of collapsing. Indeed, based on the current state of knowledge about the AMOC, science can’t even say whether it is changing at all, much less whether it is speeding up or slowing down. Readers deserve better than another round of speculative climate doom predictions based on the unverified alarming study de jour.

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
Originally posted in ClimateREALISM
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just remember—no matter what the evidence shows, climate change is gonna kill us all right soon now, so pay higher taxes!
You will have nothing and you will be happy.
You will own nothing and THEY will be happy.
A very simple rule: If it’s the product of modelling, you can ignore it.
And that isn’t an assumption, it’s a fact.
In climate of course.
However, in other areas, modelling can be informative, allow experiment type analysis, and in specific cases achieve a quality level defined as simulation or emulation.
As a general rule of thumb, models cannot predict anything but the present and can sometimes establish probabilities of different outcomes and/or possible trend lines. Non of those are concise or definitive.
Of course in climate. That goes without saying.
“All models are wrong, but some are useful” is a famous quote often attributed to the British statistician George E. P. Box. {Maybe not an exact quote.}
All climate models are junk. That is the point.
Not sure if either of these is what you were thinking of.
“— “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
— “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.”
Exactly. Wait until the public learns about the climate models, they will lose their minds with anger.
__________________________________________________________________________
Kinda like the flip-flop in 1980 from Global Cooling to Global warming
These Climate Crisis stories go round and round.
We have about half-a-dozen standard Climate Crisis memes that Climate Alarmists continually recycle. And this AMOC story is one of them.
The Climate Alarmists will warn us about AMOC and it will be a story for a week or so, and then six months later, practically the same story will be in the news again.
The same goes for sea level acceleration, and coral reefs dying, and “hottest day/week/month/year evah!” and hurricanes are getting stronger, and are spinning up faster, and on and on and on.
And there is still NO evidence connecting CO2 to any of these fictitious events, even if they were real, which they are not..
Memories of The Day After Tomorrow, based on the Coming Superstorm scifi book, and loaded with easter eggs that completely contradict the narrative, and piss-poor physics.
They do that because they have nothing viable that would make any sense so they recycle their old scaremongering babble instead….
O/T The Guardian and Sky News fly the climate alarmist flag with pride. Serious journalism and all that. Today’s fire at the Heathrow substation, closing the airport for a day, showed their due diligence…
Both Sky News and, surprise surprise, the Guardian got rather confused in their coverage this morning – mixing up the Swedish airline SAS with British special forces unit, the Special Air Service. Awkward…
Sky News broadcasted that ‘the Special Air Service says all 12 of their round trips to and from Heathrow are cancelled’, while the Guardian reported at 7 a.m.: ‘The Special Air Service, or SAS, has said that it [is] also impacted by Heathrow’s closure.’
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-guardians-embarrassing-heathrow-story-slip-up/
Silly 6th formers…
“an impending collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which could have “catastrophic” consequences.”
Well, it could!
It may have happened in the past. Then again continental drift (plate tectonics) is a big factor.
Closing of the isthmus of Panama was a significant “forcing function.”
Story tip: power out at Heathrow airport, London. Backup generators failed to come on. Allegedly, the old reliable diesel gen sets were replaced with biomass powered “generators”. Ed Millibrain says “no foul play suspected”. over 100000 passengers delayed, canceled, rerouted.
Its a pilot level dry run for the nationwide blackouts which will happen under Miliband’s Net Zero project. Think almost all transport and travel stopped, all home heating stopped (gas boilers need power), freezers warming up, supermarkets running out, no light after about 4pm….
This one they can recover from quite fast, because its local, just one transformer, but the nationwide ones will take a week or so.
🙂 Nothing to see here. Move along.
Sounds like a substation transformer (oil cooled) fire. Wonder what the lead time is to replace a substation scale transformer, and who manufactures them.
those bad bad hydrocarbons in the oil wot did it
“Wonder what the lead time is to replace a substation scale transformer, and who manufactures them.”
Good questions.
I was about to share the same story tip.
It appears that the outage was due to one substation catching fire. Seems like a pretty fragile infrastructure for the airport. You addressed the generator issue…
Look here:
51.499566, -0.411903
Doesn’t seem to be very much combustible material on site, unless they’ve installed some batteries since that picture was taken. Still burning at 5:10PM btw..
Oil for cooling, I think a saw 2,000 L., or about 528 gallons.
Oops. a lot more than that.
Do they still use combustible oil in transformers?
Does anybody know what is fuelling the fire? Are there any large scale lithium ion batteries at the sub station?
Sure there were North Atlantic cold blobs in 2013-2015 and in 2018 during positive NAO periods, but the negative NAO regime of 2023-2024 resulted in a record warm blob.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/global-sea-surface-temperature-reaches-record-high
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08674-z
Yes, AMOC’s “Cold Blob” Has Gone Missing,as documented in animations in this article on WUWT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/07/18/amocs-cold-blob-has-gone-missing/
I had commented on that, your figure 8 is contradicted by your reference 9:
“Here, we present evidence that changes in the atmospheric circulation over the North Atlantic, in particular a centennial trend towards a more positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), could have contributed to the cold blob.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-023-06847-y
Let’s get this straight, it is March 21st and these idiots are surprised and frightened because water in North Atlantic is cold. That about sum this crap up?
Not quite . . . the idiots go well beyond that, claiming that the “blob” is some 5 deg-F or more colder than even surface temperatures within the Arctic Circle averaged over 4 years!
I imagine a record of water temps through that region and at varying depths only goes back to the 1950s, so perhaps they can show us a hockeystick showing when and how much colder it got and we will all just believe them. 🙂
It’s just crap to sell clicks.
I believe you will find that the excellent documentary film The Day After Tomorrow proves that you are wrong.
Sensationalize, especially the headline, and generate ad clicks (aka revenue).
The lead-in graphic and references from an article published by NewsBreak fail the basic “smell test” when subjected to just cursory scientific examination:
1) Does anyone really believe that a relatively small area cold “blob” of water in the North Atlantic ocean could maintain an AVERAGE temperature difference around its borders of about 5 deg-F over a period of 4 years (2014-2018) as indicated in the graphic? Especially considering that the graphic color scale shows much higher AVERAGE water/surface temperature extending northward up to the north pole?
2) Does anyone really believe this “blob” would remain as stationary in its global position as indicated, despite the presence of the North Atlantic west-to-east thermohaline surface water ocean currents (also NH jet streams and NH circumpolar circulation winds)?
3) From the above article: “As seen above in a satellite data derived image from NASA in 2018, the ‘cold blob’ has been around awhile.” Really? Why then hasn’t it received much more notice and discussion as to its presence and postulated cause up until now? Given the heavy amount of both sea vessel and aircraft traffic that would be passing across this “cold blob”, why is it just now receiving “publicity”?
4) How has this cold blob maintained its stationary geographical location and delta-T despite the fact that the North Atlantic is known to be subject to frequent and often violent storms? IOW, what is the local “refrigerator” for this volume of water?
5) You can find the following disclaimer buried in the above article: “However, like many similar studies, it relies on climate models with unverified assumptions about how the AMOC works and what drives changes in it, and climate model projections based on those assumptions. The study did not look at direct, long-term empirical observations.” In other words, the lead-in graphic is the result of a computer-generated image and does not represent reality . . . a raft of sins underlie this statement: “As seen above in a satellite data derived image from NASA in 2018 . . .” (my bold emphasis added in both quoted excerpts).
More simply, garbage in, garbage out.
Agreed, with all the different flows – Gulf Stream, Labrador current, East Greenland Current, changes in air pressure, winds, salinity; means there’s no chance of that area remaining static for 4 weeks never mind 4 years … unless you have a fixed upwelling of frigid water.
” in a satellite data derived image from NASA in 2018, the “cold blob” has been around a while.”
If it’s satellite data, then it’s a surface area at most a few mm thick (so more of a splat than a blob), a blob would have depth that satellites can’t see.
Climate Alarmists told me the oceans were boiling! Then along comes a Cold Blob! I’m so confused!
Whenever I used to read the headline “Scientists issue urgent warning”, I’d take a shot of single malt scotch and life became good again.
Lately though, I’ve been considering going to AA meetings instead.
That may not help all that much . . . I hear that about 75% of the people attending those meeting are former AGW/CAGW alarmists who have been wrestling with “Boy, was I ever wrong!”
You can do both.
It’s like those sinners who go to confession, then go away and repeat those same sins until it’s time to go to confession again.
Or the guilty CO2 emitters who pay a tithe to buy an indulgence called “carbon credits” or “offsets”, then keep on emitting at just the same or increased rate.
Well it’s obvious, look at the picture, there is more warm ocean than cold so the average would lean to warm. Everything is okay.
YES! . . . just look at that (lead-in to above article) picture . . . and note that, based on the indicated color coded, four-year average average temperature scale, the entire area within the Arctic Circle is claimed to be several degree-F hotter than the continental US.
Who buys into this BS?
Media running “amoc”……as usual 😉😁
The only mysterious cold blob of consequence is the one in the brains of climate justice warriors, freezing an otherwise flexible, rational brain, rendering it inflexible and impervious to any idea outside the diet of leftist dogma it imbibes on a regular basis.
I seem to remember the Maldives and half of Bangladesh were going to be underwater by 2018, predicted in about 2000.
And then I saw the Prime Minister of the Maldives supposedly holding a meeting underwater.
And in the last few years, three international airports have been constructed on the Maldives.
I, for one, am totally sick of this utter bullschtit.
If I lived in a model world I would be scared, but since I live in the real world I prepare.
If you lived in a model world, you’d be tiny & made of Plastic, Plasticine or Papier-mâché, so you should be scared of any increase in temperature !!!
I also live in the real world, & it’s bloody freezing here, so I’ve just lit the log burner.