CNN’s AMOC Alarm Debunked: Ocean Current Collapse Claims Crumble Under Scrutiny

CNN-Screenshot-2025-05-22

A recent CNN article by Laura Paddison, titled “A crucial system of ocean currents is slowing. It’s already supercharging sea level rise in the US, references new research on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) to claim the current is slowing down leading to rising seas and costly, deadly coastal flooding. This false claim is based solely on a single, as yet unpublished and unverified, study which used a single climate model’s projections. Evidence, such as other studies and historical reporting on AMOC trends demonstrate that there is no consensus on the status of the AMOC. Rather, scientists’ predictions and the media’s reporting on the AMOC have been flip-flopping for nearly two decades—unable to decide whether AMOC is speeding up, slowing down, or staying steady.

Figure1. A simplified illustration of the global “conveyor belt” of ocean currents that transport heat around Earth. Red shows surface currents, and blue shows deep currents. Deep water forms where the sea surface is the densest. The background color shows sea-surface density. The AMOC is the currents in the Atlantic Ocean off the east coast of the US. Source: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio.

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation has been among the climate alarmists’ top go-to bogeyman for years. There was even a sci-fi movie made about its collapse, The The Day After Tomorrow, in which the AMOC;s collapse leads to a new ice age within days. Whether the movie made for good drama is debatable, but what is not debatable was the vigorous criticism that climate scientists leveled against its portrayal of climate change. Looking at the history of AMOC predictions, according to some studies, it’s collapsing. In others, it’s strengthening. Sometimes studies suggest that the AMOC has not changed measurably at all in recent years. The problem is scientists have not had a reliable way to observe AMOC long enough to make definitive statements. That hasn’t stopped the press from pushing speculative, often contradictory, claims based on every new study.

Heartland President James Taylor documented this ever-changing narrative in his 2021 article at Climate Realism, highlighting how climate activists have repeatedly contradicted themselves on AMOC trends. One year it’s accelerating—fueling European warming—another year it’s stalling, threatening a new Ice Age. The takeaway? We simply don’t know enough to draw sweeping conclusions, let alone restructure financial lending or credit scoring based on these speculations.

In this case, CNN isn’t even citing published research, but relies heavily on yet unpublished research started in 2024 by Liping Zhang—an oceanographer with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory—suggesting that AMOC may be weakening due to climate-related factors and could be ingincreased coastal flooding. While Zhang’s modeling work may indeed raise valid scientific questions, CNN fails to mention the massive caveats attached to this line of research: sparse observational data, high model uncertainty, and a lack of consensus within the scientific community.

Had CNN done a even a modest amount of fact checking, it would have found that two peer reviewed studies published in a top science journal, Nature, in January and February of this year came to precisely the opposite conclusion as the unpublished study that the “news” organization is touting. Those studies looked at data and models and concluded that the AMOC is showing no sign of decline and was unlikely to do so even under climate extremes.

In addition, CNN ignored the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Chapter 12 of its Sixth Assessment Report: Emergence of Climate Impact Drivers, has found no correlation between climate change and coastal flooding in the present, and predicts none in the future as shown in the table below, note the yellow highlighted row “Coastal flood.”

IPCC Table 12.12 | Emergence of CIDs in different time periods, as assessed in this section. The colour corresponds to the confidence of the region with the highest confidence: white cells indicate where evidence is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal.

It is hard to believe there would be no coastal flooding if glacial melt was rapidly occurring which would be necessary for the AMOC to slow abruptly. Even when CNN acknowledges the uncertainty about the research’s claims, quoting Gerard McCarthy, an oceanographer at Maynooth University in Ireland, who candidly admits: “The science is still not clear,” its article then immediately pivots into speculative catastrophe—claiming future foreclosures, economic loss, and insurance shocks—all supposedly based on AMOC’s decline. That’s not reporting. That’s narrative crafting.

Making matters even worse, CNN has been corrected on this issue before. In 2024, Climate Realism published a comprehensive takedown of similar claims in a piece titled “No, CNN and Other Media Outlets: Climate Change is Not Causing the Ocean Circulation to Collapse”. The article points out that the limited time frame of AMOC observations—barely two decades—renders any long-term predictions highly speculative. Simply put: if you haven’t watched something for long, you can’t know with any confidence what it is going to do in the future. Also, climate model projections can’t help this problem, since they are known to be flawed and are dependent upon the quality of the assumptions built into them. If modelers assume climate change will cause an AMOC collapse, one shouldn’t be surprised when the models they create forecast a collapsing AMOC.

CNN compounds the errors resulting from its dubious use of science by projecting even more unjustified economic extrapolations. They tie AMOC-driven flooding to increased foreclosures, credit instability, and higher insurance premiums. This is a sleight of hand: attributing economic pressures caused by real estate inflation, poor zoning, and coastal overdevelopment to hypothetical ocean current changes.

The truth is that insurance losses and flood exposure are driven by where people build and what they build, not by a slow-motion current thousands of miles offshore. This was recently exposed by Climate Realism in CNN’s Climate Con: How Real Estate, Not Storms, Drives Insurance Costs. That article cites NOAA’s own data, such as the Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters database, which consistently shows that the rising cost of disasters is due to increased development in high-risk areas—not increased frequency or intensity of disasters.

CNN’s article on the AMOC is yet another example of how mainstream media misleads the public by dressing up uncertain science as inevitability. By leaning on AMOC modeling that lacks a solid observational foundation and is directly contradicted by other scientific research, then spinning speculative findings into warnings of financial collapse, CNN continues a disturbing trend: using unsubstantiated climate narratives to generate fear and political action, facts be damned. Even thought the experts CNN quotes say, “The science is still not clear,” CNN’s fail to practice any journalistic caution. Instead, CNN peddles science on the AMOC that has already been debunked, using it to support alarming narratives about insurance markets, lending, and housing. The result is a disservice to both science and the public, dismissing real science and sound economic and public policies in the pursuit of progressive political ends, like bigger government intervention in energy markets.

Anthony Watts Thumbnail

Anthony Watts

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 at ClimateREALISM

5 21 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jvcstone
May 24, 2025 2:18 pm

Anything coming from CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. etc is nothing but “official” narrative, and anyone who has been paying attention knows that the “official” narrative has always been a lie. Unfortunately, very few are paying attention any more since the schools have been educating our young to believe what they are told, and punished for thinking for themselves. I’m hoping that the resolution of this 4th turning we are currently in somehow turns all this BS around, but then we all know about that hopium stuff, and that real change takes some real effort.

rbabcock
May 24, 2025 2:42 pm

Thanks for the article Anthony. My only comment is you are too nice in your rebuttal. Maybe start another site called “WTF is Wrong with That??!! and use more colorful and crude language. Unload so to speak (and definitely use a pseudonym!).

Ron Long
May 24, 2025 3:09 pm

Nice take-down of CNN by Anthony Watts. Anthony incidentally identifies my future career, no work and high pay! That’s right, when I grow up I want to be a paid liar for CNN!

Mr.
Reply to  Ron Long
May 24, 2025 3:29 pm

So don’t forget to lie and plagiarize shamelessly on your CV.

(Trouble is – CNN produces so much content that is shameless plagiarizing and lies, that it probably wouldn’t notice yours 🙁 )

Gregory Woods
May 24, 2025 4:19 pm

The Cartoon Network News

May 24, 2025 4:55 pm

Had CNN done a even a modest amount of fact checking,

Why would you expect them to start now?

Seriously, the only thing to do with CNN is mock them ruthlessly and unceasingly until advertisers finally tire of wasting money to reach a continuously shrinking audience.

CNN is neither entertaining nor credible; their prime time viewership has declined to just over 500K in 2025 from 1.3 million in 2016. Absent a major shakeup and turnaround, they will be on life support in a few more years.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
May 24, 2025 8:10 pm

CNN and their ilk are not concerned with facts. They are only concerned with feeding the propaganda machine.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
May 24, 2025 10:06 pm

Like The Guardian.

hdhoese
May 24, 2025 5:22 pm

OK, the scientific community is wailing about budget cuts but doesn’t seem to understand how when they use CNN as an advertising authority which might well degrade all scientists, especially when you admit to bias, and its all simulations— hmmm.            

At the end of the paper’s Discussion section. Must be a new methodology too complex for us to understand.
“As also the present-day background climate state and the climate change forcing are different than in our simulations, the real present-day AMOC may be much closer to its tipping point than in the simulations shown here. Note that the analysis of the early warning signal is not affected by these biases, as this analysis is independent of the background state and precise forcing details.”

Dave Fair
Reply to  hdhoese
May 25, 2025 11:21 am

“As also the present-day background climate state and the climate change forcing are different than in our simulations …”” Academic fraud.

John Hultquist
May 24, 2025 7:20 pm

It’s already supercharging sea level rise in the US, …”
Can a reader check the CNN HQ in Atlanta (>1,000ft. Elev) to see if they are placing sandbags around the building?

Laws of Nature
May 25, 2025 8:08 am

S. Rahmstorf is a big proponent for the slowing AMOC and he pushed that idea relentlessly.
Unfortunately,, his research seems less that solid,

This is what I wrote in February about it and it seems still true, like Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1998, he seems very slow to react to criticism when it fits their political agenda, they had almost 30 years to react to it now..

“””Uh I am not sure if anyone looked at RealClimate recently, but S. Rahmstorf blogged quite a jewel this week:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/01/the-amoc-is-slowing-its-stable-its-slowing-no-yes/#comments
in defense of his “the AMOC is weakening” idea..
“In the North Atlantic, the historic runs of CMIP6 models on average do not reproduce the ‘cold blob’ despite this being such a striking feature of the observational data,[..] Thus I consider CMIP6 models as less suited to test how well the ‘cold blob’ works as AMOC indicator than the CMIP5 models.”
Somebody needs to tell him that CMIP5 models are just bad copies of CMIP6 models with lower resolution and bad cloud physics!
!!! Here is the important part !!!
If he cannot find his wanted pattern in the newer and better models, it is about time to man up and correct his old papers!
Rahmstorf was one of the six initial agitators forcing the retraction of Alimonti´s paper, which did not contain such scientific blunders, surely his firm stand on questionable science MUST lead to a retraction of his papers which seems to be based just on modeling artifacts as he describes himself in his blog article!
(BTW this is similarly true for all the other CMIP5 based findings, in an honest scientific field that climate sensitivity correction of about 25% should cause a shock-wave of retracted old papers!)”””

KevinM
May 25, 2025 9:17 am

Google says:
“In April 2025, CNN averaged 519,000 primetime viewers, while Fox News reached 2,592,000. In terms of the A25-54 demographic, Fox News had 296,000 viewers compared to CNN’s 99,000.”

I hadn’t asked for anything about Fox, just CNN in my search. Google assumes a Coke-Pepsi market split where you’re drinking from either one can or the other.

May 25, 2025 12:32 pm

There is a logic failure with attributing rising CO2 forcing with a slowing of the AMOC. Slower AMOC trends are driven by negative North Atlantic Oscillation regimes, e.g. 1995-1999 and 2005-2012, and peak slow AMOC events during deeper negative NAO episodes, e.g. summers 2007 and 2012, Jan-Feb and Dec 2010, March 2013.
Rising CO2 forcing is expected to increase positive NAO states, which is the wrong sign to associate with a solar AMOC.

comment image

bobpjones
May 25, 2025 1:17 pm

I recall some 30 years ago, CNN was jokingly referred to as the Chicken Noodle Network. Seems like it still is.

John Hultquist
Reply to  bobpjones
May 25, 2025 8:00 pm

CNN, in 2003, had a “shooting star” moment with “Baghdad Bob”.
The plateau lasted several years and “flame out” followed. Why and how the company remains is a mystery.

ScienceABC123
May 26, 2025 8:23 am

The proper use of computer models…

You believe you understand how something (climate, weather, supernovas, etc.) works. You take everything you know, put it into a model per your understanding. You test your model by giving it the same input conditions as observed. If it responds with the same output as observed, you might be onto something. If it doesn’t, go back to square one and question everyone of your assumptions.

Rational Keith
May 26, 2025 11:20 am

Well, they do change – so?

Several years ago a change in Atlantic currents was suggested as a reason why the ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro was growing, previously had been shrinking.
(Theory was that there was more evaporation from ocean that precipitated downstream, prevailing winds being from the west.)

As for CNN, that’s Ted Turner (who was dumb enough to marry Hanoi Jane).

Sparta Nova 4
May 27, 2025 7:10 am

Narrative crafting?
Don’t sugar coat it. It is propaganda, pure and simple.