Collapse of critical Atlantic current is no longer low likelihood, study finds
Posted by mustwinfullGaming@reddit | collapse | View on Reddit | 101 comments
ShyElf@reddit
I don't think people get how big of a deal this is. There are still massive amounts of respected climate scientists trying to argue that CMIP6 models don't have AMOC collapses, and that models that do are unrealistic.
The news article fails to get across just how big of a failure this is. These models aren't new. They're plain vanilla CMIP6 models. Neither is the AMOC metric used new. That's one of the first things people would think to check. They do use a new buoyancy change metric in the paper, as well as a refined convection depth metric, but the AMOC observations don't depend on those. Neither is the emissions scenario new. It's the same core scenario they've been using since the start of CMIP6. The only thing that's new is that they ran the scenarios for longer. There's really no good reason why their AMOC result wasn't reported around 4 years ago.
I still don't understand why they thought ending the world at 2100 was OK, as the AMOC values hadn't stabilized, and were still heading down in the ones which collapse. The models have sharp shifts in the overturning depth, but not in the AMOC volumes.
Since these are the base models, the model biases we've discussed in other posts are still present, and there's still every reason to expect a faster AMOC collapse than described here. The models still don't explain observed paleo-proxy AMOC.
They have an excellent recent AMOC observation graph. Those are quite hard to find.
PM-me-YOUR-0Face@reddit
Could you rewrite this like I'm 15 with a very basic understanding of thermodynamics?
europeanputin@reddit
The way I understood it was that previously modeled simulations stopped at 2100, now they've ran it for longer and discovered that AMOC collapse becomes a possibility with the given conditions (somewhere past 2100). However, the base models they use are all wrong (same models that still have 1.5C hopium) and we know those are wrong in a way that things are happening "faster than expected". So if the models predict a higher chance of AMOC collapse with current conditions to be somewhere past 2100, in reality it's likely closer.
PM-me-YOUR-0Face@reddit
If I understand you correctly:
General AMOC calcs = total collapse of the ocean stream (as we know it) sometime between today and 2100.
europeanputin@reddit
Yes. There's a scientific debate essentially what is valid input data for determining when and under what conditions AMOC collapses.
Let me illustrate with a different example - let's say that you are doing an simulation on how quickly the ice melts. Some of the input parameters that affect the outcome are temperature and wind. By changing either of the parameters the end result will change - increase in temperature will increase the melting rate, lowering decreases it. In a real system, let's say somewhere around Germany, we know that the temperature range can be somewhere between -20c to 20c, depending on the region and time of the year, so it doesn't make sense to use 70c as an input parameter, for example, because it would yield unrealistic results. Additionally, choosing anything below 0 degrees would result with no melting at all, doesn't matter for how long period of time. But let's say it's a big glacier where it's 0.1c average melting rate for years. The melting rate is so small that unless modeled for long time, it would show no results in a short timespan (let's say 50 years).
A similar thing is happening here - they are using input data for CO2 in such a way that it didn't show that any impact on AMOC would happen before 2100 and they just didn't go further to understand that there is actually an impact.
So if we continue with my ice example, if we'd change the input parameter of 0.1c to let's say 10c, we would immediately start seeing significant melting, knowing it has an impact on ice, and much faster than with 0.1c.
This is what's happening. Alarmists, like Hansen, think of much different input data, and when simulations are run with this, it shows AMOC failure to happen not after 2100, but potentially much earlier. Since the climate system is much more complex than thermodynamics of melting ice, scientists fail to agree on what is the baseline on what to use for CO2. Agreed consensus is to follow IPCC outlook, but IPCC has failed to project realistic numbers, hence many older simulations are completely bogus as the data based on which they have been created is invalid.
Orange_Indelebile@reddit
2018 : they said AMOC unlikely to happen ever 2022 : could happen but not before 2100 2025 : may happen in 2060
At that rate, in two years they will us it's for 2040, just in time for Greenland/Antarctic 's meltdown and corresponding sea level rise.
It's going to be messy
AngusScrimm---------@reddit
The very sick upside to it occurring as early as 2040 is that it seems likely that the population will be appreciably less than 8 Billion by then.
PM-me-YOUR-0Face@reddit
The first heat wave that kills >1m people in an afternoon will be the wakeup call coming from inside the house.
Decloudo@reddit
Not for climate action though, for a war on resources.
PM-me-YOUR-0Face@reddit
It's the same coin or dice.
Let me know if you have questions about this... I think it is a fairly non-complex idea to teach.
Orange_Indelebile@reddit
We already have had heat waves that have killed 10s of thousands of people in one go in developed countries and nothing has changed since (ref. 2003 European heatwave 70k deaths).
I would hope that something like 250k would be enough to wake up people.
But you are probably right.
Maybe if it starts killing younger people rather than old people, people will actually take notice.
PM-me-YOUR-0Face@reddit
It will take a massive loss of life for all of the various powers that be to wake up and respond to the event.
It will likely dominate the news cycle to try and take over the fact that >250k people died in a significant heat event (which is the more important story).
Anyway. Bet. I'll check in sometime in the next few weeks.
Orange_Indelebile@reddit
I just felt weird reading your comment.
I somewhat always thought the same as you, but never actually processed in my head until now. It is actually strange and sick too realise that he will be first generation in human history to witness massive planet wide population decline and fast. In just 15 years. Thinking I am just comfortably sitting on my ass right now, but it will be very different story very soon.
potatoesintheback@reddit
Sorry if this is an incredibly uninformed question, but what are both you and the comment above referring to in terms of "massive planet wide population decline"? I thought we were currently severely overpopulated
Orange_Indelebile@reddit
The current 'business as usual' UN projections are as follows 8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100. That is taking into account known projected fertility decline. Other projections are looking at world population peaking at around 10 billion in 2065.
Regardless, the point is that every official source is projecting an increasing population for at least another two or three generations.
Some of us believe that by 2040 (in 15 years), the population would have already peaked and severely decreased. The only way for this to happen is for a large proportion of people dying earlier than they should for unnatural reasons within that time frame. The main reasons for this to happen are famine/crop failure, disease, floods, wet bulb temperatures, and war. (The number of horsemen of the apocalypse has increased somehow).
"Massive planet wide population decline" even if it happens only in the poorest corners of the world, it will be visible to everyone on this planet however shielded or rich we are. It will have a massive economic, cultural and political impact worldwide.
Necessary-Start4151@reddit
I read a paper 6 months ago about some modelers predicting the late 2040s for the collapse…not far off Who knows, but the fact that we continue to burn more and more and most folks act like it’s not their problem, means to me that major impacts are coming sooner than we think.
rematar@reddit
My bingo card figures there will be serious effects by 2050.
Amazing-Marzipan3191@reddit
My money is on a continual contraction in the timeline of when it may happen, from "sometime after 2100 we might see significant change" to "shit it's happening already, and it'll change our way of life imminently", within ten years.
breatheb4thevoid@reddit
The rich just get to scurry like rats from a house hire.
ThirstyWolfSpider@reddit
The reason the rats were in the house is that there was an ongoing dependable regular source of food in the house. Rats fleeing a house fire, absent another comparable house nearby, will have a bad time.
Such is the nature of the collapse of dissipative systems.
breatheb4thevoid@reddit
It's been a long time coming but efforts of Nomad Capitalist and other seemingly "Not Russian but sure do help their interests a ton" social media accounts are helping 1%ers remove themselves from the country they helped alter.
BeardedGlass@reddit
Yep. They are not affected by the terribly problems because they are buffered by their power and wealth.
Collapse is never fair. Those who are rich have always been living cushy lives, having the last laugh.
Dystopia is boring and unfair... and slow.
SimpleAsEndOf@reddit
Desperation to get aboard a Penis shaped rocket.
Small-Expert-4020@reddit
💯
trickortreat89@reddit
2050? lol… remind me in 5 years
On_The_Fourth_Floor@reddit
I have always pegged the year I can retire, technically 2050, to be the year Western Industrial civilization collapses. Guess we'll see if we get there.
BigJSunshine@reddit
Retire? Dang. My retirement plan is go down trying to save cats, while taking some truly evil magats or a Nestle exec out in the water wars of 2041..
Idle_Redditing@reddit
2050? It's already too hot.
Summers in my area used to be mild and hot days were rare. Now they're common.
ost2life@reddit
Your bingo card is quite the optimist.
rematar@reddit
My mom made it.
ShaneBarnstormer@reddit
I told you to get off the computer and do school
rematar@reddit
Mom. I graduated years ago, I've told you how much I despised the Prussian education system. I JUST WANT TO MAKE MY OWN BINGO CARD.
ShaneBarnstormer@reddit
💜
hairy_ass_truman@reddit
My Quija board gives that answer too.
Ok-Elderberry-7088@reddit
How are we still considering these STUPID ASS MODELS? Haven't we seen how useless and wrong they are? Why do we keep relying on a prediction model that has been wrong for like 90% of all that's happened? Have you ever seen something play out like the models predicted? It's ALWAYS faster than expected? At this point, anyone referencing climate models should be shun. If the models are saying by 2100, prepare for it by 2050 at the latest or something.
Interestingllc@reddit
No prep will be enough
europeanputin@reddit
Yeah, that's the saddest part in my opinion. Nothing will help, it will be a violent shit show as soon as the food runs out from the supermarkets and a global breakdown of nations. Billions will die and only the luckiest may survive.
Take time each day to appreciate the life around you and what you have, because in 15 years there will not be any of that left.
antichain@reddit
This isn't true. Temperature models have been accurate going back half a century [source]
hobofats@reddit
people don't seem to understand that modeling global temperatures is very different from modeling the consequences of of global temperature changes.
RadiantRole266@reddit
Temperature models and tipping point models are different beasts. I don’t agree with OP that they are all useless and wrong, but it sure seems we’ve underestimated some tipping point vulnerabilities and perhaps overall system sensitivity.
antichain@reddit
Sure but OP said:
The answer to that question (contra OP) is demonstrably YES. Has everything played out according to the models? No, of course not. But this is a great example of the kind of post that inspired me to make the "Science denial" post. Confident claims about the science that even 5 minutes of Googling would show you are just flat-out wrong.
Ok-Abrocoma-6587@reddit
Rapid cuts in carbon emissions are not going to happen. Currently, 21 countries are run primarily on renewable sources of energy. Start preparing now: simplify your life, build community, learn some skills.
exialis@reddit
Your first example in your link is Albania where 60% of the total energy supply is from fossil fuels, mostly oil.
https://energypedia.info/wiki/Albania_Energy_Situation
Ok-Abrocoma-6587@reddit
Sorry, yes, they derive almost 100% of electricity from renewables, but TOTAL energy use relies more on fossils. My original comment was regarding sources of electricity, not total energy use.
Kangas_Khan@reddit
I’ll do that, doesn’t mean I can’t have hope china and India continue doing what they’re doing
Substantial_Impact69@reddit
“But China is all in on renewable energy.”
Coal remains the backbone of their electricity generation, and their economic model is still very carbon and resource intensive.
kan-sankynttila@reddit
at least there is tradition to respecting nature and a belief that natural disasters indicate the loss of the ’mandate of heaven’ (or whichever political system is in place)
RandomBoomer@reddit
Ummm.... have you read about the rampant toxic pollution in China caused by unregulated and/or corrupt businesses?
kan-sankynttila@reddit
lol yes, but i feel like the current chinese government is more aware of the impact that natural disasters can evoke in citizenry; an uprising is the last thing they plan on having. thus, it stands in stark contrast to its american counterpart atm
RandomBoomer@reddit
I don't find that a persuasive argument, but one can always hope.
kan-sankynttila@reddit
have you followed recent chinese climate policy? that is the historical backdrop.
ThirstyWolfSpider@reddit
"organized management of sparrow populations" is the first thing that comes to mind.
Substantial_Impact69@reddit
“Okay, besides that!”
The extinction of the Yangtze River Dolphin
Their construction of various manmade islands in the South China Sea have destroyed large sections of marine ecosystem and coral reefs
The Cancer Villages (Yes, Really)
Poyang Lake Shrinkage-China’s largest freshwater lake has shrunk dramatically since the early 2000s effecting ironically the bird populations (Back to the Sparrows again! Mao would be so proud)
Techno-Diktator@reddit
There is? Wouldn't have guessed considering how they treat their rivers
kan-sankynttila@reddit
money has that kind of power
Indigo_Sunset@reddit
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02487-8
Tldr
Coal appears to be dropping and biomass appears to be a replacement.
hippydipster@reddit
They were building more new coal plants in 2024 than they had in the previous 10 years. I don't know why you'd say coal appears to be dropping.
Substantial_Impact69@reddit
Dropping but is not yet the backbone. Why do I always have to spell this out? Two things can be true at once, China can be leading in renewable energy and still be heavily dependent on coal.
Indigo_Sunset@reddit
A critical issue is aerosol reduction and control. While lessening co2/e is laudable the problem of termination shock still exists. Given that the amoc sensitivity is the temp delta complications, aerosols are still high on the list of things to be concerned with in dealing with this sensitivity.
As you said, more than one thing can apply.
Substantial_Impact69@reddit
Very true.
bipolarearthovershot@reddit
China has 1100 coal plants INSANE
SimpleAsEndOf@reddit
Capitalism demands more Coal.
And China will answer the call of Capitalism.
Kangas_Khan@reddit
That’s true. But the point remains that when they figure out how cost effective solar is, they’ll inevitably go all into it. There’s a reason solar tycoons already exist there
ThirstyWolfSpider@reddit
Well, not while humans are around.
JorgasBorgas@reddit
Which ones are those? I'm impressed there are that many.
exialis@reddit
There aren’t. When he says ‘energy’ he means electricity, and ignores all the fossil fuels the country uses for other stuff. It is the most often repeated fraud/mistake in the climate change energy use debate. Somebody somewhere is deliberately conflating ‘energy’ meaning just electricity and ‘energy’ meaning all energy consumed in total.
Ok-Abrocoma-6587@reddit
Lots of info online:
https://ratedpower.com/blog/renewable-success-stories/
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/mapped-renewable-energy-by-country-in-2022/
ChromaticStrike@reddit
Renewable traditionally doesn't include nuclear so be careful of picking that as the criteria.
Ok-Abrocoma-6587@reddit
It's beyond my pay grade to pick criteria, lol. I'm just pointing out that we are far from making rapid cuts in carbon emissions where it matters most.
ChromaticStrike@reddit
Every time I look at the emission graph I get reminded that my country is fucking irrelevant in term of emission, it feels great and terrible, great to do the right thing, terrible to be held hostage of a hyper production race.
Ok-Abrocoma-6587@reddit
Absolutely. It's unfair as hell. And billionaires are responsible for more resource use and emissions than half of the world combined. It's really incomprehensible. But even given the unfairness, I still keep my life simple and low-impact, for my own integrity and sanity.
pegaunisusicorn@reddit
Saudi Arabia is going to be lush farmland?
trickortreat89@reddit
And last week when I mentioned this in the subreddit science I was ridiculed and called a “doom spreader” and I should “calm down”.
Like f*ck this, not even fuckin’ leftist people understand the threat level anymore. NO ONE understands how serious it is!
Good luck 👍
mustwinfullGaming@reddit (OP)
People basically will irrationally try to say you’re dooming because they don’t want to face the alternative, which is we’re so fucked and we’re literally facing eventual species collapse. They want to continue their delusional lifestyles where everything stays the same
trickortreat89@reddit
Honestly I haven’t met a single person in real life, not even climate activists who seem to truly understand how severe the situation is. Everyone seems to have some hope or denialist attitude somewhere regarding this… also myself even. It’s hard to grasp how the world will look like in 5 years. I think even when things really start to collapse it will quickly just become the new way of life and become normalized. No one will probably ever get how stupid we as a species have been
ShooflyKitty@reddit
“But the future of the Atlantic circulation is still in our hands.”
The obligatory hopium closing line.
PsudoGravity@reddit
Those hands might be horribly disfigured, disabled, and covered in an unhealthy amount of industrial grade lubricant, but they are still our hands :D
freedcreativity@reddit
The title is similarly a half truth, ‘no longer a low probability event,’ hmmmmm. If you render that into grade 6 English, ‘event now likely.’ My mother was a managing editor and she wouldn’t let me get away with a mealy mouth title rendered as a negative in my school papers. Amazing the Guardian lets that get published.
BigJSunshine@reddit
IDK if I would bag on The Guardian- its not a scientific publication, but it works hard to get important scientific news out to the masses who have the attention span of a gnat, so a little clickbait-iness in the title does not bother me.
hobofats@reddit
"we still have time to continue burning fossil fuels for a few more years"
clubby37@reddit
To be fair, no matter what you say, the takeaway will either be "there's still time to carry on as usual" or "it's too late, so might as well carry on as usual."
jbond23@reddit
This quote stands out.
So point of no return in 2040. AMOC collapse in 2140? This is not AOMC collapse by next Wednesday.
petered79@reddit
we should stop using sentences like 'if the emissions continue to rise'.
better 'at the current pace'
i know it's a detail, but that conditional 'if' it's just a linguistic hopium.
Monsur_Ausuhnom@reddit
There's only one way to resolve this. How can the richest make more money saving the gulf stream then destroying it? This will also need to be added to the next economic bailout after they bankrupt everyone again, people complain, and do exactly the same thing again to only repeat that again in another 5 years.
Collapse2043@reddit
By the time the AMOC collapses Europe will be in desperate need of the cooling effect. No so good for rising sea levels in North America though
mediandude@reddit
It won't cool european summers. And the spring and summer droughts will become much more severe. The reports are essentially saying that springs will disappear - from winter abruptly into the heatwaves of summer, which means agricultural failures.
breatheb4thevoid@reddit
Insurance companies in the US are already like "idk sounds kinda more like a 'you' problem than mine". If you have anything financially involve with the success of domestic US insurance, you're about to be in the poor house in the next 5 years.
Moneybags99@reddit
Cool cool so like should I book my Iceland vacation sooner than later?
mustwinfullGaming@reddit (OP)
While according to this study the effects are unlikely to hit us this century, new models being run in this study suggested that there is a significantly increased change of the collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. The models suggest that if emissions continue to rise, 70% of the model runs lead to collapse, while even with low emissions, 25% do. A researcher suggested that the chance of this happening was previously estimated to be around 10%, making it significantly more likely.
the_pwnererXx@reddit
Emissions peaked this year.
KnowledgeMediocre404@reddit
How can we say that when we dont have any post data? A world war would blow current emissions out of the water.
the_pwnererXx@reddit
Because we can project current trends with real data. What you are suggesting isn't very scientific, is it?
bach2o@reddit
If this happens will South East Asia see an increase in tropical storm?
helpnxt@reddit
So its not a risk anymore right... right...
the_pwnererXx@reddit
Emissions peaked this year.
breatheb4thevoid@reddit
The real terrifying thing will be using your whole paycheck to pay for 3 meals. Yikes.
taez555@reddit
That's assuming you're still employed.
In a mostly service economy, most services don't stay in business if their customers can't afford them, which then has a snowball effect on every other business.
JPGer@reddit
At this point is just gonna be a parade of collapse events.
devadander23@reddit
Hey cool glad this changed so quickly in the past couple years I’m sure that doesn’t mean anything for the future
whyiseveryonelooking@reddit
https://youtu.be/HaV-cNqrZwk?si=Y2kr93T1R0h-nk2l
I share this voice because while she does not claim to have any answers, I believe she expresses a wisdom that is required to practice as we sit with all the uncertainty.
StatementBot@reddit
The following submission statement was provided by /u/mustwinfullGaming:
SS: While according to this study the full collapse of the current is unlikely to hit us this century, new models being run in this study suggested that there is a significantly increased change of the collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. The models suggest that if emissions continue to rise, 70% of the model runs lead to collapse, while even with low emissions, 25% do. A researcher suggested that the chance of this happening was previously estimated to be around 10%, making it significantly more likely. This will have huge and devastating impacts on huge parts of the globe.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1n2exu5/collapse_of_critical_atlantic_current_is_no/nb5a371/