The collapse of a critical Atlantic current can no longer be considered a low-likelihood event, a study has concluded, making deep cuts to fossil fuel emissions even more urgent to avoid the catastrophic impact.
Gosh.
These show the tipping point that makes an Amoc shutdown inevitable is likely to be passed within a few decades, but that the collapse itself may not happen until 50 to 100 years later.
The research found that if carbon emissions continued to rise, 70% of the model runs led to collapse, while an intermediate level of emissions resulted in collapse in 37% of the models. Even in the case of low future emissions, an Amoc shutdown happened in 25% of the models.
Models, eh?
We found that the tipping point where the shutdown becomes inevitable is probably in the next 10 to 20 years or so.
In 2500 you say?
Let them deal with that then.
Perhhaps Barry O’bama shouldn’t have bought that house at Martha’s Vineyard after all…
“Prof Stefan Rahmstorf, at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, who was part of the study team.”
Oh it’s alright, his involvement means that it is all just made up shit.
.
“There have been multiple AMOC shutdowns in Earth’s history, notably during the ice ages, with one significant collapse occurring about 12,000 years ago…..”
Gosh, those mammoths and Macrauchenias must have all been driving SUVs back then, eh?
“Scientists say”
Must be true then.
Oh wait, I’m a scientist (BSc nearly 50 years ago) so on that basis anything I say must similarly be followed irrespective of the cost. Where to begin…………
Hasn’t quite got the hang of the scam. The prediction has to be far enough away so it can’t be tested but close enough to frighten people with.
Julia @ 7.48, “with one significant collapse occurring about 12,000 years ago…..”
12,000 years ago CO2 was at 180 – 200 parts per million, so I would hazard a guess that it wasn’t caused by CO2.
Similarly, if it warms for just under 40 years when CO2 goes up, then cools for nearly 60 years with CO2 still going up, the cause isn’t man made CO2:
“Analysis of warming since 1881 shows most of the increase in global temperature happened before 1919 — before the more recent sharp rise in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, said Thomas Karl, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
While global climate warmed overall since 1881, it actually cooled from 1921 to 1979, Karl said.”
People who pontificate about it getting Too Damn’ Hot live in urban areas.
Urban areas have “heat island” effects due to built infrastructure being both a heat source and a heat trap.
Urban areas have massively increased as people abandon rural life for the amenaties of urban living.
As people urbanise there is more pontificating about it being Too Damn’ Hot.
Join the dots.
The fear porn isn’t working, ramp it up to the next level! Isn’t AMOC something to do with the Rosicrucians?
These “scientists” have been forecasting “tipping-points” due to global freezing / global warming / climate change / climate emergency / whatever scary name it has this week for the last 60+ years – and not a single solitary one has occurred.
So, basically, “am I bovvered?”.
The linked article is well worth a read. Absolute lying cnuts.
https://www.samizdata.net/2025/08/samizdata-quote-of-the-day-met-office-is-inventing-temperature-data/
While global climate warmed overall since 1881, it actually cooled from 1921 to 1979, Karl said.”
That must be why the infallible climate experts were declaring an imminent ice age in 1979. Based in science, of course.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the AMOC/Gulf Stream waxes and wanes over periods of decades and centuries, so we get cold and warm periods here independent of CO2. It’s only fairly recently that it has been possible to do any measurements from which the strength/volume of the AMOC can be inferred, so doing long term predictions is essentially guesswork now and will be for many decades.
TG, that’s one of the problems with setting an arbitrary “30 year equals climate” period. Doesn’t work if the cycles are longer than 30 years.
Taking a one thousand year average it is cooler now than one thousand years ago, cooler now than two thousand years ago and cooler now than three thousand years ago.
You’d think the people who study this stuff would know this (well they do know, but as it doesn’t suit their agenda, they don’t mention it).
It’s a scam. We know it’s a scam, they know it’s a scam and no amount of Nicholas Stern will change that.
– In 2500 you say?
And twelve comments? Pendantry standards have dropped around here.
Gross exaggeration. Appeal to authority. Appeal to fear.
Boilerplate journalism.
“Scientists say”
Gamecock always hears Jeremy Clarkson reading that.
‘making deep cuts to fossil fuel emissions even more urgent to avoid the catastrophic impact’
So you are going to nuke China and India?
Britain produces 0.037% of the world’s CO2. WTF does the Guardian think ‘deep cuts to fossil fuel emissions’ is going to accomplish? They are purposely trying to destroy your economy. It is TREASON. They can’t not know that what they are saying is juvenile.
Inquiring minds would like to know who are the fucking genius fluid dynamicists and programmers who can get all the possible considerations and factors into a model. And how validation and verification was done. I suppose a list of assumptions and parameterisations is not available, just for giggles?
Adolff:
…it is cooler now than one thousand years ago, cooler now than two thousand years ago and cooler now than three thousand years ago. You’d think the people who study this stuff would know this…
But you can’t know it, and neither can they. You/they may have reasonable grounds for (dis)believing it; but such interpretations of and inferences from ice-cores, sediments, tree rings etc are tentative and always subject to revision. By claiming knowledge, you are doing exactly what climate ‘scientists’ do – ie claiming certainty from their biased inferences and interpretations…
@Julia
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/adfa3b is the actual scientific article.
They’re basically using the results of 53 models to feed theirs, then they fiddle with some parameters.
I get a strong feeling of bias-upon-bias there, but who am I ?…..
The interesting bit is the Conclusion, where “some” of the limitations of the models are highlighted.
Including the fact that all of them have the habit of not correctly giving results for historical values..
Now in my opinion that would imply something is wonky with the models used. Sufficiently to to mistrust their output .
Then again I’m one of those nasty oldfashioned scientists who expects models to approach reality, not the modern version of Scientist™ who seem to try to approach a Narrative for continued Funding..
And really… even if they’re mostly right, the most that would happen is that we’d get another Little Ice Age in a century or two, which would last about as long as the last one.
Northwestern Europe completely crashed during the last on…… Oh wait… It didn’t…. Very much so….
Models are great things. If they are complex enough and have plenty of tuneable “constants” you can make in them accurately fit any past data.
If it was a financial model they would carry the warning “past performance is not indicative of future results”. Climate models however even if created by folks with an A* in geography and a borderline pass in maths are always perfect predictions. Even when two predict completely different outcomes.
Models are great things.
Models are great things if they’re twiggy.
Thank you Ted. A truly sensible comment!!!!
As for global cooling, good old UG invented the fire millenia ago. And if it turns out to be global warming, a quick google says air conditioning was invented in 1902.
I suggest that what we should burn to run all this is good old coal. The Greens hate it so much that we should have plenty of it left.
“using the results of 53 models”
At least 52 of them are wrong, with double-ought zero chance of one being right. So, these wizards take the average of 53 wrong models, and declare it is data.
“I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” – Thomas Carlyle
Theo @ 7.23, that is what the proxy evidence shows. When you come up with something to disprove it please let us know.
“Northwestern Europe completely crashed during the last on…… Oh wait… It didn’t…. ”
But everyone died of Plague !
Inquiring minds would like to know who are the fucking genius fluid dynamicists and programmers who can get all the possible considerations and factors into a model. And how validation and verification was done. I suppose a list of assumptions and parameterisations is not available, just for giggles?
John von Neumann (1903-1957)
How many free parameters has the average climate model? If the answer has less than three digits, I’ll be most surprised.