James Stewart

In the latest sixth IPCC report, they found that even for a low emissions scenario, the AMOC would weaken between 4% and 46% by the end of the century. But there are now conflicting reports suggesting that a collapse could happen as early as 2025. So which year is it? What's going on? Who's right? Who's wrong? It's a great question and I wish it was as straightforward as that, I really do.

In the latest sixth IPCC report, they found that even for a low emissions scenario, the AMOC would weaken between 4% and 46% by the end of the century. But there are now conflicting reports suggesting that a collapse could happen as early as 2025. So which year is it? What's going on? Who's right? Who's wrong? It's a great question and I wish it was as straightforward as that, I really do.

In the latest sixth IPCC report, they found that even for a low emissions scenario, the AMOC would weaken between 4% and 46% by the end of the century. But there are now conflicting reports suggesting that a collapse could happen as early as 2025. So which year is it? What's going on? Who's right? Who's wrong? It's a great question and I wish it was as straightforward as that, I really do.

So much of this comes down to how the AMOC is being modelled and the factors and physics taken into account to do that. A big hole in all of these models actually is that beyond paleoclimate data, we haven't really been measuring this stuff for long enough to give us properly accurate data. The IPCC reports use a model called CMIP6.

So much of this comes down to how the AMOC is being modelled and the factors and physics taken into account to do that. A big hole in all of these models actually is that beyond paleoclimate data, we haven't really been measuring this stuff for long enough to give us properly accurate data. The IPCC reports use a model called CMIP6.

So much of this comes down to how the AMOC is being modelled and the factors and physics taken into account to do that. A big hole in all of these models actually is that beyond paleoclimate data, we haven't really been measuring this stuff for long enough to give us properly accurate data. The IPCC reports use a model called CMIP6.

That consists of the runs from around 100 distinct climate models being produced across 49 different modelling groups. Critics have noted that the AMOC model they used for this system was a too stable AMOC. When they input the AMOC to the model, they had to tune it, as you would do a car.

That consists of the runs from around 100 distinct climate models being produced across 49 different modelling groups. Critics have noted that the AMOC model they used for this system was a too stable AMOC. When they input the AMOC to the model, they had to tune it, as you would do a car.

That consists of the runs from around 100 distinct climate models being produced across 49 different modelling groups. Critics have noted that the AMOC model they used for this system was a too stable AMOC. When they input the AMOC to the model, they had to tune it, as you would do a car.

And the critics' suggestion is that this was a little too well tuned, and didn't represent a realistic scenario of estimates for an AMOC collapse, hence churning out these rather conservative estimates. For many critics, however, it goes beyond just being a conservative estimate. It actually becomes a significant underestimate.

And the critics' suggestion is that this was a little too well tuned, and didn't represent a realistic scenario of estimates for an AMOC collapse, hence churning out these rather conservative estimates. For many critics, however, it goes beyond just being a conservative estimate. It actually becomes a significant underestimate.

And the critics' suggestion is that this was a little too well tuned, and didn't represent a realistic scenario of estimates for an AMOC collapse, hence churning out these rather conservative estimates. For many critics, however, it goes beyond just being a conservative estimate. It actually becomes a significant underestimate.

On the other side of the fence, we've got papers saying it's going to collapse between 2025 and 2095, which is where we got that 2025 number from. But how did they get those numbers? These scientists use a different type of modeling called reanalysis, where they look to move past the limitations of our short observational record, relying instead on sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic.

On the other side of the fence, we've got papers saying it's going to collapse between 2025 and 2095, which is where we got that 2025 number from. But how did they get those numbers? These scientists use a different type of modeling called reanalysis, where they look to move past the limitations of our short observational record, relying instead on sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic.

On the other side of the fence, we've got papers saying it's going to collapse between 2025 and 2095, which is where we got that 2025 number from. But how did they get those numbers? These scientists use a different type of modeling called reanalysis, where they look to move past the limitations of our short observational record, relying instead on sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic.

It's important to note here that sea surface temperature as a measure of a mock collapse is currently widely debated in the scientific community. The actual observations of the AMOC since 2004 have long since discredited the evidence that the authors of this paper are actually using.

It's important to note here that sea surface temperature as a measure of a mock collapse is currently widely debated in the scientific community. The actual observations of the AMOC since 2004 have long since discredited the evidence that the authors of this paper are actually using.

It's important to note here that sea surface temperature as a measure of a mock collapse is currently widely debated in the scientific community. The actual observations of the AMOC since 2004 have long since discredited the evidence that the authors of this paper are actually using.

The five data points they show were collected several years apart by ship surveys, and it's well known and well established that they give a highly misleading impression of AMOC decline. To be fair, the authors acknowledge this in the discussion, and they do say there's large uncertainty in their conclusions. To bring us back then to the big question of when will the AMOC collapse?

The five data points they show were collected several years apart by ship surveys, and it's well known and well established that they give a highly misleading impression of AMOC decline. To be fair, the authors acknowledge this in the discussion, and they do say there's large uncertainty in their conclusions. To bring us back then to the big question of when will the AMOC collapse?