James Stewart

Well, sort of, maybe. Let's say it did collapse. Even if that fresh water input into the oceans from ice melting decreases to current levels, the AMOC may still remain in a collapsed state. The ability of the system to not return to the initial state once the forcing is reversed is referred to as hysteresis.

Interestingly, the UK's Met Office models show that there may be a temporary resilience period in the AMOC after a threshold has been crossed, during which the AMOC could still recover if the freshwater input is reversed rapidly. In one Met Office model they use, the AMOC recovers if freshwater inflow ceases after 20 years, but not if it ceases after 50 years.

Interestingly, the UK's Met Office models show that there may be a temporary resilience period in the AMOC after a threshold has been crossed, during which the AMOC could still recover if the freshwater input is reversed rapidly. In one Met Office model they use, the AMOC recovers if freshwater inflow ceases after 20 years, but not if it ceases after 50 years.

Interestingly, the UK's Met Office models show that there may be a temporary resilience period in the AMOC after a threshold has been crossed, during which the AMOC could still recover if the freshwater input is reversed rapidly. In one Met Office model they use, the AMOC recovers if freshwater inflow ceases after 20 years, but not if it ceases after 50 years.

This gives a 20 to 50 year temporary resilience, but the temporary resilience period would be lower if fresh water was added at a higher rate. The last time it collapsed it took a thousand years to recover, though the pass is not a direct analogue because there is also massive CO2 forcing this time.

This gives a 20 to 50 year temporary resilience, but the temporary resilience period would be lower if fresh water was added at a higher rate. The last time it collapsed it took a thousand years to recover, though the pass is not a direct analogue because there is also massive CO2 forcing this time.

This gives a 20 to 50 year temporary resilience, but the temporary resilience period would be lower if fresh water was added at a higher rate. The last time it collapsed it took a thousand years to recover, though the pass is not a direct analogue because there is also massive CO2 forcing this time.

CO2 is already higher than at any time in the last 15 million years and we are still in an ice age after all.

CO2 is already higher than at any time in the last 15 million years and we are still in an ice age after all.

CO2 is already higher than at any time in the last 15 million years and we are still in an ice age after all.

As we come to the end of the video and I think about all that we've discussed and all that I've read to get here, it's very hard to get away from the fact that if we continue going the way we are, there is likely to be a significant slowing down or even collapse of the AMOC in many of our lifetimes. But when's it going to happen?

As we come to the end of the video and I think about all that we've discussed and all that I've read to get here, it's very hard to get away from the fact that if we continue going the way we are, there is likely to be a significant slowing down or even collapse of the AMOC in many of our lifetimes. But when's it going to happen?

As we come to the end of the video and I think about all that we've discussed and all that I've read to get here, it's very hard to get away from the fact that if we continue going the way we are, there is likely to be a significant slowing down or even collapse of the AMOC in many of our lifetimes. But when's it going to happen?

I think we can say 2025 is almost certainly ruled out because of the data points we discussed being too unreliable. On the other end of the scale, the IPCC's estimate around the end of the century to me feels too optimistic. But the decade that does seem to come up more reliably than any other is something around the 2050s.

I think we can say 2025 is almost certainly ruled out because of the data points we discussed being too unreliable. On the other end of the scale, the IPCC's estimate around the end of the century to me feels too optimistic. But the decade that does seem to come up more reliably than any other is something around the 2050s.

I think we can say 2025 is almost certainly ruled out because of the data points we discussed being too unreliable. On the other end of the scale, the IPCC's estimate around the end of the century to me feels too optimistic. But the decade that does seem to come up more reliably than any other is something around the 2050s.

The answer to stopping this is as obvious as you might have expected and an answer you probably already knew. We must significantly slow down the rate at which our planet is warming. It's so simple and so obvious and yet sometimes it can feel like such a huge undertaking. Often when we think of climate change, we think of the things we can experience or we can see.

The answer to stopping this is as obvious as you might have expected and an answer you probably already knew. We must significantly slow down the rate at which our planet is warming. It's so simple and so obvious and yet sometimes it can feel like such a huge undertaking. Often when we think of climate change, we think of the things we can experience or we can see.

The answer to stopping this is as obvious as you might have expected and an answer you probably already knew. We must significantly slow down the rate at which our planet is warming. It's so simple and so obvious and yet sometimes it can feel like such a huge undertaking. Often when we think of climate change, we think of the things we can experience or we can see.

The droughts, the extreme weather, the temperatures, the floods, the melting sea ice. But rarely do we think about what we can't see, the underlying causes. Forces just like the AMOC that go under the radar, yet have the ability to severely alter life on Earth. and it always finds a way to bounce back and to respond. And it would do so again if or when the AMOC collapses.