Tipping point in Gulf Stream may be reached as early as mid-century
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.comI cannot overemphasize how epochal of a crisis this would be for human civilization - the gulf stream is pretty much the only thing keeping northern europe (The UK, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, parts of germany, the Netherlands, etc) habitable by current standards.
Basically, the gulf stream is a conveyor belt that grabs nice warm water from southern latitudes (carribean, southeast atlantic ocean) and slowly moves it up the east US/Canadian coast, when it then gently arches past the tip of Greenland and Iceland before splitting and arriving in northern Europe.
To get an idea of how big of a problem the gulf stream going away would be, look at the comparative latitude of the UK and the Nordic countries compared to north America. The UK is aligned with Newfoundland in Canada, where it gets more than a little chilly. The UK is currently nice and toasty because of the gulf stream. It would be an extremely uncomfortable place without it - no more agriculture as the UK knows it now, no more nice weather. Fishing grounds destroyed, etc. The general public doesn't seem to really understand the massive impact of a potential gulf stream shutdown.
The AMOC collapsing (I have no idea why the title says 'Gulf Stream' as that is different and not mentioned in the post), has far more disastrous implications than destroying the climate of Europe.
It's the beginning of the process of ocean de-oxygenation, ultimately creating a lifeless ocean that emits hydrogen sulfide instead of oxygen. It would completely disrupt the planetary food change, make the ocean poisonous, and fundamentally alter life on this planet in unimaginable ways.
For a more detailed look at the issue I highly recommend Peter Ward's "Under a Green Sky".
Should have used AMOC indeed, in Dutch media the word "golfstroom" was used, and I translated it without putting too much thought into it.
Just added it to my backlog of books. That does look like an interesting read, thank you.
Related deal alert: Is $1.99 on Kindle today.
Ok, but this happens pretty regularly on a planetary scale (at least every 110,000 years or so) - why hasn´t it been so disastrous before - say at the end of the last interglacial?
There were fewer humans around last time. Also there were no 'journalists' around to proclaim it so. If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Are you suggesting that humans never write about great extinction events that occurred in the past?
I'm unaware of any surviving artifacts of the chronicles of Lemuria. Non-fictional, that is.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from this statement.
And presumably there's another side of it too? Like all that hot air would have to be somewhere else if not Western Europe. That somewhere else would also have a bad time, just in the opposite direction. Very bleak.
Crazy in my mind to think about the system moving unimaginable amounts of energy around the planet and now we're changing it on a time scale shorter than what the planet usually sees. Reminds me of what I read about the Younger Dryas and how temperatures changed within centuries, if not decades.
I've heard some speculation that rapid climate change at that time could be the origin of global flood myths in so many cultures. Imagine you're just minding your own business and a glacial dam breaks. As far as you're concerned, you just experienced a global flood.
Melting so much ice in such a short time without some kind of a dam made of not-ice is physically unimaginable. Water has soooo much heat capacity it'd take hundreds of years unless we're talking about a yellowstone or deccan traps eruption under the south pole or something (haven't done the math, but I'm not sure if it'd be enough).
Something like this already happened relatively recently.
The water is already liquid. It’s just held back by an ice dam that fails. That’s what I meant by glacial dams.
>> Crazy in my mind to think about the system moving unimaginable amounts of energy around the planet and now we're changing it on a time scale shorter than what the planet usually sees.
The inter-glacial periods are 10K to 20K years. We are currently around 12000 years into it. "AI overview" keeps telling me human induced climate change may lengthen it, but the collapse of the AMOC might just end it.
Yep. It's like the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer... Except with heat.
"The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth."
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-source-of-euro...
Interesting!
Sacrilege! Heresy! Sick Fantasy! Madness! Heathen Hell! Demonic Spell!
Don't hold back, tell us what you really think. :)
Europe suffers from unprecedented heat waves, record after record. Wouldn't it be beneficial for temperatures to drop 10C? I remember the winters in Eastern Europe in the 80's unbearably cold (to a child), now barely any snow and endless forest fires in summer...
It doesn't work that way. It would result in hotter summers and colder winters. So it wouldn't alleviate the heat waves but exacerbate them.
Large bodies of water like the Atlantic or the Med keep us cool in summer and warm in winter. Climate change in general leads to more extreme weather events and weather just simply being a lot more volatile.
You're probably going to get downvoted, but the reality is it's a valid question.
Just as apparently sulfur emissions from global shipping fleets helped offset some warming and eco-friendly fuel actually caused problems, the climate is complex, and there are definitely going to be the collision of interesting trade-offs.
Unfortunately, most likely, the answer is there won't be anything beneficial here. Remember, the key here isn't average global temperatures, but rather the temperature range. Life likes a temperate climate in a narrow range of degrees. Not just humans, but agriculture too.
If you lower the winter temperatures by 10 degrees, and raise the summer ones by 10, your crops still die either from the frost or from the fire. And humans likewise either freeze on the street or overheat in the sun.
This is the main thing climate change denialists can never seem to grasp. It's not the specific temperature numbers, it's the SPEED at which it's happening. Humans, in their current biological form, have been around for a million years, and survived much larger climate swings. But...the climate also changed slower. And they migrated. And they still almost didn't make it several times, barely surviving.
A world where hundreds of millions of people from the indian subcontinent are trying to escape murderous heat one season while tens of millions of people in Europe are freezing in the winter, and putting up walls to protect what they already have, is not one where humanity thrives.
In the long term we'll probably be fine. A few billion will die. Demographics and politics will shift. The human spirit will persevere, and we'll innovate our way through and adapt to a new world.
But it might take a century and our children and our children's children will not be better off than us.
Most research on the effects of this have shown that it will make weather more variable. So imagine 45-50C heat waves and -10-20C polar blasts.
Maybe the cooling from lack of gulf stream air will perfectly counter-act the increase in heat of global warming and result in net zero effect?
The gulf stream doesn't create heat, it just moves it. If it doesn't move as much heat, then the destination will get colder and presumably the source will get warmer.
Okay. Let's say the low lows of a middle Sweden equivalent climate are brought more in line with current UK temp ranges. Let's say the winter temp goes up +10 degrees Celsius.
What happens then to, say, the Mediterranean at +10 C average temps? Seems quite bad, eh?
My understanding is that AMOC collapse is not gulf stream collapse. The gulf stream will still exist, but will just be weaker.
It's a good thing there's a near 0% chance of it actually happening.
How do you know that?
All this nonsense is the same as the guys who have predicted 80 of the last 2 recessions. But hey, if you can exaggerate the output your model suggests that was built from faulty assumptions, incomplete data, hubris, and spans decades in time and get people to buy it and continue to fund your project, good for you.
How do you know that climate scientists are as unreliable as some economists?
They’re probably more unreliable as climate is far more complex than economics and predicting 50 years out with any certainty is a ridiculous notion for both.
https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-cli...
Most of the high profile climate models have been wrong… but in underestimating the speed of global warming. So things generally are worse than research suggests.
I think you underestimate how well the models are doing.
So their models are so bad that they’re good. Lol great.
You don't explain why you believe that though?
Because it’s very probably wrong.
You can put your head in the sand, but it will not save you. You must take the world on from first principles, and dive deep into the details if you want truth. Simply countering that nobody can predict what will happen is not an argument, it's a plea to stay ignorant.
Open your mind until your brain falls out. How many bromides should we exchange? Saying “there’s no proof” is better than believing everything that comes your way with 0 critical analysis. But it’s nice to feel smart.
Jesus, what does that even mean? Simple physics says carbon dioxide traps heat. Chemistry 10th grade. Did you take it? This is not hard. Only an absolute ignoramus would pretend it's not happening at this point.
No worried, HN has plenty of cranks who don't have real arguments or references to actual studies. I suppose it's just comforting to pretend it's business as usual.
Or we understand geometry and how the volume of carbon has to geometrically increase by a square per degree and it’s not even possible for us to put that much in the atmosphere.
Yeah feel free to link to a study or summary.
It’s logarithmic. Just google it or ask any LLM to explain this basic fact to you.
Show your work, please. At this point the burden of proof is on you to disprove it, not the other way around. It hasn't snowed here in years.
The fact you don’t even understand this basic fact and yet are so certain should concern you.
1. Logarithmic effect of CO₂ • The warming effect of carbon dioxide grows logarithmically with concentration, not linearly. • This means the first 100 ppm of CO₂ caused a much larger temperature impact than, say, an increase from 400 → 500 ppm. • Each additional molecule of CO₂ contributes less extra warming because much of the infrared spectrum it absorbs is already saturated.
2. Geometry of “forcing” • Scientists describe this as radiative forcing, measured in watts per square meter. • Roughly, each doubling of CO₂ concentration produces about +3.7 W/m² of forcing, which translates (with climate sensitivity) to ~1.5–4.5°C warming. • So it takes geometrically more CO₂ to achieve each additional degree of warming. For example: • Going from 280 → 400 ppm may give ~1°C warming. • Going from 400 → 560 ppm (another 160 ppm) gives another ~1°C. • Going from 560 → 840 ppm (280 ppm more) gives another ~1°C. • And so on — the increments needed get larger each time.
This is a bit better. You are saying it IS happening, but just not gonna be that bad. I sure hope that's correct, but don't you think 1000s of climate scientists have taken this simple fact as a consideration in their analysis? Even if the effect is logarithmic, we are now at 420 CO2, well above preindustrial 280. We’ve already added 1.2 degrees of global warming. Continuing on the current trajectory will push us to 560 or higher within this century for multiple additional degrees C of warming. The fact that each extra ppm does a bit less does not mean the danger goes away, it means you need bigger increments of CO2 to get the same forcing, and presently we are adding those big increments very quickly. Climate scientists already use the logarithmic law of CO2 and the forcing geometry in all their calculations.
Fully aware. At least in a lab. Regardless we know it’s an inverse square law thing and to even get to any sort of “runaway” or even conditions in this article would take such an enormous gain in carbon release (not considering what’s falling back) that it’s not even possible. It’s fantastical.
If it was linear I’d be concerned. But it’s not. So yeah let’s solve other more realistic problems.
Title is clickbait. This is based on 25+ different models, the AMOC is not the Gulf Stream, the authors admit there’s a great deal of uncertainty, and the confidence intervals extend from 2023 to 2076 for the high emission scenario. Moreover, per the authors:
> If the AMOC starts to collapse, it takes more than 100 years to reach a substantially weaker state.
Better title would be “Simulations of Atlantic Meridonal Circulation Collapse Due to Climate Change”
everyone who has young children can expect either them (high probability) or grandchildren (basically certain) to live through that event. not sure if reaching the equilibrium is required to be seriously affected.
If the title was clickbait, it'd have gone with 'may have already been reached', given those confidence intervals. The middle of those ranges is well within 'mid-century', and 'may' is a pretty important qualifier. I think it's a pretty good summary. (as for AMOC vs Gulf Stream, the Gulf Stream is a part of the AMOC and the more well-known term for 'the thing that keeps Europe warm', so it's probably the better thing to include in a headline for anyone but specialists).
Agree, that said, it's still a little worrisome.
These simulations are the best we have to predict the future, and even if it's 2076, once it happens, it's going to be a huge deal.
Hard to think we should just YOLO and take a gamble models were wrong and all will be fine for centuries more.
Unfortunately the ‘rational’ choice in a competitive game (like today’s world politics) is to double down on exploitation to maximize resources and/or/thus chances of surviving the event instead of minimizing probability of it happening.
My bad, should have indeed used AMOC in the title. Translated the titles of the Flemish and Dutch public broadcasters which used the word "golfstroom" in their titles.
It may take long to significantly weaken, the article also states that effects of a weakening AMOC can occur much sooner than that.
It's also worth noting that while this is uncertain, it's likely an undercount.
Our models are based on what we can measure. We're continually finding that we are under measuring.
Chances are that children born today will feel the effects of AMOC collapsing.
So this mentality of "omg they're over reacting, we have time" is really dumb.
It's very easy to nitpick and dismiss this kind of stuff instead of giving a shit because giving a shit means we have to accept we screwed up. Can we finally start giving a shit and be cautious?
You’re putting words in my mouth. I believe that clearly stating the quality of the evidence is what distinguishes science from hysteria. We do no favors to the cause of science by exaggerating.
The contention that our models systematically underestimate reality is incorrect, and defies logic: if it were true that we were systematically failing in one direction, we’d make the models bias in the other direction.
>The contention that our models systematically underestimate reality is incorrect, and defies logic: if it were true that we were systematically failing in one direction, we’d make the models bias in the other direction.
It's possible for such biases to persist for a long time: In general, older climate models tended to overestimate the amount of CO2 that would be emitted but underestimate the effects it would have. The latter especially tends to persist because climate scientists are under a lot of pressure to not overstate their claims, given the very well-funded and active work to discredit claims about climate change (as well as a very human desire, given the lack of action, to be optimistic).
(You can also see a similar effect with the growth in adoption of solar power: even the most optimistic sources have and likely still continue to underestimate how much new solar will be installed in the next few years, because it's just growing so mind-bogglingly fast)
> It's possible for such biases to persist for a long time: In general, older climate models tended to overestimate the amount of CO2 that would be emitted but underestimate the effects it would have.
I didn't want to get into this because it clouds the topic at hand and makes it sounds like I'm debating the quality of the models, but you're just objectively wrong -- it's well-known that some of the major climate models have "run hot":
https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-...
In addition, every publication (including this one) that use modeling results show a wide dispersion around the mean.
Great deal of uncertainty? But no one clicks on a link like that.
If you are wondering what happens then:
>The Gulf Stream acts like a giant conveyor belt, transporting warm water from the tropics to the North Atlantic, which gives Western Europe its unusually mild climate. A collapse would disrupt this heat transfer, causing average temperatures in regions like the UK and Scandinavia to drop by as much as 10-15°C (18-27°F) in a short period. This would lead to much colder, harsher winters and potentially widespread crop failure due to freezing conditions and a shorter growing season. Ironically, while the rest of the world continues to warm, Europe would experience a rapid cooling.
Okay that's maybe dramatic, but on another hand, that would be quite fascinating to experience. Maybe, for those of us living long enough, we are going to witness a net migration not from Africa to Europe, but from Europe to elsewhere, anywhere. There is enough place on Earth for humans to resettle and it's likely that other places will become more hospitable, while other places will become less, as the climate shifts. Maybe the middle east will become just warm and hot, instead of extremely hot as it's currently - and maybe even, they will be done with tribal wars, who knows!
> There is enough place on Earth for humans to resettle
It's romantic to imagine populations slowly moving to where life is better, haven't we always done that since out of Africa. I doubt it'll be like that when land becomes uninhabitable within decades due to changes to the experienced temperature range, rainfall, drought, fires, etc. We can't even figure out how to make space for a couple million Palestinian people. The Russians are still expanding their empire to restore their glory days. We need to figure out the whole living next to each other thing before we can resettle large populations.
> Maybe the middle east will become just warm and hot, instead of extremely hot as it's currently
I don’t want to break your fantasies, but models predict the Middle East to be come more hot and hostile, not less.
Europe is currently so hostile to receiving the people who need to move there that they might be surprised how much hostility they're met with if/when the tables turn.
Europe has the technology and experience to solve geo-social problems by turning itself into a cozy castle with high walls. The hostiles will be used as feedstock for alcalic hydrolysis at industrial scale/faster than replacement/birthing rate until the zones have been fully sanitized. Problems turned into fertilizer for nukkular powered greenhouses.
And this will of course affect ENSO giving us more El Niño action. So flooding here in California and more winter rain so all the skiers will have to water ski down the mountain. And the water gets warmer so if you thought the urchins were a problem now well just wait!
Non-technical articles on this study (in Dutch): - https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2025/08/26/golfstroom-zou-halfw... - https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/collectie/13871/artikel/2579953-gev...
So how much coal do we need to burn to compensate in geo engineering?
Once it tips, how screwed will Europe be?
Rome is further north than New York City. Very screwed.
I believe southern European countries won't be as screwed. The Mediterranean sea has enough thermal mass to keep things Ok. North of the Alps screwed big time.
However, the lack of rainfall could be the real killer. As the warm humid air would stops coming it's not clear if the precipitations would be enough to sustain crops in Mediterranean countries.
Also, the US east cost and the Caribbean countries would be fucked as well. All that energy would stay there supercharging hurricanes as they cross the gulf of Mexico. That area of the world would basically be subject to both the precipitations and thermal energy that is now keeping northern Europe livable as it wouldn't spread over.
I recommend "The Light Pirate" by Lily Brooks-Dalton that deals with this sort of future.
Thank you. Added to my to-read list :)
Yawn. Why not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Weather_(Sterling_novel) ?
The Mediterranean is currently experiencing water temps so high it's killing off everything. It's so hot that it's not enjoyable to swim in.
Aren’t most crops watered via irrigation? Why is precipitation necessary
The water used for irrigation is usually replenished by precipitation.
Because irrigation needs fresh water. Fresh water is brought inland by precipitation. No precipitation no rivers to irrigate from after the glaciers that might also feed them run out
Nukkular powered desalination plants at the coasts, pumping it inward via pipelines could be a solution.
False vacuum collapse could also happen.
But given the quite impressive track record of 100% failed predictions in the climate doom department I'm betting on the false vacuum imploding before the climate memes manifest.
We've already seen sea level rises make some islands unliveable, pretty large ecological damage, and many people dead from natural disasters from climate change and we are still in early stages of it (levels of greenhouse gases in the environment are still still not only rising but also accelerating in the wrong direction). You would need to be incredibly selective to the point of absurdity to say predictions have 100% failed.
Yeah dude hasn’t had an issue where he lives so he claims it’s all lies. When time comes for his neighborhood he’ll cry wolf for not being warned early enough.
In your fantasy world both poles are ice free, snow is non existent in Britain and the Gulf Stream already stopped working 5 times, all of that before 2020.
That's the official and much hyped past predictions, but this time it's different? Who's really the one crying wolf here?
Maybe you boomer-brained types would get scammed a little bit less often if you tried thinking just a little bit for yourself instead of uncritically swallowing the pre-chewed fecal mass that media spits into your mouth on a daily basis.
go read an IPCC report instead of insulting people here.
If you don't want to be insulted perhaps you shouldn't throw the first stone?
Can't handle counter battery because you grew up in a homogenized echo chamber? Boohoo reality don't care and neither do I.
When you've wipes your tears perhaps you should go read the actual reports you dearly advertise, and then you too could know they predict lukewarm bullshit indistinguishable from weather.
But nah, you'll keep being a fecal ruminants smugly chewing on your genAI-slop-level massmedia headlines while thinking your insults are clever.
This seems quite appropriate in relation to these predictions: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161026-how-liars-create...
It's not difficult to imagine an article titled "How liars create the 'illusion of falsity'" which involves people repeatedly posting this article in response to truths they find inconvenient or otherwise disagreeable.
Classic logical fallacy: A=>B does not mean B=>A