[timr]

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”

[baq]

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.

[rcxdude]

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).

[didibus]

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.

[baq]

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.

[tcumulus]

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.

[chneu]

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?

[timr]

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.

[rcxdude]

>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)

[timr]

> 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.

[andrewmutz]

Great deal of uncertainty? But no one clicks on a link like that.