There’s an interesting article by Professor Stefan Rahmstorf on Real Climate about this, he points out the new study is the same as his, the debate is over what is an AMOC collapse ? not a change in an understanding of the physics.
This new paper does not (and does not claim to) contradict earlier modeling studies about future AMOC changes and their climatic impact, as one of the authors (Richard Wood) has confirmed to me (we are presently both attending an AMOC workshop in Utrecht). It’s the same models, showing the same things – just the wording is different. What previous studies have labelled an ‘AMOC collapse’ is now called ‘no collapse’. It’s essentially a discussion about semantics, not physics. Do you call it an AMOC collapse if a weak and shallow wind-driven overturning persists after the thermohaline part has collapsed? Or not?
There’s an interesting article by Professor Stefan Rahmstorf on Real Climate about this, he points out the new study is the same as his, the debate is over what is an AMOC collapse ? not a change in an understanding of the physics.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/02/how-will-media-report-on-this-new-amoc-study/
Stefan can be found on Mastodon @[email protected]