Breaking: New study using observational constraints projects that the Atlantic Ocean circulation #AMOC will weaken ~50% by 2100, even for medium emissions and without Greenland melting.

[rahmstorf@fediscience.org]

Breaking: New study using observational constraints projects that the Atlantic Ocean circulation #AMOC will weaken ~50% by 2100, even for medium emissions and without Greenland melting. Seriously bad news.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/apr/15/critical-atlantic-current-significantly-more-likely-to-collapse-than-thought

[unknowable@troet.cafe]

@rahmstorf The harder the data, the harder politicians will ignore them.

[tk@f.kawa-kun.com]

@rahmstorf And yet, our leaders aren't going to change course.

[schnedan@social.tchncs.de]

@rahmstorf isn't unexpected...

[davep@infosec.exchange]

@rahmstorf Bugger

[tobi82@swiss.social]

@rahmstorf

Most people reading this will be dead in 2100. So I guess nobody who has to say anything will do anything about it.

[bernab@sueden.social]

@rahmstorf what is known about the consequences? How reliable are the models? What direction are they developing? I mean the better the model the worse the expected outcome?

[elsa@rheinneckar.social]

@bernab @rahmstorf Northern Europe will get an ICE Age.

[bernab@sueden.social]

@elsa @rahmstorf and with the models. The better the model the worse the outcome? It‘s not funny and we are over the tipping point if I understood correctly. Will at least lead the ice age to more ice and an albedo that cools down the global average?

[johnjburnsiii@kzoo.to]

@rahmstorf

The tough part will be the calculation of the % where the collapse occurs.

Up to what percentage will it support itself, and at what % does the surrounding waters overrun the AMOC...

I would not expect it to survive all the way down to 0%... and even 10, 20, 30% is unlikely. So all those folks thinking - oh... we have time. That's 3, 4, 5 generations from now - it doesn't affect me --- are all fools. Given all the residual affects that will occur in global weather as it weakens.

[ohweh@climatejustice.social]

@rahmstorf

With more than a billion at stake, who’s going to worry about the year 2100? Which politician, paid by billionaires, is going to care?

You see!

[ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai]

RE: https://mastodon.social/@paulbeckwith/116406650265541370

@rahmstorf

Yeah, he discussed her paper. It’s pretty grim.

[hammerwell@troet.cafe]

@Unknowable @rahmstorf Logisch. Bis dahin sind sie nicht mehr da.

[chrisnelder@mastodon.energy]

@ai6yr @Sustainable2050 As @rahmstorf is well aware, this model is focused on SSP2-4.5, a climate scenario which represents a middle-of-the-road pathway with ~2.5 - 2.7°C of global warming by 2100. That's in line with the Paris NDCs and is more or less a BAU, "no-additional climate-policy" reference scenario. Importantly, an accelerating energy transition can do better than that! We're at ~1.4°C now with 74 years to go!

[hof@mstdn.social]

@rahmstorf @ela Das doofe ist, ein Zusammenbrechen des Golfstroms gibt als Forstwirt mir wenig Handlungsoptionen, weil so unklar ist, was es spezifisch hier im Rheinland bedeutet. Wir haben ja bisher niederschlagsreiches, maritim dominiertes Klima. Wärmer und mit mehr Niederschlagsschwankungen kann ich ganz gut verstehen und mit Mediteranen Bäumen abdecken.

Das es ohne Golfstrom im Winter kälter wird, ist klar. Aber die Details sind mir gar nicht klar.

[ela@infosec.exchange]

@hof @rahmstorf Ja, geht uns ähnlich. In meiner Vorstellung wird es Tundra: lange, kalte Winter, und dann 3-4 Monate Trockenheit und Hitze.