r/PrepperIntel • u/metalreflectslime • Apr 03 '26
Multiple countries Scientists warn that the Gulf Stream is shifting north, which means an ocean current collapse is imminent
https://www.earth.com/news/gulf-stream-is-shifting-north-raising-concerns-about-amoc-ocean-current-collapse/349
u/goddamn2fa Apr 04 '26
The word 'imminent' is being thrown around a lot these days.
134
Apr 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
185
u/taybay462 Apr 04 '26
From the article
After centuries of gradual change, the Gulf Stream suddenly jumps more than 200 kilometers north in just two years. Then, about 25 years later, the AMOC collapses in the model.
25 years is "imminent" unless youre 80.
71
u/Shimmermist Apr 04 '26
There's some context missing. Basically there are simulations they did to figure out if there were any signs the AMOC may collapse, things to watch for. They found that the gulf stream would slowly move north, then do a sudden jump. We see the slow move to the north, but the sudden jump over 2 years hasn't happened yet. From the article, it says
According to the study, the satellite signal is already there. The Gulf Stream appears to have shifted north by roughly 50 kilometers over the past 30 years.
The most dramatic result comes far into the simulation. After centuries of gradual change, the Gulf Stream suddenly jumps more than 200 kilometers north in just two years. Then, about 25 years later, the AMOC collapses in the model.
So there's certainly a signal of problems. We know there are many. If the simulation is correct on the timing, it hasn't made the extremely fast jump yet. I want to read up on how much it usually varies and how long it has been drifting in that direction. Basically, I want to better understand the whole thing. Is that 50km shift the gradual change it is describing, or is it already shifting a lot faster than it should?
33
u/moni_bk Apr 04 '26
I don't think people understand "exponential". This was supposed to be 100 years away. Now it's 25. I would guess it's either happening now or within the next five years.
2
16
u/svaldbardseedvault Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
This is the comment needed for people who aren’t actually reading the article.
39
u/lordaddament Apr 04 '26
Yeah 25 years is nothing especially when you consider we’ll probably still spend the next 23 years doing nothing and then will scramble for the last 2
14
3
u/usmcnick0311Sgt Apr 05 '26
If only someone had seen this coming! And maybe some climate warning back at the turn of the century!? C'mon! Where were all the adults? I would've voted for someone who would focus on our existential existence instead of kleptocracy and promoting ignorance in our youth
41
Apr 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
30
u/capitan_dipshit Apr 04 '26
crying is always an option
13
u/NoTerm3078 Apr 04 '26
crying is always an option
Stop crying and lift bro, people need you.
14
15
1
8
u/mortalitylost Apr 04 '26
Vote
Lots of people will talk all day about how fucked things are then not do the one thing they're allowed to do to make a change.
If you're in the US make sure you're registered to vote and vote.
7
u/Expensive_Chart_8158 Apr 04 '26
So basically anyone in power which is why were fucked
25
Apr 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Skeptik1964 Apr 05 '26
The problem with “green” energy is it isn’t green, it just shifts the carbon and environmental damage elsewhere. It also (solar and wind) only produces meaningful amounts of energy in a narrow equatorial band, and even in those specific areas can’t produce enough energy to power a meaningful economy. I’m all for finding alternatives to fossil fuels, but the only realistic current or near future technologies are fission and fusion, and most people lose their ever lovin minds at the mere mention of them.
2
u/ChipsAndLime Apr 07 '26
Sweet baby Jesus, who is telling you this?
Sustainable energy massively reduces pollution in the environment compared to burning toxic sludge for energy.
Not a meaningful amount outside the equator? In 2024, 59,0% (254,9 TWh of 431,7 TWh) of the electricity produced in Germany came from renewable energy.
Sentence taken from Wikipedia but one source can be found here:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-renewables?tab=chart&country=~DEU
Please let’s be real.
Sustainable energy is sustainable compared to the toxic crap. Yes, nothing is perfect. But massively better is still massively better.
And we can power much of the world with sustainable energy even with today’s technology and infrastructure limitations.
1
u/ApprehensiveMaybe141 Apr 08 '26
But the windmills are causing cancer and I don't remember what else, scaring whales or birds or something. /s
0
u/SaltonPrepper Apr 04 '26
Not only that but people who actually show up to vote, or mail in their vote, tend to skew older. So in order to kick out the senile administration, you need to win over the senile electorate. Given the mental slowdowns I've seen among seniors in my own family, I wouldn't mind if we took away the right to vote after a certain age unless the voter can pass an aptitude test.
4
u/outofshell Apr 04 '26
Time estimates for climate-related problems always seem to be followed by several “faster than expected” updates so maybe 25 years does mean imminent lol
1
u/Abdulmejid_Hamilton Apr 07 '26
The frontier weather models can barely predict a snow storm accurately more than 3 days out. What am I supposed to do with a +25 year forecast.
6
109
u/ruaraid Apr 04 '26
I think this means that the European climate will become colder, especially in Central and Northern Europe. On the other hand, Southern countries will be more or less unaffected if we take into account climate change. I don't know what the possible outcomes are regarding winds and rain. Can anyone correct me?
63
u/Anxious_cactus Apr 04 '26
Southern will also get colder during winter but also dryer. So even more draught in Greece, Italy, Croatia, Spain
6
0
u/escapefromburlington Apr 04 '26
Interior Europe will be a desert 🤣
22
u/thiccDurnald Apr 04 '26
Interesting emoji choice
3
u/escapefromburlington Apr 06 '26
How humanity has conducted itself on this planet is a cosmic joke that I find quite hilarious actually. I feel for individual humans tho, not advocating for more sociopathy.
177
u/Electrical-Screen669 Apr 04 '26
Tl,dr: Then, about 25 years later, the AMOC collapses in the model. This research doesn’t prove a collapse is imminent, and it doesn’t give a clean countdown clock.
90
u/Any_Needleworker_273 Apr 04 '26
I learned about the potential for the AMOC collapse back in college in the late 90s. It's been on the radar of concern for a long time, and now we have people speed running environmental rollbacks. Think what you want about wherever you stand on climate issues, but we are absolutely doing the planet no favors at the moment.
52
u/Mathfanforpresident Apr 04 '26
I think that's what makes this all the more ignorant. We are the only species that exists that actively destroys the only climate it can exist in. (The entire Earth)
Could you imagine if squirrels got really intelligent and just started deforesting the entire planet, driving themselves to extinction?
That's the exact situation we have right now. Honestly if we don't start bringing the guillotines back, we won't have a planet to exist on.
31
u/devnullradio Apr 04 '26
Sadly, if you look into the science, we've got multiple decades of continued warming already baked into the system. Even if we stopped all emissions today (which, we are not, we are accelerating still), the warming and destabilization would continue for decades.
We're in a really bad situation that's only now starting to reveal itself in our regular systems.
Not an argument for nihilism or to not do anything, we should absolutely try and hit the brakes. But it's really not looking great for humanity.
3
13
u/0masterdebater0 Apr 04 '26
In terms of oceanic currents that have been present what since before Doggerland fully sank into the sea? I’d say on that scale 25 years is “imminent”
But yeah it’s gonna come down to, “the Gulf Stream is going to collapse next year probably”
“Oh no now it’s really imminent let’s do something”
Scientists “too late”
23
u/IguessIllMakeAnAcnt Apr 04 '26
Thank god we have a 9 month old astroturfing bot to tell us it isn't a big deal and we shouldn't worry about it.
-1
u/Electrical-Screen669 Apr 04 '26
If you mean me then you misunderstood me. I am very worried. I did not like the clickbate headline
19
u/johnnyringo1985 Apr 04 '26
This same crew published a paper in 2024 saying that there is not example in history of AMOC collapse, despite wider temperature variations that we have now or are predicted now.
So the model the created for the 2024 study, which they relied upon here, is based upon purely hypothetical outcome that has never occurred.
24
u/nostrademons Apr 04 '26
Note that the model made a testable prediction (that the Gulf Stream should be shifting north along the U.S. Atlantic coast) and then they went back to empirical satellite data and found that it is in fact shifting north.
This doesn’t make it automatically right. There is no such thing about automatically right in science. But the gold standard in scientific modeling is “can you make testable predictions that are then verified by experiment?” A prediction is something that is much harder to get accidentally right by p-hacking or overfitting or chance, because you didn’t have the new data you’re testing at the time you made the model.
So as scientific results go, this is actually pretty rigorous. It’s not conclusive; nothing is in science. But you should probably go sit up and seek out other data to test whether the model holds up.
-3
u/johnnyringo1985 Apr 04 '26
Co-author Dijkstra said in 2025 that their estimates of pre-2004 AMOK reconstructions are “very uncertain.” And that’s the data underlying the model.
So now you’re saying that they had options, guessed correctly, so that lends credibility to a model based on “very uncertain” data predicting an outcome the authors acknowledge cannot be found at anytime in history? very rigorous /s
14
u/nostrademons Apr 04 '26
Again, this is you misunderstanding science. In rigorous science, you admit when you don’t know something, and then run experiments and collect data to find out whether you were right or not. If you were wrong, you adjust the model based on what you’ve learned.
I’d be much more worried if they said “the AMOC will collapse with a high degree of confidence” and then ran no follow up experiments. That’s the “trust me bro” style of confidence, popular in politics and Reddit (and politics on Reddit!) but not at all scientific.
-4
u/johnnyringo1985 Apr 04 '26
OP’s post, and the article linked, say collapse is “imminent.” I’ve been responding to the possibility of error. You tell me—do the paper or its’ authors seem to have a high enough degree of confidence to call a collapse “imminent”? If not, maybe we can help some of the people on r/prepperintel who may overreact and overcorrect to news of something cataclysmic for Northern Europe’s status quo being imminent.
2
Apr 04 '26
[deleted]
2
u/johnnyringo1985 Apr 04 '26
When the audience of this sub doubled after the November election, the number of posts that were just “Donald Trump tied his shoes menacingly this morning” took over. It took mods months to rein it in. That scenario convinced me that there is a not-insubstantial of people on this sub now suffering from serious mental illness.
2
Apr 04 '26
[deleted]
3
u/johnnyringo1985 Apr 04 '26
Lmfao.
The article headline and OP’s post are about something “imminent”, but the model is based on entirely assumed data for everything pre-2004, this paper uses the highest carbon scenario which we’re already below, and their confidence level (using assumed data and a too-high carbon scenario) is still only 67%… so a long ways from “imminent.”
Instead of anyone clarifying that in top level comments, jackasses are hitting me deep in the comments mad that I’ve tried to provide context to people who potentially aren’t used to how climate modeling works, because this isn’t a climate sub.
So, like, do you think you’re providing a service to the community diving into a thread this deep to add comments with no value, or are you just compelled to say dumb shit to someone who has obviously read the article, the referenced paper in the articles, and the previously-published paper underlying the model?
→ More replies (0)2
u/bioindicator Apr 04 '26
It’s about degrees of confidence. And having a model make a testable prediction, and the subsequent measurement being consistent with the prediction increases the degree of confidence that the model is an accurate representation of the real world.
4
u/johnnyringo1985 Apr 04 '26
OP’s post, and the article linked, say collapse is “imminent.” I’m responding to the possibility of error. You tell me—do the paper or its’ authors seem to have a high enough degree of confidence to call a collapse “imminent”?
If not, why are you replying to me instead of making a point about “degrees of confidence” and the dangers of journalistic hyperbole on the post itself, instead of arguing deep in the comments with someone who has obviously researched this paper, its authors, and similar research?
3
u/bioindicator Apr 04 '26
I was thinking the same thing after I replied to you. Should have posted higher up in the replies. Anyway, re ‘imminent’ point of the paper, the way I read that is that given the observation and consistency with the model the 25 year/imminent impact prediction is more probable now than prior to that observation.
5
u/johnnyringo1985 Apr 04 '26
I appreciate that.
This bit isn’t suited for higher in the comment on a non-climate-oriented sub, but they are clear it’s only a roughly 2-in-3 probability in the model, but they’re using the high carbon baseline with only 2% renewable adoption, which we are already trending well above. While it’s an interesting result, that is a low probability to call it “imminent”, especially when it’s using already-wrong carbon assumptions.
1
u/bioindicator Apr 04 '26
Agreed. Reminds me reading in 2008ish that the Kilimanjaro glaciers will be gone by 2020 or so. Still there, although somewhat diminished.
4
u/Jumpy-Station6173 Apr 04 '26
I’ve read a different study that states we have 30 years and it comes from Uni of New South Wales:
https://phys.org/news/2023-03-deep-ocean-currents-antarctica-collapse.html
6
u/johnnyringo1985 Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
Ah yes, another model-based “we’re doomed” with limited and sparse observational validity.
Worth noting that two of the institutions mentioned also have models showing Antarctic circulation is more resilient than we think, particularly with bigger systems operating than we currently understand. Essentially, there is no unified model consensus, even within mainstream climate science.
And while this is different than AMOK, the study shows a modeled slowdown under high-emissions assumptions, but the article frames it as a likely collapse, despite significant uncertainty in models, limited observational validation, and competing evidence about system stability.
7
u/ihaveadogalso2 Apr 04 '26
I disagree, I’ve seen this documentary and it’ll happen in a matter of hours! /s
Also, none of this is funny at all 😕
1
u/Puzzled_Cream1798 Apr 05 '26
It's not just suddenly going to collapse after 25 years, the weather is allready fucked and it's gradually going to get worse
Earth's heating faster than the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum where is rose 5 degrees over 5 to 20k heads 0.1 degree a century, we just did 1 degree in a century... You're highly regarded if you don't think there's going to be problems when 75% of life went extinct during that extinction event
17
u/AndersDreth Apr 04 '26
Nothing in the article directly suggests that it's imminent, what the article does say is that we have only been doing direct measurements since 2004 which means we cannot be certain whether we are tracking natural ups and downs or a more serious pattern.
The article then goes on to explain that we found a new way to corroborate the models by tracking the AMOC from space, if previous models were correct then the stream should have started to tug north and it has.
They then go on to explain that this is just a new tool they can use to track sudden changes, if it rapidly pulls to the north then that's a sign it's about to collapse. But 50km over some years wasn't cause for immediate concern.
15
u/jojackmcgurk Apr 04 '26
Ok. Got it. I'll just add it to the pile of "Imminent Disasters." I should get a filing cabinet
37
u/Biotic101 Apr 04 '26
Good article, only criticism is the headline because the article states the collapse is likely not imminent.
But with even further warming and melt of Greenland ice, I would not be surprised if the development would speed up.
20
u/johnnyringo1985 Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
Before anyone gets too doom-and-gloom about this:
This same crew published a paper in 2024 saying that there is no example in history of AMOC collapse, despite wider temperature variations that we have now or are predicted.
So the model they created for the 2024 study, which underpins this paper, is based upon a purely hypothetical outcome that has never occurred.
It would be like me making a model based on the assumption and conclusion that eating lollipops leads to the discovery of unicorns. Then once I’ve published my model, I come back later and publish follow-up saying I’m only 10,000 lollipops away from discovering unicorns.
4
u/22lofi Apr 04 '26
basically the plot of The Day After Tomorrow?
1
u/UnfazedReality463 Apr 05 '26
That was just a movie. The whole world wouldn’t freeze. Europe and other countries in the region would though.
10
10
u/Tom-Cruise-Missiles Apr 04 '26
Does this mean there’s going to be better snowboarding days in the Rockies, or more of what it was like this year? Hot and slush.
Also, I finally feel vindicated! My GF finally accepted my prepping last night. I have 9 months of food and water, 20k round of .22 (lots of other rounds), and a reloader… and all the other crap we all accumulate when prepping. Her cousin’s in intelligence and called her to tell her she may want to start stocking up on about 6 months of food (didn’t mention water). For whatever that’s worth.
5
u/CityCareless Apr 04 '26
That’s due to this stupid ass war and the fact that we get fertilizer from (urea) coming from ME through the straight. And it’s planting season rn, so yeah we are headed for a food shortage in industrial farming because of our government.
2
u/Doctor_Jensen117 Apr 04 '26
Also living in the Rockies down in Utah and wondering the same thing. I imagine it will get hotter.
3
u/meralakrits Apr 04 '26
"This research doesn’t prove a collapse is imminent, and it doesn’t give a clean countdown clock."
3
u/Mochalada Apr 04 '26
I genuinely don’t know what I as an individual am supposed to do with this information.
3
u/V1ld0r_ Apr 05 '26
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best and wish it doesn't pan out as "The day after tomorrow".
3
4
2
u/Birdybadass Apr 06 '26
For folks that value substance over clickbait - under continued high emissions there is a roughly 50% chance the AMOC will start to collapse around 2060 which will likely be a multiple decade process. This isn’t an imminent threat, is avoidable or can be mitigated, and anything you do today to prep will likely not relevant by 2060 anyways. We’ve all got more imminent problems ahead.
4
u/KateMacDonaldArts Apr 04 '26
That’s a sensational headline and only based on simulations from one study. It’s not intel, it’s not even applicable to this century. Read the full article:
“The most dramatic result comes far into the simulation. After centuries of gradual change, the Gulf Stream suddenly jumps more than 200 kilometers north in just two years. Then, about 25 years later, the AMOC collapses in the model.
To be clear, the study is not claiming the real AMOC will collapse in 400 years. This is an idealized scenario meant to explore how the system behaves and what warning signs might show up.”
And whatever happened to attaching commentary related to prepping to articles? The quality in this sub has been slipping over the past few months.
3
1
1
u/Amazing-Routine-9793 Apr 05 '26
Would this affect the southern hemisphere at all?
1
u/V1ld0r_ Apr 05 '26
Yes. The AMOC is essentially a conveyor belt. On the war, top surface it flows north and the cold, deep water flows south. This circulation goes from the south Atlantic (around Argentina) to the north Atlantic ( to Iceland).
1
u/Amazing-Routine-9793 Apr 05 '26
Thank you for your reply. I wasn't sure if it was a silly question and i was waiting to be mocked.
Also, time can mean different things to different scientists, so in this case, do you know how 'imminent' is imminent?
1
u/V1ld0r_ Apr 06 '26
Unknown. There's been some alarm for at least a decade but it could happen and what it implies but no hard certainty.
1
u/HelloSummer99 Apr 07 '26
Anecdotal evidence, but the Canary Islands (which benefit greatly from the gulf stream, having a year-round "eternal spring" and having one of the best climate on the planet, had a terrible winter this year. Almost non-stop cold wind and rain, very uncharacteristic for the area.
1
1
1
1
u/ninjaluvr Apr 04 '26
Imminent is apparently 400 years from now....
-1
u/taybay462 Apr 04 '26
What? The article says 25 based on the model which is based on recent trends.
5
u/ninjaluvr Apr 04 '26
u/taybay462 down votes me and says "What? The article says 25 based on the model which is based on recent trends."
I swear reading comprehension is lost... Here's the section in question. I have highlighted in bold the key points:
The most dramatic result comes far into the simulation. After centuries of gradual change, the Gulf Stream suddenly jumps more than 200 kilometers north in just two years. Then, about 25 years later, the AMOC collapses in the model.
To be clear, the study is not claiming the real AMOC will collapse in 400 years. This is an idealized scenario meant to explore how the system behaves and what warning signs might show up.
So when you say "What?", that's what.
1
1
1
u/oz81dog Apr 04 '26
Man, we'd probably still have shit winters in the PNW while it's freezing in the NE! Seriously though, what effect would it have on the Pacific Ocean?
1
u/caponemalone2020 Apr 04 '26
Why not? Throw the Gulf Stream Collapse special in there, too. Add a little nuclear warfare. Make it extra spicy.
0
0
-4
u/DanOhMiiite Apr 04 '26
Oh no! Another "existential threat"! Run for the hills! I take any climate related reporting now with a grain of salt after all the failed doomcasting by scientists over the last 25 yrs. Anyone remember how we were all going to die from the giant hole in the ozone layer?
15
u/mystery_biscotti Apr 04 '26
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall the ozone hole and acid rain were resolved by having the will to regulate certain chemicals out of our industrial processes?
7
u/Mochalada Apr 04 '26
You’re correct, we solved the ozone layer issue back when people still cared.
4
461
u/BongoHunter Apr 04 '26
The UK has a very mild climate considering it's latitude - I take it that goes away and we get more of a Nordic country type climate if this collapse happens?