Home | About | Donate

Concerns of 'Catastrophic Collapse' Grow as Gulf Stream Weaker Than It's Been in 1,600 Years

Concerns of 'Catastrophic Collapse' Grow as Gulf Stream Weaker Than It's Been in 1,600 Years

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

New research published Wednesday in the journal Nature raises alarm about how global warming is impacting the Atlantic Ocean's Gulf Stream System, and how weakening ocean currents could influence extreme weather in Western Europe and sea level rise along North America's East Coast.

Although the two studies draw different conclusions about timing and causation, researchers agree that the system of ocean currents called Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) has notably weakened in recent decades.

1 Like

It’s been grim for some time. No notice was taken till it may be too late.

1 Like

The good news is the nuclear winter will alleviate global warming.

And dinosaurs will become extinct again.

1 Like

Some perspective might help.

The number one problem with climate change is the impairment of most or all of the world’s wheat, rice and corn belts. Countries at the edge of the Sahara Desert are already experiencing a string of consistent agricultural disasters. Expect that.


Not sure who drew the currents on the map, but against what I’ve seen many times in the past, they are not correct, and take away credibility from the story.

Thanks for covering this major story that few are paying attention to.

Makes me rethink living in the upper midwest where we are now faced with a potential blizzard this weekend. It feels apocalyptic here in mid-April. I believe it is related to arctic amplification.
The forests are eerily quiet. Where there should be sedges and ephemerals emerging there is 2 feet of snow and more on the way.

Most people don’t have a clue as to why the weather has been so bizarre and horrific. We are in the midst of a climate and political emergency and too many are ignoring the sirens that are blaring.

For those who want to learn more about slowing or shutting down of the AMOC, it is worth reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation

Slowing or shutting down of the AMOC will wreak havoc on the countries where one is “most likely to survive a climate change apocalypse, and the place we should all flee to, should the planet turn on us, according to the research”:

It is becoming more evident that there will be nowhere to “flee” to.


There is an article on geo-engineering at the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelves to stop their moving and increase glaciation. I contacted the principle investigator about his approach vs forcing more of the melting. This article serms to support the hypothesis that humans could realustically try some geo engineering projects that might buy our species some time. In the past, a Canadian pre-historic lake, Agassiz was believed to have been breached suddenly, dumping more of this fresh water into the North Atlantic. It shut off the North Atlantic conveyor stopping circulation of warm gulf wsters, which started the last mini ice age. I proposed we do the same with Greenland’s ice, melting it quickly to stop the brine cycle in the N Atlantic. This should produce another mini ice age that might buy us enough time to outlaw hydrocarbon combustion exhaust and convert all energy and transport systems to renewable power.

If not, as he says, we just raised ocean levels by a meter or more. Both this rising sea level or ice age would be hard. But which one allows us to get our shit together? We come out of any ice age with more CO2 and methane than ever before, and more people, but we need to get control of our spaceship!
We got no other place we can live, and we’ve poisoned our ship to the point where we’re getting cancer from it at an alarmingly increasing rate!

My perspective is if the system shows a tendency towards that behavior now, i.e. the shutting down of the thermal converor, then Force it! Before Greenland all slowly melts, and all we get is down-side: no forced cooling (is an ice age just as hard or harder than 128°F in LA for 45 days straight? Or 132 in Vegas and Phoenix) No glacier source to try this proven method (Ref Wallace Broeker Columbia University) after its gone, sea level rise anyway. Plus ultimately we risk: +5°C which releases all permafrost methane and poof: we instanly become cooked like Venus.

Comparing the scale of projects, melting Greenland vs. Making concrete structures underwater of massive proportions, the former offers potentially greater hope. A UN project uniting mankind’s Nuclear arsenal of ships as a means to accelerate creation of a freshwater lake would be a low CO2 way to get there. Portable heaters on steroids for sure! Imagine, they might actually help humanity. Make a big central lake of meltwater in Greenland then dump it into the N Atlantic to shut off already diminished circulation vs construction of huge cement factories (burning methane and pumping tons of CO2 for every ton of cement needed) making cement for concrete to pour Hoover dam sized blocks on the bottom of the treacherous North Sea that would hopefully grab the bottom of a glacier and slow it down.

Compared to the Greenland glacier sizes, the Hoover dam is far too tiny to hold up the glacier. Several would be needed. Compared to the size and strength of a glacier (they carved out the great lakes) the Hoover dam is a gnat fart in a hurricane. We must do even more as passengers on this same Starship Earth before we foul up our life support systems and kill everybody!

Indeed. Effects on the habitats that are needed for producing the food the human population needs to live is creating the greatest threat our species has seen for 50 plus millenniums. The fragility of our environment and thus the fragility of humanity is sobering. So many variables. Massive methane releases in the Arctic, a doomsday happening that could become a reality at any time. I recall Carl Sagan in the 1970’s and 1980’s talking about the probability of other intelligent life in the universe. And while self destruction via weapons of war was considered a factor, something the Cold War kept at the forefront, environment suicide was not realized to be the threat we’ve since know it to be. Extinction by suicide. What an epitaph.


The consequences for Europe and the British Isles would be enormous. This land mass is a lot warmer than it should be judging from its latitude, and if the warm water ceases to keep it warm: goodbye to temperate zone agriculture.

1 Like

I vote we just run with the Anthropecene disaster and take our medicine.

My faith in further technology undoing the problems created by earlier technology is not high.


We “Anthros”* don’t deserve this beautiful planet.

*at least those of who twist the biggest knobs…

1 Like

What’s it like… to starve to death? How many will find out?

Damnednif we do and damnednif we don’t …conundrum anyone?


…and we …and most other living species…will be dead …it’s a wonderful Life



I hear you. The frustration we all have might not be the fault in the technology, but rather in how we used it? Capitalism got us where we are. Maybe the promotion of technology for the personal profit of a few should be challenged? In this case the intention is to fix the problem for the benefit of everyone, knowing that some will be massively impacted. These people need to be cared for as fellow crewmembers not competing strangers!

Perhaps Greed and Competition weren’t the best values upon which to base our society?


Not after 450nuclear power plantselt down…no.

Does this make any sense at all, aside from slowing the polar vortex down even further?

There will still be the same amount of GHG in the atmosphere that will continue to drive AGW regardless, even if emissions were suddenly to go to zero which of course won’t happen.

Such would not cause a global mini Ice Age, just increase ACD already happening. Would that slowing down of the AMOC and polar vortex even further cause a lopsided plunging of Arctic air into the US and Eastern Europe? Yes.

But how does this do anything to stop AGW?