{"id":414279,"date":"2025-11-22T18:04:11","date_gmt":"2025-11-22T17:04:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=414279"},"modified":"2025-11-22T18:04:14","modified_gmt":"2025-11-22T17:04:14","slug":"is-the-gulf-stream-really-collapsing-debunking-another-climate-doomsday-claim","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=414279","title":{"rendered":"\u00a0Is The Gulf Stream Really Collapsing? Debunking Another Climate Doomsday Claim"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From No Trick Zone<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0P Gosselin<\/a>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The idea that global warming could paradoxically shut down the Gulf Stream, plunging Europe into a new cold spell\u2014a scenario popularized by the film\u00a0The Day After Tomorrow<\/em>\u2014is a powerful narrative.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Map<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

However, the latest episode of Klimaschau (Issue 237)<\/strong><\/a> challenges these alarmist predictions, scrutinizing the scientific evidence and the methods behind the claims. The segment focuses on skepticism regarding the imminent \u201ctipping\u201d of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recall how climatologists like Stefan Rahmstorf<\/strong> from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) argue that Arctic warming is weakening the AMOC due to an influx of freshwater, potentially causing Europe to become colder and drier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rahmstorf relied on cherry-picked data<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, a 2021 study co-authored by Rahmstorf suggested the AMOC was at its weakest point in over a millennium. Rahmstorf has also been quoted predicting the AMOC could completely cease in 50 to 100 years. Yet, a sharp rebuttal by Kilburn and colleagues (2022) in the same journal. This counter-study accused Rahmstorf\u2019s team of using \u201cselective\u201d or \u201ccherry-picked\u201d data to arrive at their conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EIKE Klimaschau video<\/a> presents criticism that challenges the reliability of the computer models often used by the PIK. Engineer and blogger Frank Bosse<\/strong> (Klimanachrichten<\/a>) dismisses the PIK\u2019s models as inherently unreliable and susceptible to manipulated data input. He points to the actual, unfiltered measurement data from the RAPID Project. This raw data shows the AMOC has been oscillating unspectacularly around a mean value between 2004 and 2024, with only one clear anomaly around 2010. This directly contradicts the models predicting a dramatic collapse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arctic Ice: Not Melting as Fast as Predicted<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Further challenging the premises of the AMOC collapse theory (which relies on massive freshwater inflow from melting ice), the EIKE  video<\/a> cites a 2025 study by England et al<\/strong>: The research, which reviewed apocalyptic melting scenarios, concluded that the decline in Arctic sea ice has \u201csignificantly slowed down\u201d over the last two decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Crucially, there has been no statistically significant decline in September sea ice area since 2005.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The EIKE video concludes<\/a> by linking the current alarmist methodology to the historical controversy of Michael E. Mann\u2019s 1999 \u201cHockey Stick Study\u201d. The implication is that the use of selective, non-representative data to generate dramatic claims is a recurring pattern in certain climate narratives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n