I’ve been getting a lot of media queries about a new paper on the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation), which has just been published. In my view this large media interest is perhaps due to confusing messages conveyed in the title of the paper and in press releases about it by the journal Nature and by the Met Office. Whether intended or not, these give the impression that new model results suggest that the AMOC is more resilient than previously thought. That’s (unfortunately!) not the case.
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?
That is not about any difference in climate impact. The AMOC’s climate impact in these model simulations is the same as in previous studies, which have indeed used the same models and often in fact the same model experiments, as this study has analysed existing model runs.
A typical example of those is the paper by Bellomo et al. 2023 using the EC-Earth3 model – that same model is also included in the new paper by Baker et al. If you try to kill the AMOC by adding a lot of freshwater to the northern Atlantic (no greenhouse gas increase), you get the following change on Atlantic overturning (Fig. 1).
It is clear that – as usual – some overturning remains. The climate impact looks similar to other models (Figure 2): massive cooling in the Northern Hemisphere.
Figure 2 Surface temperature change in response to a near-shutdown of the AMOC.
Another example is the analysis of CMIP6 results which I showed in my presentation last October at the Arctic Circle Assembly, when presenting the open letter by 44 experts to the Council of Nordic Ministers. The preprint of this work has been online since last September. CMIP6 is the current model generation, also used in Baker et al.
It presents a selection of standard climate scenarios with those CMIP6 models, as shown in the last IPCC report, in which the AMOC largely grinds to a halt in the next century, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 AMOC strength and ocean heat transport at 26°N in a selection of CMIP6 models in which the AMOC nearly collapses.
It is clear that some overturning remains in all of them – as is indeed expected, as it is the density-driven (i.e. thermohaline) part of the AMOC which has a well-known tipping point, due to Stommel’s (1961) famous salt transport feedback. It has been well-established since the 1990s (Toggweiler and Samuels 1995) that the AMOC also has a component driven by the winds, which will persist as long as the winds won’t stop blowing (except possibly if it switches to the North Pacific rather than North Atlantic). We actually pointed out in our preprint mentioned above that we focus on whether “the deeper thermohaline part of the AMOC becomes weak and/or collapses, since it is only this part of the AMOC that possesses a tipping point.” Now the new paper focuses on the wind-driven part, which thus complements our study, but it does in no way contradict it.
It does not change the assessment of the risk and impact of future AMOC changes in response to human-caused global warming.
(Please post a link in the comments if you see media coverage of the Baker study.)
Post script: As an aside, together with my Australian colleague Matt England I published a systematic study on the wind-driven part of the AMOC already in 1997.
https://social.heise.de/@heiseonline/114071080822555955
Thanks for providing this insight.
A question that has often occurred to me, to be forgotten before I have a chance to research (or even ask), is
How does an AMOC shutdown affect the planet’s energy imbalance?
Cooler Northern Hemisphere means reduced energy transfer there. I don’t see any compensation for that, so my preliminary guess is that it accelerates overall warming?
Thanks
BJ
This article was written by AI, if you study AI, the way it writes, you’ll see that this is an example of how news can be fabricated to the public.
Let us know why you think that this site “fabricates” news.
I have had contact with Stefan before; he is not an AI.
I’d be more inclined to think that AI failed to remove Jason’s dumb obnoxious dishonest comment. Stefan is one of the finest scientists I know of and Jason could learn from him if he were interested in the subject matter rather than cheap takedowns.
If I were writing this article or ANY article using acronym, at the first use of the acronym I would make a point of defining what it stood for.
Many may know but many may not, requiring them to google or click on a link to know what
AMOC stands for in this case.
Good point, done.
https://www.zeit.de/wissen/umwelt/2025-02/amoc-stroemung-kanada-temperaturen-europa
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/26/total-collapse-of-vital-atlantic-currents-unlikely-this-century-study-finds
https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/klimawandel-studie-widerspricht-kollaps-des-golfstroms-im-21-jahrhundert-a-51a181db-733b-4bfa-940a-65203a9111ad
Unfortunately, the prediction of a misinterpretation of the findings of the mentioned study by the media seems to hold.
It was obvious that it would, given the irresponsible way in which the paper’s headline and abstract were worded.
I’m in two minds whether the authord and publisher were intentionally irresponsible (in order to get more publicity for the paper), or unintentionally so (in the sense that they genuinely had no idea how laymen would interpret it). The latter is no better than the former, in my opinion. It wouldn’t cost much to employ layman proof readers.
Also in Poland – even in left-of-the-centre Gazeta Wyborcza, with the obligatory denier’s pun:
26/02/2025 “Let’s not let ourselves run amok. New study on the future of the Gulf Stream”
Global warming does not mean that Europe is cooling, scientists write in Nature. […]
You probably remember the headlines from recent years: “The Gulf Stream is weakening”, “A threat to the Earth”, “The Gulf Stream may disappear”.
Where does this hysteria come from?”
=================
The people who wrote the paper seem to have no idea about communication – what they wrote in the headine and the abstract could hardly be more misleading to a layman – and in the current politcal climate (!) I think that is irresponsible.
Surely it should be possible for authors of papers like this – and for the publishers – to get the wording of headlines and abstracts checked by someone who understands how laymen are likely to interpret what they write, before publication?
Herr we go:
https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/klimawandel-studie-widerspricht-kollaps-des-golfstroms-im-21-jahrhundert-a-51a181db-733b-4bfa-940a-65203a9111ad?sara_ref=re-xx-cp-sh
I’m no scientist so maybe explain this in common language? Thanks.
[Response: New scientific study says that what nobody has ever predicted (namely that a particular ocean current vanishes completely, to zero, nothing) is not going to happen, just like all previous model simulations have already shown. The lead author says this is “reassuring”. Lay people might misunderstand this as saying that the severe climate impacts resulting from a major weakening of that current are not going to happen – but these severe impacts have been demonstrated in models where this current also didn’t reduce to zero, and the new study says nothing about climate impacts. So there is nothing new and reassuring about these climate impacts. -Stefan]
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/26/total-collapse-of-vital-atlantic-currents-unlikely-this-century-study-finds
https://apnews.com/article/climate-abrupt-shutdown-atlantic-current-amoc-113045605001da12127166e1b562f4c0
https://www.irishtimes.com/environment/climate-crisis/2025/02/26/amoc-will-weaken-but-may-not-collapse-this-century-study-finds/
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/weather-and-climate-news/2025/climate-change-amoc-likely-to-withstand-future-warming
I am very interested in learning more about the connection, interaction, the modification of the southern deep ocean and AMOC slow-down. Please elaborate more on this combined construct, so far this appears to be only being assessed independently from each other, and how it potentially will affect Europe and the U.S. East coast.
https://nos.nl/collectie/13871/artikel/2557408-oceaanstroming-die-europa-verwarmt-kan-fors-verzwakken-maar-stopt-waarschijnlijk-niet
https://www.knmi.nl/over-het-knmi/nieuws/in-hoeverre-zal-de-golfstroom-verzwakken-onder-klimaatverandering-amoc-tipping-point
Dutch paper: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/02/26/belangrijkste-stroming-in-atlantische-oceaan-zal-deze-eeuw-nog-niet-stilvallen-a4884512
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/atlantic-meridional-overturning-circulation-weakening-in-the-deep-sea-of-north-atlantic/
Here is actual observational data.
I am not a scientist but I think one problem with the new paper is a communications issue, namely the word resilient in the abstract. This has a certain scientific meaning, but to the public it says the AMOC will be just fine even with strong warming. The subsequent statements that the AMOC will weaken won’t matter to the public because they have that word resilient planted in their brain, and they WANT to believe everything will be fine.
Especially during times when things are judged based on appearance (headlines) instead of the actual conclusion and scientific process (consensus and how it is derived, what is lacking, overall opinion from the actual experts).
Chris, agreed. The following is a perfect example of headlines, with a media outlet miragenews.com reporting on the new AMOC study. Their headline reads :”AMOC Resilient Against Future Climate Warming:”,
https://www.miragenews.com/amoc-resilient-against-future-climate-warming-1415556/
The media have cherrypicked exactly the text they wanted from the study to possibly deliberately convey the impression the AMOC is in great health so theres no need to worry. Many people only read headlines as you mentioned. The popular definition of resilient conveys the impression that the AMOC is in great shape while the scientific meaning is more subtle. I’m not sure of the solution to the dilemma because the paper has not done anything wrong using the term resilient. Perhaps if they had explained what they meant in brackets this would have helped. I have enormous respect for scientists, but I feel need to better consider how the public and media will interpret their words,, and not hand the denialists ammunition.
Agree with respect to anything complex and analytic. But I actually find for most political-type/current event-type news ALL you need to read is the headline. Everything else is fluff or propaganda.
Easy to see the same effect here in posts from our resident deniers here as well.
After a long period of growing erosion of the enlightened and somewhat democratic public sphere after the (limited) victory over fascism 1945, the main attack began in 1979/80 with the silent oligarchic coup d’etat “led” with the former third-class moviestar and agent in Hollywood for the mafia, Ronald Reagan, as main hero in his final role at the US “president”. What followed is described in the book “Amusing ourselves to death” by Neil Postman 1985. In short it is the media dictatorship of capitalist hubris – psychotic madness – growth utopism going crazy.
For climate science the result now in the US is destruction by the de facto dictator Musk: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/27/politics/noaa-federal-workers-firings/index.html
This regime is now establishing a global oligarchic and “voluntary” totalitarian-ignorant dictatorship under the simulation of “leadership” from the mad and evil king of the fools: Trump, with the russian sub-oligarchy under Putin as a kind of main militaristic vehicle. This process began and was stabilized under Bush 2. and Obama/Clinton, Biden giving it the final touch. *Elon Musk’s fortune is mainly the result of federal subsidies handed out under Obama, Trump and Biden.*
The oligarchy is an oiligarchy: the global dictatorship of fossil capital, trying to extract all there is left, and thereby destroying the global climatic balances and destabilizing the great ecosystems. It will destroy all natural science because the facts about mankind’s destruction of it’s own ecological niche collides frontally with the capitalist illusion of eternal growth. In reality the capitalist utopia, i.e. the american dream is a stone dead illusion, but almost everyone is still clinging to it in the same way as the hitlerian masses were clinging to the illusion of a great revival of the german empire after the collapse in 1918, and in the same way as the stalinists were clinging to the communist, and russian imperialist illusion (the “eastern”, state capitalism) until the collapse in 1989/90. Putin is the russian version of Trump/Musk and vice versa.
KVJ, you’re right but at least Clinton and Obama and Bush didn’t give an Oligarch like Musk a job to destroy large and useful parts of the government.
Nigelj That’s not very much to cling to. It surely didn’t stop the process towards fullblown fascist oligarchy. “They sold us out to the oligarchs, but at least they didn’t make them our feudal overlords immidiatly. They left that to two seniles: Biden and Trump.” The impressive selfdestructing logic of the lesser evil… I prefer Trudeau for those opportunistic lukewarmers and climate ignorants: ““What he wants to see is a total collapse of the Canadian economy because that will make it easier to annex us,” Trudeau said. “That is never going to happen. We will never be the 51st state.”” https://apnews.com/article/trudeau-trump-canada-tariffs-us-5d5ef8bd41c4567926d543a9526b2e84 . At least Trudeau has introduced carbon fee and dividend, James Hansen’s idea. That’s much more than even Bernie Sanders, AOC and the whole european left has understood about how to fight climate disaster and end fossil fuel dependency.
KVJ: “The impressive selfdestructing logic of the lesser evil.”
Some things in life are a choice between the lesser of the evils, such as systems of government, and economic systems like capitalism and socialism. Winston Churchill famously said “Democracy is the worst type of system, except for all the others. ”
Some practical solutions to reduce the problems of oligrarchs, are progressive taxes or wealth taxes that target billionaires. These ideas are nothing new and it all faces obstacles but I admit I’m completely unable to come up with a genuinely better workable alternative, and nobody else has come up with one to my knowledge. There might not be one.
I agree about carbon fee and dividend. Bear in mind its a compromise solution, but quite a decent one.
Nigel: KVJ, you’re right but at least Clinton and Obama and Bush didn’t give an Oligarch like Musk a job to destroy large and useful parts of the government.
KJV: That’s not very much to cling to. It surely didn’t stop the process towards fullblown fascist oligarchy..
Both of you are keen observers and critics of the USA from abroad, for which I for one thank you. Karsten’s comments tend more toward the dramatic, however. As a pragmatic patriot, I for one hope any uncommitted lurkers will be properly skeptical. The only reasonable response to him here is “you’re right, but at least…” Under the Mediocrity Principle (edge.org/response-detail/11272), nothing’s perfect, because the cosmos isn’t actually responsive to our yearnings. Nigel quoted Churchill, who got it right: America’s founders left things the way they did because every other way they thought of was worse. The Constitution of the USA is a political sausage, at best. There’s never been any guarantee it won’t occasionally empower an authoritarian kleptocracy, or that government by universal suffrage with checks and balances shall not perish from the earth. All a thoughtful patriot can say is, it’s held for 241 years so far, even as the franchise has more-or-less steadily expanded. No, it’s not much to cling to, but as we all know, perfect is the friend of worse!
As for calling the Trump Kakistocracy “fullblown fascist oligarchy”, well, that’s hyperbolic IMHO. As I’m sure Karsten understands, the government of the USA has never been perfect, and even now it undeniably could be worse. How many of us gave been beaten in the street by MAGA-hat-wearing thugs yet? How many rounded up and exterminated? Granted, neither can be ruled out in the future.
Karsten, please keep in mind that comparatively few RC regulars voted Republican last November. IOW, you’re “preaching to the choir”. I, for one, voted Democratic, mindful that any other vote, or no vote at all, was a vote for government by the worst. As it turned out, slightly more than half of my fellow voters, including many of my friendly neighbors, had yearnings substantively divergent from mine. That’s unsurprising, even in a genuine pluralistic democracy! In this country, we all get the government only half of us deserve.
MA: As for calling the Trump Kakistocracy “fullblown fascist oligarchy”, well, that’s hyperbolic IMHO.
BPL: I can’t agree. See my article on Heinlein in the 1998 New York Review of Science Fiction. I see fascism as having five criteria, and the present government fits all of them, starting with the Leader Principle. Trump is legislating, ignoring the congress, and ignoring the courts. This is what fascism looks like.
I am reminded of the following New Yorker cartoon:
https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
I was unable to find this “Creator’s Remorse: What Was I Thinking” at a good location, but hope this will get through and the context can be ignored:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/837036280719954707/
KVJ: and let’s not forget Margaret Thatcher. Selling off everything that isn’t bolted down and then encouraging large scale pump and dump (aka wealth management and/or private equity, stripping value and selling off, often using the assets of the raided entity to buy it).
Hello KVJ, and all the rest of you, too :-)
I will answer, “What causes the inevitable concentration of wealth and the resulting Oligarchy and Despotism?”
This is underlying our problems; it may even be “The Great Filter,” but as bugs go, it is invisible to almost everyone and, simultaneously, a veritable Godzilla among bugs.
https://firstmakeitwork.org/2024/03/11/the-great-filter/
For the past 5000 years, we have created money as debt, usually with interest, and the only limitation on debt is the gullibility of the lender(s) who must believe they will be paid back.
Instead, money represents work done and is limited by the Laws of Thermodynamics. I have a proof of this in my book. I don’t want to abuse this forum with all of that, but I also show that the Laws of Thermodynamics, as they apply to money, are radically Anti-Capitalistic.
The individuals who have great piles of money are not to blame for the existence of the great piles of money. It is the existence of those piles of money that creates the evil.
If you wish to argue this, you can find me on
https://bsky.app/profile/bjchippindale.bsky.social
or
https://firstmakeitwork.org/2023/09/16/making-money-real/
I don’t want anyone to buy it from Amazon. At least not until April. No money for Bezos, and I don’t want to distract from the science here.
https://medium.com/@bj.chippindale/owned-3a5602124f7b
My SCIENTIFIC question remains.
***Will the slowdown of the AMOC lead to a larger energy imbalance for the planet and result in faster warming?***
I’m pretty sure it will, but I do not have the background to be more than ~80% certain.
BJ, I may try my first bsky foray to see what you are talking about. However, here I will use your question to repeat a point I often make.
“Will the slowdown of the AMOC lead to a larger energy imbalance for the planet and result in faster warming?”
You can’t seriously discuss science until everyone agrees on what the words mean.
“Earth Energy Imbalance” is a term that refers to the difference between energy coming in from the Sun and energy radiated to space. From your earlier question, it sounds like you may be confusing that with the north-south difference as it exists. Can you clarify?
What does “warming” mean? It sounds like you are talking about GMST, and if so, my question is: “Why should we care?”
-The energy imbalance is (primarily) caused by increased greenhouse gases.
-The increased energy in the climate system causes many different effects, one of which is localized increases in temperature. These increases raise the mean (average) temperature for the whole planet.
-The mean temperature is not a cause of the problems we experience from a changing climate.
See this further down the thread:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/02/how-will-media-report-on-this-new-amoc-study/#comment-830880
How an AMOC reduction might affect the actual EEI is an interesting physics question, but my guess is that it would not be of any near-term significance.
In Re to BJ Chippindale, 7 Mar 2025 at 4:30 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/02/how-will-media-report-on-this-new-amoc-study/#comment-830928
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your post and for thought provoking references.
As regards the relationship between ocean currents and Earth energy (im)balance, I am equally curious as you if there already is a relevant knowledge, or rather not.
And, even in case that global climate parameters like mean surface temperature, global annual precipitation and land/sea distribution thereof were perhaps independent on changes in ocean water circulation, I think that changes in regional mean temperature and/or precipitation may be still very significant for people living in affected regions.
Best regards
Tomáš
Replying to Zebra
You’ll find I used the words correctly.
If the North-South energy transfer by the AMOC slows significantly, it is like removing an internal heat-pipe from a cooling system. The energy distribution changes. There is a possibility that it warms the tropics and cools the Arctic, though the albedo changes in the Arctic will complicate this effect, and the altered distribution of energy to the surface may make the overall energy transfer into space less efficient (or more efficient).
It seems unlikely that it would remain unchanged.
“The mean temperature is not a cause of the problems we experience from a changing climate.”
If the GMST changes, that’s very much a matter of interest for those who live on the surface. Even if the mean does NOT change, a changed distribution can easily kill some of us, but your sentence contains an inherent disconnect. The GMST changes are changing the climate, but the problems we experience from a changing climate are not connected to the GMST?
When the hydrologic cycle increases intensity due to the additional energy, it quickly becomes a survival issue.
Come to bsky and we can talk.
BJ Chippindale
BJ, here’s the problem:
” Even if the mean does NOT change, a changed distribution can easily kill some of us, but your sentence contains an inherent disconnect. The GMST changes are changing the climate, but the problems we experience from a changing climate are not connected to the GMST? ”
No, “the GMST changes” are not “changing” the climate. The “changes” in the climate system are what is “changing” GMST. It’s an average! It’s one number!
If you understand that a changed distribution can have [negative] consequences if the mean does not change, then by itself, the mean tells us nothing, correct?
Not sure if there is a more specific term that applies here, but it is similar to “the map is not the country” fallacy.
Increased GMST is a proxy for EEI/System Energy Increase.
SEI is what is causing the climate to change.
Why are people with some understanding of science so reluctant to use the correct terminology?? (Not picking on you, BJ; it’s true even for the pros.)
In Re to zebra, 23 MAR 2025 AT 7:28 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/02/how-will-media-report-on-this-new-amoc-study/#comment-831411
Dear Sir,
If you assume that climate changes (only?) if there is a “system energy increase”, (SEI), please consider following two cases:
a) Let us assume that a change in poleward heat transport from lower latitudes would have not changed the global Earth energy balance and global mean surface temperature will thus not change. A temperature change in lower latitudes will be exactly compensated by an opposite temperature change in higher latitudes. If I understood your proposal correctly, you assume that the new state should not be classified as a climate change, am I correct? If so, I do not think that your proposal is useful.
b) Let us assume that aerosol pollution created during industrial era was higher than it actually was and thus exactly compensated the surface warming effect caused by rising atmospheric concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases. Again, there would have been no global warming and global temperature should remain stable.
Nevertheless, according to prof. Axel Kleidon, a decrease in the surface energy flux must cause a decrease in global water cycle intensity. If so, it appears that also in this case, there might be a significant change in global climate, although there is no “system energy increase”.
For these reasons, I am afraid that your SEI is, in fact, an inappropriate criterion for a climate change. I rather suspect that any change in the energy flux distribution through Earth surface may result in a climate change.
Greetings
Tomáš
Of course that’s KVJ, not KJV! Sorry.
“What previous studies have labelled an ‘AMOC collapse’ is now called ‘no collapse’.”
Seriously? (Shakes head.)
“It does not change the assessment of the risk and impact of future AMOC changes in response to human-caused global warming.”
Does that imply that there is a correlation with an increase in human-added CO2?
Ken Towe: “Does that imply that there is a correlation with an increase in human-added CO2?”
CO2 does not DIRECTLY drives AMOC. First – “the human added CO2” is countered in part by the natural CO2 uptake and increased removal via CO2-fertilization. The remaining increase in CO2 nonlinearly increases GMST, with the increase being amplified by positive feedbacks with various elements of the water cycle and albedo of ice and snow. The Arctic component of GMST rise is then nonlinearly translated into the increased melt of Greenland ice-sheet and reduction in ice formation. These are then transported around by surface currents, depending on winds. Then this transported signal, with added on top weather variability in the ocean south/east of Greenland – affects the amount of formed sea-ice. and the T and S of the resulting water (which is also affected by the changes in the T and S advected horizontally from other parts of the ocean), determines the changes in the density of surface water, and only then influences the volume of the water that is dense enough to sink, thus driving the thermohaline part of AMOC.
Knowing about these complexities, spatial and temporal variability, and nonlinearities of the involved multiple interactions – why would ANYONE even ask about a … linear correlation between AMOC and “human-added CO2”????
Expecting high-school statistics tools to provide any meaningful insight into AMOC – is like asking a microscope-repair technician whether they tried to use a 1-pound hammer you have provided them to fix the microscope.
Ignoring your insult. I never said anything about a direct or linear correlation. Human caused global warming is the result of oxidizing carbon that is putting at risk the future of AMOC.. If true why the comment?
Kein Kollaps des Golfstroms bis zum Jahr 2100 auf derstandard.at
https://www.derstandard.de/story/3000000259038/kein-kollaps-des-golfstroms-bis-zum-jahr-2100
With the headline transpayin english: “good news- no collaps of the AMOC”
Toujours la semiotique.
It’s surprising that until now, even on a blog like RC, nobody has thought to address the issue of how words are used in communicating science to the public, eh.
zebra: “ It’s surprising that until now nobody has thought to address the issue of how words are used in communicating science to the public”
Perhaps because the problem is not in your hobby-horse – definition of the words – but in the … psychology?
I don’t think Baker et al. had problems with definition of words – rather they have suffered from the selective blindness caused by the confirmation bias
– the authors MUST have known that AMOC is made of two different parts – the shallow wind-driven and the main-part driven by thermohaline conditions – the word thermohaline although not mentioned in their text – is in four of their references.
But they have ignored it – because their goal was to make their mark in science by becoming the paradigm changers – nobody would be interested in their paper, certainly not Nature – if they just confirmed what other people have been saying already for decades.
That’s why they ignored the part of their knowledge that was telling them otherwise, and that’s why they have ignored Feynman’s warning: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
As for the editor(s) of Nature – they are not specialists – so they rely on the peer reviewers and since the reviewers didn’t flag it out – they went along with as strong a claim as they could – since the ability to recognize and publish the paradigm-shifting paper – is the primary consideration in evaluation of how good an editor you are. And with this goal in mind, you silence any doubts “ how comes that nobody else before has figured it out?” As they say in Poland: ” you don’t check the teeth [an indicator of health – P] of the gifted horse”.
Now why the third part of this mess, peer-reviewers, have missed it – I have no idea.
After all they have had nothing to gain, but a lot to lose – if they missed a massive and very consequential misrepresentation of the paper they reviewed – and they, the supposed gate-keepers of the good science, had allowed to slip it.
And they will be reminded of this failure forever – as the deniers will be using the paper the reviewers OKayed – to dismiss the dangers of climate change and to attack the credibility of climate science – any attempt to correct the public perception of the Baker et al. paper will be presented forever as the science establishment trying to silence/censor the scientist brave enough to challenge the climate change orthodoxy. Quite a burden to carry, even if they names are not known to the public.
It is ironic that the climate science deniers do use papers from genuine climate scientists, to bolster their case that climate science is invalid. Of course the deniers misquote the papers, misinterpret them or misrepresent their findings, but one would think the contradiction would prevent them from doing this. I suppose the message is: ‘Look, even the climate experts are now admitting that they were wrong!’
Rory, the point I’m raising (and have often raised) is that the way to counteract misinformation as you describe is to do a better job of communicating and educating the public.
That requires skill, and discipline in writing, and there is a real lack of that even in discussions (as here on RC) which are ostensibly aimed at readers who may be sincerely interested in improving their level of understanding, but with limited background.
I’ve given some examples/models on UV,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/02/unforced-variations-feb-2025/#comment-830339
In my experience, “the public” is quite capable of understanding and internalizing the important fundamentals. But there has to be a consistent use of (correct) basic terminology, and brevity/simplicity, and yes, repetition. Not filling the page or showing off how many words one knows.
And if anyone wants to challenge and distort such a presentation, they would have to challenge the basic physics, and established definitions. I’ve seen some pretty good “plain-language” sections on papers lately, but they seem to be in the minority.
Note: Stefan’s response to NCFM Eighty above is good, but that should be the norm in the form of an introduction. Don’t start talking to one’s peers right away.
Piotr: Please take your own advice. A judicious and hostility-free use of words would make what are often excellent points emerge from the welter of excess, rage (or at least anger), and self-certainty in your lengthy arguments and. condemnations. Please stop getting in your own light.
Susan Anderson says Please take your own advice. A judicious and hostility-free use of words
Susan, I don’t see this as “my own advice”. Sure, I try to be “judicious” so I don’t have to eat my words. My “self-certainty” is based on double-checking my argument, but if it holds, I won’t pull my punches. If Aristotle put the truth even above Plato’s friendship, then he certainly would have done over the hurt feelings of the intellectually dishonest.
Thus for me “hostility” is wrong only if displayed instead of the falsifiable argument – not as a conclusion of such an argument -then it is just calling a spade a spade.
Naturally, it takes much longer to prove an intellectual dishonesty than to do the dishonesty itself – ‘A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.’ But the lie counts on it (see Trump), so be it – I will still do my thing, even if I am called “lengthy” or “boring” – since the alternative is to be to make unsubstantiated claims, or to limit myself to a pointless exchange of unfalsifiable subjective opinions.
Finally, I would not call my eyerolling or sarcasm – “rage (or at least anger)” these are for those who can’t prove their point. My arguments are served cold.
Real observational data, not a computer study, shows a 12% reduction in the abyssal limb of the AMOC.https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/atlantic-meridional-overturning-circulation-weakening-in-the-deep-sea-of-north-atlantic/
Stefan:
This response is slightly off-topic, but this instance of how climate science data are interpreted and then reported helped provoke the query, which is this:
how many physicists worldwide are actively working on climate change in all of its permutations and phenomenal realms (atmospherics, biospherics, cryospherics, hydrospherics, and lithospherics, to say nothing of chemistry, et cetera)? What might the total population (approximately) of physicists working directly on climate sciences in the world today be?
Considering the dynamics inherent to climate sciences, considering the challenges of employing consistent data sets and modeling, considering also the outright disputes in measurement and assessment (and explanation) that continue to occur, I begin to wonder whether we have quite enough physicists at work on tracking down the elusive climate data and whether enough physicists are engaged already so that even more disputes do not break out.
I’ve begun thinking of this outlay of “physicist resources” comparing the population of space sciences physicists (including astrophysicists) in all space science and space exploration and astronomy and cosmology domains with the population of physicists working across the distinct areas of the climate sciences. Are the numbers in the respective populations commensurate to the tasks, the challenges, and the threats entailed within “celestial” sciences versus “terrestrial” sciences?
Are enough physicists at work addressing the challenges, threats, and perils of Technogenic Climate Change? If not, have you or your colleagues at RealClimate any reason to think that the situation is changing so that a commensurate number of physicists will begin tackling climate sciences in requisite numbers within the next decade?
Sincerely,
Edward Burke
P. S. (of course)–will the promised advent and arrival of emerging AI tech help or hinder efforts of data collection and assessment and modeling going forward?
[Response: Interesting question. I am a physicist, so are many of my colleagues at the Potsdam Institute (in fact, even some working on climate economics have physics degrees). The number of papers published last year on the search term “climate change” is 56,000 according to Web of Science. The number of scientists involved will be of the same order of magnitude (say, on average each scientist published 3 papers that year, and each paper has 3 authors). If only a few percent of these scientists are physicists, there will be thousands of physicists around the world working on climate change. But it would be nice to see a more detailed analysis. -Stefan]
Edward, I appreciate this question in the context of broader physics. The majority of climate scientists working on this topic follow the line of conventional wisdom and build on what everyone else is doing. OTOH, physicists are often a different breed and will go off on tangents and explore models that have little to do with the mainstream GCMs.
For instance, there are a handful of physicists that are working the category of topology applied to climate dynamics. There’s a group comprised of physicists from Brown U and universities in France. And there’s this recent paper, which is unfortunately pretty vague and they don’t cite the other work:
“Topology shapes dynamics of higher-order” networks” https://pure.unamur.be/ws/portalfiles/portal/107091767/topology_shapes_dynamics_short_v3.pdf
This falls under the field of fluid dynamics, which very few physicists even get to study as part of their education, apart from understanding the Bernoulli principle. This is a huge gap. Geoff Vallis, who has written extensively on geophysical fluid dynamics posted this https://bsky.app/profile/gkvallis.bsky.social/post/3lj433goiz22h
“Important to note that our conclusions depend not just on the results of model integrations, but on our understanding of the mechanisms involved. Still, little is certain in this business, and it does not mean the risk of collapse is not there, even if we think it is unlikely.”
Machine learning will be a great equalizer, as it is being increasingly used by climate scientists — who will not necessarily not know how to interpret the results, so that they will have to task physicists to figure out what it all means.
A really encouraging example (behind paywall, I guess):
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/atlantik-stroemung-abschwung-klima-kipppunkte-europa-li.3208350?reduced=true
Headline basically reads “Even a weakening of the Atlantic Circulation can be fatal”
And what follows is a really, really thorough and informed article including a good summary of potential effects. I actually felt sort of dizzy with excitement after reading, because I braced for the usual misrepresentation and was presented with a real gem of an article
The authors’ response to Stefan Rahmstorf’s blog post:
Our study shows that under extreme scenarios, 3 out of 34 models simulate the AMOC weakening to just below 5 Sv (often considered a collapse threshold) after 100 years. Most models project an AMOC strength between 5 and 12 Sv, with a few exceeding 12 Sv. However, it’s important to note that these are extreme climate change experiments—not what we’d expect under more realistic conditions. Under the high-end “realistic” SSP585 scenario (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GL103381), the minimum AMOC strength by 2100 across 27 models is about 7 Sv, with an average decline of 44%.
Across both extreme and realistic scenarios, our analysis reveals that wind-driven upwelling in the Southern Ocean is essentially the only AMOC upwelling pathway that remains active in most models. Since the Pacific overturning circulation (PMOC) doesn’t develop under realistic forcings, the sustained wind‐driven upwelling in the Southern Ocean maintains a stronger AMOC. This finding reinforces our confidence that the AMOC “stability” seen in these models is grounded in robust, physical mechanisms. Our conclusion that the AMOC is unlikely to collapse this century is drawn from these realistic forcings—i.e., based on what we expect to happen; though it is important to note that “unlikely” isn’t the same as “impossible”—the risk is real.
Stefan mentions in his blog that our study “does not change the assessment of the risk and impact of future AMOC changes in response to global warming”. After discussing this further on Bluesky, he confirmed that his view aligns with the IPCC’s medium confidence that the AMOC will not collapse before 2100. This confirms that we are more aligned than it seems at first glance. Our study provides additional evidence in support of this statement.
While it’s long been recognised that wind‐driven upwelling contributes to the AMOC, our work shows that in future scenarios, it becomes the primary AMOC upwelling mechanism that remains active, unlike upwelling in the Pacific. Our method separates these pathways, and consistently across all models, the wind‐driven upwelling in the Southern Ocean is what keeps the AMOC running, even under extreme forcing.
We believe it’s not valid to completely separate the “thermohaline” component from the wind‐driven part of the circulation. Even under extreme forcing, deep and dense water formation in the North Atlantic continues (albeit at reduced rates and with a shifted location). This deep water formation is especially evident under realistic forcing scenarios, despite the wind‐driven upwelling being the dominant upwelling pathway of the AMOC.
Finally, when we conclude that an AMOC collapse is unlikely this century, we are referring to a collapse as defined in several other studies —not a complete cessation of circulation to zero. In our paper, we use “collapse” to mean zero circulation when referring to extreme scenarios, but “collapse unlikely this century” refers to the broader definition used in other studies. A weakening AMOC is expected and poses significant climate risks, but a collapse isn’t what the CMIP6 models indicate under realistic forcings.
[Response: Thank you Jonathan. We don’t disagree on the science, I think my article here makes that clear upfront, and I told the Science Media Centre that it is a valuable study. My concern is about the framing in the article title and the press releases – which have led to a lot of misleading media articles – and particularly misleading headlines even where the articles were balanced. I have spoken to quite a few colleagues working on AMOC issues during this week, and comments on that framing typically ranged from “how did this title get past peer review?” to “shocking”. Stefan]
J. Baker: “ We believe it’s not valid to completely separate the “thermohaline” component from the wind‐driven part of the circulation.”
Why not valid? One is shallow, driven by winds and as such – UNLIKELY to change without MAJOR reorganization of the winds. The other is much deeper and thicker, driven not by wind, but by changes in T and S, and such – vulnerable to the climate change. So why would not clearly separate them?
The differences in the seawater needed to slow down the thermohaline (THC) part of AMOC – are not very large, so even a small increase in T or a small decrease in S, may easily change the rate of NADW formation. This makes THIS part of AMOC uniquely sensitive to the climate change: to less winter cooling, and, more importantly given that the density changes in polar regions are dominated primarily by S and not by T, sensitive to the decreases in S from the Greenland icesheet melt and from reduced sea-ice formation.
So given the different mechanisms, and very different vulnerability to climate change, different volumes and different time scales involved – what applies to one does not necessarily applies to the other. And the core of Stefan’s criticism is your conflating of the two: you took your findings of the resiliency of the wind-driven part of AMOC, and phrased it as if this was reflective of the ENTIRE AMOC, i.e. as if the other thermohaline part of AMOC didn’t exist or wasn’t important (the word “thermohaline” appears in your article – only in (a few) references) or as if, despite the very different mechanisms and vulnerability, for some reason responded in the identical way.
In a societally-important field of science such as climate change, one that can inform the civilization’s response to an existential threat, and as such – is a target of deliberate, ideologically-driven, misrepresentation – the scientists have the responsibility to leave as little room for misunderstanding or misrepresentation of their results as possible.
By this measure, seeing the titles from a range of media from different countries (see posts above) – you and your coauthors have failed spectacularly,
If even a non-denier, left-leaning, paper (“Gazeta Wyborcza”) writes:
“ Let’s not let ourselves run amok. New study on the future of the Gulf Stream ”
Global warming does not mean that Europe is cooling, scientists write in Nature. […] You probably remember the headlines from recent years: “The Gulf Stream is weakening”, “A threat to the Earth”, “The Gulf Stream may disappear”. Where does this hysteria come from?”
then you can imagine how your article will be used in the media owned/funded by the fossil fuel corporations and petro-states.
If you think this stuff on AMOC is odd, get a load of this preprint paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.01782 “Topological variability modes of the wind-driven ocean circulation”
They are invoking Klein Bottle arguments, which is a topological shape without an identifiable inside or outside surface. Noting like that really exists in nature.
Also wind as a forcing is a convoluted mess. What causes wind? Differences in pressure. What causes differences in pressure? Unequal heating, unequal forcing, Coriolis, etc. If wind is a forcing, that implies it is self-sustaining. Is wind the chicken or the egg?
Ocean cycles are the foundation. Have to look at it from a machine learning perspective and then apply what a human can add to the loop.
https://geoenergymath.com/2025/03/07/teleconnection-vs-common-mode/
Then cross-validate and voila!
Hi Stefan, an interesting article and it seems pretty clear we need to do everything we can to prevent the AMOC collapsing.
I came across a study you commented on (https://fediscience.org/@rahmstorf/113119393622398266) that the Telegraph is jumping on as proof the AMOC is stable (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-51879-5).
Since the paper is about the Florida Current and later in the paper it discusses the effect on the AMOC trend which still appears significantly negative, is the point that the FC is just a small part of the AMOC so not particularly indicative?
Thanks for your updates here at realclimate, much appreciated
Nature does not like discontinuities and imbalances. The gulf stream exists because there is too much energy at the equator compared to the poles. The gulf stream stopping would mean that a large share of this excess heat remains at the equator. As it builds up, something has to take over and move it towards the poles. Nature often does that continuously. See for example in multiphase flow in pipes. The flow regime may change, but the pressure drop is continuous and quite smooth. But models missing phenomena may make it look like there is a discontinuity (which the gulf stream stopping would be). Now there could be transient hiccups on the way to a new regime, that may be disruptive to Europe and Africa. But I think this explanation that the winds will take over for the circulation sounds likely: this is Nature’s way to keep things smooth.
My immediate thought is if the gulf stream stopped the northern latitudes in and around the Atlantic ocean would get much colder. This would increase the equator to pole temperature gradient which would lead to a stronger jet stream, increased baroclinicity and stronger mid-latitude windstorms (bad news for Europe on top of the plunging temperatures). Those windstorms act to transport heat from the equator to the poles.
I agree, but the question is, how discontinuous/radically different is the new regime going to be? I argue that if the climate models predict a radical change, they could lack phenomena that will make the change smoother.
Alexandre, the new regime Adam (I think correctly) describes will obviously be much worse and not “transient”.
We are increasing the energy in the climate system, and removing the gentle pathway to transport it poleward, so storms will be much worse. How could that not be the case??
I suppose there is some good news: We might not be visited by bits of the polar vortex as much, and we could build stronger wind turbines to harvest the energy. But I don’t think that is an attractive bargain.
One of the point of the study is that the winds on the surface of the Atlantic increase as a result of global warming, actually helping to maintain the gulf stream. So it weakens less than expected. This is the kind of phenomena I am thinking about, Things that one may not have included in the models yet, and which would make the transition smoother.
At least that’s something I have seen in CFD. The better the model is, the smoother it becomes. Strong discontinuities tend disappear as more phenomena are included.
Nature will not let us stop the gulf stream as easily as we think, is what I think.
Die Schlagzeile einer Zeitung in Österreich treibt es auf die Spitze: “Die gute Nachricht: Kein Kollaps des Golfstroms bis zum Jahr 2100”
https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000259038/kein-kollaps-des-golfstroms-bis-zum-jahr-2100
Stefan, I’m glad to hear we don’t disagree on the science—though, of course, scientific disagreements aren’t a bad thing when they’re based on fair and accurate communication. My concern is with how you’ve framed our study as not adding anything new. While the experiments themselves may be the same, our analysis demonstrates that robust physical mechanisms may explain AMOC “stability” in models—something that, to my knowledge, hasn’t been clearly shown before.
I understand your concerns about whether models might be overstable, which is a valid question. However, our study suggests this may not be the case—though, of course, further research is needed.
Additionally, your article doesn’t make it clear that while our experiments involve extreme climate change scenarios, our key message—that the AMOC is unlikely to collapse (i.e., to around 5-7 Sv) this century—is based on what is expected in the real world, i.e., under realistic forcings. If that wasn’t communicated clearly in our paper, I’ll check, but that is the case.
I agree that there’s no direct conflict between our findings and those in your preprint, and I wouldn’t necessarily comment publicly even if there were. However, I felt that you downplayed our findings here—that’s my main objection. With your large following, I felt it was important to make our findings clear. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I will defend our research, just as I’m sure you would defend yours.
Regarding the title of our paper, it is factual, and I don’t see an issue with it. Only 3 out of 34 models analysed have an AMOC weaker than 5 Sv after 100 years of extreme forcing—that is what led to the title. As I mentioned before, I don’t write the headlines. In my comms, I believe I have consistently communicated that the AMOC is very likely to weaken, and that this, along with broader climate change impacts, presents significant challenges.
I appreciate your thoughtful response and look forward to discussing our research further at EGU—outside the public spotlight.
[Response: Dear Jonathan, thanks. Of course you don’t write the headlines. But I wrote and published this RealClimate article before I had seen a single headline (I published it the minute the Nature embargo on your paper lifted). From the press releases it was entirely predictable how the headlines would turn out, and that is why I wrote this article. -Stefan]
Jonathan Baker, thanks for the interesting commentary. You said: “Regarding the title of our paper, (Continued Atlantic overturning circulation even under climate extremes), it is factual, and I don’t see an issue with it.”
Yes its factual, but in my view it’s an unfortunate title because many people may interpret it to mean the AMOC just keeps flowing so there will be no problem. A better title might have been: “Continued weak Atlantic circulation even under climate extremes”, or “continued but reduced Atlantic circulation…” Just one more word makes a difference.
I know there is a desire for economy of words in titles and the content of research papers, but sometimes that has unfortunate consequence of the media and denialists being able to the downplay the severity of what’s happening. IMO James Hansen is one researcher who is careful with titles and words and also includes good background information in his papers that minimises the risk of people downplaying things.
Thanks for your work.
For CMIP6 models, a pre-publication by David Bonan et al. “Constraints imply limited future weakening of Atlantic meridional overturning circulation”, indicates that models with the largest decreases in AMOC are not supported by observational constraints (due to stratification bias). I think this supports your conclusions.
Jonathan Baker: “ I don’t write the headlines.
But your article, by setting yourself against the most extreme case of a total collapse that very few think likely, and NOT against probability of say “significant decline” – which many think is not as unlikely – does affect these headlines. As does talking about “AMOC resilience under extreme forcing“, which to the public implies that if AMOC is resilient even to “extreme forcing”, then it would be more so against less extreme scenarios.
I believe I have consistently communicated that the AMOC is very likely to weaken”
Unfortunately it does not come across in your title “ Continued Atlantic overturning circulation even under climate extremes“. That’s why a different title, say: “Atlantic overturning circulation likely to weaken but unlikely to (completely) collapse” would communicate this better, and limit the room for the public to misread it or misrepresent it as AMOC changes being an all-or-nothing proposition, thus “since we won’t have a collapse then we have nothing to worry about”, and “The science proven to be alarmist/hysteric, again”.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/26/total-collapse-of-vital-atlantic-currents-unlikely-this-century-study-finds
https://www.dn.se/varlden/vindar-i-soder-kan-radda-golfstrommen-fran-kollaps/
I am engaged in a conversation on this topic with Jonathan Baker on LinkedIn. He published a blog on Medium with a better title than the original study.
https://medium.com/@jonbakerocean/is-the-atlantic-overturning-circulation-amoc-on-the-brink-of-collapse-ba5699e7e8c0
I think it would be great to have Jonathan post as a guest here. The debate on AMOC modelling and forecasting and on climate science communication in a time of obscurantism and hostility to science and reality would be very valuable. Of course there will be some drivel from the well known drivelers in this space, but there will also be great ideas from the majority if us on how best to debate and communicate climate science in public, for the public and for the common good.
@Stefan can you help him post as a guest? Thank you.
Hi Silvia,
Wow, you’re actually suggesting doing a climate debate? Count me in!
Except, I’ll be on the other side…
Please read my comment properly and then point to where do I suggest a climate debate.
Silvia Leahu-Aluas 3 Mar “I think it would be great to have Jonathan post as a guest here.”
You mean as an example of how to NOT “ communicate science in a time of obscurantism and hostility to science and reality?” ;-)
The main point of Stefan’s post here was that Jonathan’s paper, by NOT making it painfully clear to the reader that AMOC is very likely to weaken – can mislead the public, and opened itself to misrepresentation by the deniers, as witnessed by several media titles above.
Hence Jonathan’s assurance:
JB: “I believe I have consistently communicated that the AMOC is very likely to weaken” rungs hollow – given the media articles that presented Jonathan’s paper as a proof that we don’t have to worry about AMOC because Baker et al. have just shown that AMOC is resilient even in the face of the extreme forcings.
Dismissing it with “ I don’t write [newspapers] headlines” is either a misunderstanding what Stefan wrote here, or a cop-out.
Sounds good to me.
Our difficulty communicating with the PUBLIC is that the press is already mostly wholly owned, and the science is easily misunderstood even by reporters and with good intentions. The editors, those who assign the headlines, cannot afford to be well-intentioned, their job is to attract eyeballs. I talk about that problem here —
https://medium.com/@bj.chippindale/owned-3a5602124f7b
The question for us is how we might bypass the editors and the misunderstandings.
I’m not sure, in our society, as it is currently shaped by our mistaken understandings of money and ownership, that there is a path for our words to reach the eyes and ears of the public directly.
And that problem must be addressed, even as we struggle to communicate with people who believe in their absolute right to believe absurdities or, more usually, who mistrust anything they do not understand.
Making the public feel as though they share in our community is, I think, an important key. That is, unfortunately, as far as I have gotten with this answer.
And in related news:
“In a high emissions future, the world’s strongest ocean current could slow down by 20% by 2050, further accelerating Antarctic ice sheet melting and sea level rise, an Australian-led study has found.
“The Antarctic Circumpolar Current – a clockwise current more than four times stronger than the Gulf Stream that links the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans – plays a critical role in the climate system by influencing the uptake of heat and carbon dioxide in the ocean and preventing warmer waters from reaching Antarctica …
“The results … revealed a clear link between meltwater from Antarctic ice shelves and circumpolar current slowdown … What they found suggested a substantial reconfiguration of Southern Ocean dynamics, with far-reaching impacts on global climate patterns, oceanic heat distribution, and marine ecosystems.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/03/antarctic-circumpolar-current-slow-down-ice-melting-climate
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/adb31c
Terrific short video on currents (NASA Goddard)
An Ocean in Motion: NASA’s Mesmerizing View of Earth’s Underwater Highways
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5-s6O8qyvE
Phew!
The catastrophe is back on!
For a minute there I was worried that we might actually be ok.
I’ve previously commented on this post, but I’ve since expanded on my thoughts regarding the media framing and narrative around our study. Below is a more detailed response on these aspects.
It’s been a month since our study was published, and Stefan raised questions about why the media framed it as showing “less severe” outcomes and more resilience. This framing wasn’t inaccurate; rather, it reflected the broader context of recent public and research debates. Here’s why the headlines were largely accurate.
Recent studies have raised alarms about the potential for imminent AMOC collapse or tipping points, prompting important discussions. Our study offers a different perspective by explaining why models rarely simulate AMOC collapse, with only a few specific runs weakening below 7 Sv before 2100 under high-end realistic scenarios.
We found that most models are likely stable due to robust physical reasons. Only a few models collapse below ~6 Sv under extreme scenarios. While this doesn’t mean collapse (to ~6 Sv) is impossible, it does suggest it’s unlikely before 2100.
Earlier media coverage and open letters suggested that the IPCC may underestimate the risk of AMOC collapse, which shifted the public narrative. This made our study seem “less severe” in comparison, despite our findings aligning with the IPCC.
Our study helps rebalance the conversation, while still emphasising that AMOC weakening remains a major risk. Ultimately, most media coverage got it right: AMOC collapse before 2100 is unlikely, but weakening is very likely. If you’re asking “why did the media frame it that way?”—it’s important to consider the narrative that was already there. The headlines were, in fact, generally accurate. They reflected what our study shows and helped bring the conversation back to the broader scientific evidence.
Stefan mentions the press releases and title of our paper as potential causes of the media’s framing. It’s important to note that the title was factual and directly aligned with the study’s content. The press releases were based on the key findings of our study and accurately reflected the conclusions.
I welcome these critical questions, as they are an important part of the scientific process. I’ve previously responded to the scientific aspects of Stefan’s blog in the comments.