Dr. Jonathan Foley Profile picture
Jul 25, 2023 24 tweets 5 min read Read on X
Oh my god. The @Guardian needs to issue a correction here, as quickly as possible, for this sloppy reporting.

theguardian.com/environment/20…
Here are some of the many problems with the piece.

First and foremost, they are confusing the Gulf Stream with the AMOC -- or the "Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation".

They are *not* the same thing. Not at all. It's like comparing a super highway with a side street.
The Gulf Stream is a HUGE current on the surface of the North Atlantic Ocean, carrying about ~150 Sv of water. (1 Sv equals 1 million cubic meters of water per second.)

It comes from the tropics along the North American coast, and then heads from Cape Cod towards Ireland. Image
This current is caused by wind patterns in the tropics (trade winds) and the mid-latitudes (westerlies), plus the Earth's rotation.

As long as the wind blows and the Earth rotates, the larger Gulf Stream ocean current is going to continue. There is zero chance it will collapse.
Every major ocean basin has a current like this. They are called "Western Boundary Currents". They are crucial parts of our climate system.

The Pacific has one too, off the coast of Japan.
A small branch of the Gulf Stream (the "North Atlantic Drift") heads towards the Norwegian and Greenland Seas, which is the small piece that connects the Gulf Stream to the AMOC system.

That's it. The Gulf Stream and the AMOC are only connected by the North Atlantic Drift.
Think of a super highway of warm water going in a big loop around the Atlantic. That's the Gulf Stream.

A small "side road" of water (about 10% of the Gulf Stream) heads north -- like an exit -- towards the far north, off the coast of Norway & Greenland.

That the NA Drift.
Then this side road the water gets cold & salty, forming pools of water that sink.

That's the third road. And it heads downward, way below the surface, and slowly spreads (as a larger, diffuse water flow) towards the South Atlantic.
A bad analogy, maybe, but you can consider:

- The Gulf Stream is a superhighway of warm water circulating around the North Atlantic

- A small road (the North Atlantic Drift) branches off, heading north

- And this goes to a third, smaller road, where the AMOC begins
So the AMOC begins with the sinking of cold, salty water in the Norwegian and Greenland Seas, where it slowly spreads back south, well below the surface.

That slow, deep, cold current is only about ~1/10 as large (10-20 Sv) as the Gulf Stream.
There is evidence that this deeper, smaller, colder current has slowed down, and even collapsed, in the past.

The impacts of this would be profound in the Greenland and Norwegian Sea. It would probably introduce some cooling to a region that otherwise would be warming now.
The Pacific (and all major ocean basins) have a current similar to the Gulf Stream.

The North Atlantic also has this AMOC system, but the Pacific does not have a parallel to this.
If the AMOC collapses -- but there is no direct evidence of this -- it would be a serious issue for that region. But the larger Gulf Stream circulation would continue operating, largely as before.
Now will the AMOC (NOT the Gulf Stream) actually collapse?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Here is some great information about the AMOC, which gets to the best science out there:

Bottom line, let's stop confusing two different ocean currents!

~90% of the Gulf Stream has nothing to do with the AMOC. And they are only connected by the North Atlantic Drift.

And the Gulf Stream itself WILL NOT "COLLAPSE".
This Guardian article also has several other problems, which I won't go into here.

But can we please remember that permafrost *thaws* and does not melt? And methane feedbacks are covered extensively in the IPCC.
Please @guardian, do better.

The Gulf Stream is going to continue as long as the wind blows and the Earth rotates.

You mean the much smaller circulation down below, called the AMOC, which is being actively analyzed and observed.
p.s. Of course the AMOC is a big deal for climate, especially in key parts of the North Atlantic.

But it's simply not responsible for transporting nearly as much water, or (more importantly) heat, in the Earth System as the Gulf Stream -- which is not in danger of collapsing.
The two work very differently, and have very different roles in the Earth System.

With such important issues, it's important to get the basic facts right -- and at least *name the currents* correctly!
This is a nice summary from @rahmstorf on this recent discussion about AMOC.

Lots to digest here. But a first step is to make sure we don't confuse two fundamentally different currents!

realclimate.org/index.php/arch…
@rahmstorf Here’s a better media article… although it still incorrectly says the Gulf Stream is “part of” the AMOC, which is very weird. Two different things.

cnn.com/2023/07/25/wor…
@guardian Also, the hyperbolic claims of this impact “rains” around the world and the Amazon, etc., are wild speculation. There is no evidence for any of that. Maybe some model simulations somewhere, but there’s no way to test it.
@FuturesWise @guardian The article was written to grab attention and scare people. Not to be a balanced, insightful piece that informed them.

Also: read the original article. It’s a little dense if you don’t know the methods. But we’ll documented approach.

nature.com/articles/s4146…
For most of Europe, the Gulf Stream matters far more than the AMOC.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr. Jonathan Foley

Dr. Jonathan Foley Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GlobalEcoGuy

Mar 27
If you want to address climate change, stop biodiversity loss, preserve our critical natural resources, and have a sustainable future -- then we must fix the world's food system.

drawdown.org/news/insights/…
Agriculture uses more land -- by far -- than anything we do.

37% of Earth's land is used to grow food, and 75% of that is used for grazing animals or growing their feed. Image
And as a result, we have lost ~30% of Earth's tropical forests, plus countless other habitats. Image
Read 6 tweets
Feb 19
When it comes to climate solutions, it turns out *time* is the most important variable.

Every year we wait for a solution to kick in, we pour another year’s emissions into the sky, locking in more warming.

That why *time is more important than tech*.

go.ted.com/jonathanfoley
That’s why we need to invest in “emergency break” climate solutions most of all. Solutions that have an extra fast impact on the atmosphere, such as:

- stopping fugitive methane emissions from oil, gas, and coal

- stopping deforestation

- cutting black carbon emissions
It also means waiting for fancy tech solutions — like fusion, DAC, etc. — to mature and scale is something of a losing proposition.

While these solutions take more years and decades to mature, we waste time and lock in more and more warming.
Read 4 tweets
Sep 2, 2023
Some people who oppose renewable energy like to criticize their material requirements — the metals and rare Earth minerals they use.

Usually, this is a disingenuous argument, but there are issues with mining that need to be fixed.

But here’s some important context.
First, fossil fuel production requires *far more* mining of materials — including fossil fuels, but also metals and rare Earth minerals.

Cobalt for oil refining. Platinum for catalytic converters.

Overall, fossil fuels use >500x more materials than renewables would.
Here’s a graph to put it in perspective.

distilled.earth/p/a-fossil-fue…
Read 10 tweets
Aug 28, 2023
Do you want to know how much CO2 an EV actually emits into the atmosphere from every charge?

It's pretty easy. You just need to know three numbers.
First, you need to know the electricity needed by the EV per mile driven. For my Ioniq 6, it's rated at 4.2 miles per kWh. In my driving so far, I'm actually getting a little over 5 miles per kWh.
Second, you need to know how much CO2 is emitted per kWh of electricity consumed. This is something that varies from place to place, depending on your sources of electricity.

Where I live, it's roughly 0.6 lbs of CO2 per kWh, and going down every year.
Read 10 tweets
Aug 12, 2023
I think deploying industrial carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is a waste of resources.

It’s hugely expensive — usually at taxpayer expense — and removes essentially zero carbon, despite decades of effort and billions of tax dollars.

In short: it doesn’t work, and costs too much.
It’s also providing PR cover for the fossil fuel industry, which seems to be its only real purpose right now.

CEOs of fossil fuel companies even publicly admit this, and how they need it to extend the life of their industry.

So it’s worse than useless. It’s holding us back.
We may need some extremely limited forms of industrial carbon removal by mid-century, to help counter the last, non-fossil, truly-hard-to-abate emissions. Or to start removing historical emissions.

But deploying any industrial CDR before fossil fuels are eliminated is a waste.
Read 6 tweets
Aug 3, 2023
There seems to be a strange, straw-person argument out there…

That we cannot be *scientifically accurate* about climate change — especially if it’s countering wildly wrong information — without somehow lessening the sense of urgency about stopping it.

I strongly disagree.
We absolutely *must* get the science right, even if it occasionally runs counter to a popular climate message or media story.

Just as climate science has fought against outright denial, fraud, and lies — saying that climate change is false — for years. Often at great cost.
When the stakes are this high — with the health and security of a planet and civilization in the balance — science must absolutely strive to be as clear, objective, fair, and compelling as possible.

That is a clear ethical duty.
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(