Climate Scientists Ask the Heretical Question: What If AMOC Collapse in Models Is a Bug, Not a Forecast?

A perspective paper argues CMIP6 models may simulate AMOC collapse partly because of known biases — excess climate sensitivity and aerosol overreaction — not just because the real ocean is fragile.

Imagine you're stress-testing a bridge with a simulation. For years, everyone complained the simulation was too optimistic — it never showed the bridge failing even under extreme loads. Then someone updates the simulation software, and suddenly the bridge collapses in almost every high-stress scenario. Good news? Maybe. But what if the update also accidentally made the simulated steel 30% weaker than real steel? Now you don't know if you're seeing a real risk or a software artifact. That's the situation Drijfhout and Sanchez-Franks are describing with the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) in the latest generation of climate models. The committed claim: CMIP6 models that simulate AMOC collapse may be doing so for the wrong reasons — specifically, a subset of these models exhibit climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing responses that are too strong relative to observational constraints, which could predispose them toward spurious collapse rather than reflecting genuine ocean physics. This directly challenges the decade-long consensus that models have been too stable. The AMOC is the Atlantic's deep conveyor belt, moving warm surface water north and cold deep water south. For twenty years, the modelling community's orthodoxy was that coupled models kept the AMOC too stable — they couldn't reproduce the kind of abrupt shutdowns seen in paleoclimate records. Then CMIP6 arrived and, in extended runs to year 2300, at least one model collapsed the deep AMOC in every emission scenario. Under SSP5-8.5 (the highest forcing pathway), every model that ran to 2300 showed it. The paradigm flipped: maybe the models finally got it right. Drijfhout and Sanchez-Franks pump the brakes. They point to two specific mechanisms. First, a well-documented subset of CMIP6 models have equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) values above 5°C — higher than the IPCC's assessed likely range of 2.5–4°C. Higher sensitivity means more warming per unit CO₂, which means more freshwater input from ice melt, which weakens the AMOC faster. Second, several CMIP6 models overreact to aerosol removal. As aerosol emissions decline (a plausible trajectory), the unmasking of warming happens too fast in these models, again accelerating surface freshening. Both effects push the AMOC toward collapse that may not reflect the real climate system's trajectory. The observational anchor is important: RAPID array measurements since 2004 and the OSNAP array since 2014 show no statistically significant downward trend in AMOC strength. The authors don't claim this proves the AMOC is safe — twenty years of data is short against multidecadal variability — but they do argue the models' eagerness to collapse sits uneasily with the flat observational record. This is a legitimate tension the field has not resolved. What makes this paper valuable is not a new result but a new diagnostic question: when a model collapses, is it collapsing because its ocean dynamics are right, or because its atmospheric forcing is wrong? The authors call for targeted experiments — running the same ocean models under corrected forcing to see whether the collapse persists. This is the kind of decomposition that can actually move the needle, because right now the field cannot distinguish genuine AMOC fragility from model artifacts. The paper is a perspective piece, not a proof, and it carries no new simulations. But it names the mechanisms cleanly and makes a falsifiable argument about what to check. The stakes are enormous. AMOC collapse would reshape European climate, shift tropical rainfall bands, and accelerate sea-level rise along the U.S. East Coast. If the models are right, we're looking at civilizational-scale disruption by 2300. If the models are wrong for the reasons this paper suggests, resources are being misallocated toward a scenario that is less likely than the simulations imply. Either way, the diagnostic program the authors propose — isolating forcing biases from ocean dynamics — is the necessary next step.