My cornucopian, you have repeatedly made accusations against me in this thread which were entirely based on your inability to understand what I wrote and do even the most cursory research like the clicking the OOP article or my links. If you want to see better attitude from me, how about you delete all of those comments, or edit them to acknowledge what you got wrong?

> even though conditions well before a complete collapse would still be disastrous and catastrophic.

Depends on how you define these words, I guess. A rule of thumb, though: they wouldn't have led with an impact which occurs in 2300 in their headline if they were able to prove something truly dramatic in our lifetimes.

For the record, there actually was one relatively recent peer-reviewed paper which estimated that as long as the AMOC does not shut down entirely, its slowdown would be one of the few tipping points with a positive economic impact because it would help to cancel out the impacts of climate change, although those findings are far from universally accepted.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2103081118

> Slowdown of the AMOC reduces the expected SCC by 1.4% by reducing damaging warming in some countries.

> All AMOC slowdown scenarios result in a decrease in the expected SCC ranging from −0.7 to −5.7%, the latter in a scenario with a notably large two-thirds slowdown in the circulation.

(SCC stands for social cost of carbon and it's a bad thing, so it becoming lower is good.)