AMOC proxies: how reliable are indirect measurements of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation?

Key points at a glance

 
  • Observational proxies can be used to interpret past changes in the AMOC, but with large uncertainties and low confidence. They reflect variability not only in the AMOC but also in other physical processes, explaining less than 50% of the variance on decadal and multi-decadal timescales.
  • This is a limit on what proxies can tell us, not evidence that the AMOC is stable. The historical simulations assessed here show a systematic weakening from around 1980, strongest between 35 and 55°N.
  • The most robust proxies are based in the subpolar North Atlantic: sea surface salinity and surface heat flux stand out, followed by subpolar sea surface temperature (SST). Of these, only surface heat flux leads AMOC changes (by around 3–5 years), so only heat-flux-based proxies could give advance warning of a change in AMOC strength.
  • No proxy can distinguish a greenhouse-gas-forced weakening from an aerosol-forced strengthening, because all of them respond to both in the same way.
  • Combining proxies is a promising way forward, but confidence requires a better understanding of the physical processes that link the AMOC to other variables, in both the real world and in models.
  • Model resolution can reverse the SST fingerprint. Eddy-rich and standard-resolution models simulate the same AMOC weakening but opposite surface temperature responses across much of the subpolar North Atlantic. This underlines the need for continued investment in climate modelling, including high-resolution global models.
  • Proxies alone are unlikely to identify AMOC changes with high confidence, so it is crucial that the AMOC observing arrays are maintained and improved.

Why AMOC proxies matter

Direct measurement of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) began in 2004 with the RAPID array at 26.5°N. Everything we say about the circulation before then rests on AMOC proxies; indirect measures, such as sea surface temperature or salinity, assumed to move in step with the circulation itself.

Studies built on those proxies disagree with each other. Some place the onset of AMOC weakening in the 19th century [1], others after the 1950s [2]. One analysis, working from surface heat fluxes rather than temperature, argues there has been no decline since the 1960s [3]. The same body of evidence has also been read as a warning that the circulation is approaching a tipping point [4][5].

EPOC Deliverable 3.1 tests eight published AMOC proxies against the same 30 CMIP6 models, over the same periods, using the same method. Each had previously been assessed on its own, in models chosen by its own authors. No like-for-like comparison existed.

Which AMOC proxies work best?

Five of the eight proxies tested carry a clear AMOC signal in pre-industrial control simulations. These are subpolar SST, upper ocean temperature, salinity, surface heat flux and the deep western boundary current.

Two do not work as stand-alone indices. Gulf Stream upper ocean temperature has almost no relationship with AMOC trends. The sea surface height dipole varies so much between models that its correlation ranges from nothing at all to strong.

For long-term trends, subpolar salinity and surface heat flux outperform SST. That gap widens when the EC-Earth models, which have unusually large centennial variability, are excluded. The SST correlation then falls from 0.74 to 0.53. On that basis the AMOC would account for under a third of the SST signal, while salinity and heat flux hold at around 0.66.

Timing separates the eight as sharply as strength does. Surface heat flux and Labrador Sea mixed layer depth lead the AMOC. SST, upper ocean temperature and salinity lag it. The deep western boundary current changes simultaneously.

Chart comparing eight AMOC proxies by correlation strength and by lead or lag time, with spread across climate models
Top: the strongest correlation each proxy achieves with the AMOC, averaged across models, with the spread between models shown as bars. Bottom: the lead or lag time in years at which that correlation occurs. Positive values mean the proxy leads the AMOC.
Four maps comparing sea surface temperature and salinity trends in standard-resolution and eddy-rich climate models under AMOC weakening
Sea surface temperature trends (top) and salinity trends (bottom) under quadrupled atmospheric carbon dioxide, in standard-resolution models (left) and eddy-rich models (right). The AMOC weakens in all four. The temperature response is opposite in sign across much of the subpolar North Atlantic. The salinity response is much the same at both resolutions.

Proxies register change but cannot attribute it

Greenhouse gases and aerosols push the AMOC in opposite directions. In single-forcing experiments, greenhouse gas forcing alone weakens the circulation by ~4 Sv. Aerosol forcing alone strengthens it, peaking near 1980[6]. But every proxy responds to both in the same way. A proxy can therefore register that the AMOC has changed, but not what changed it.

Model resolution can reverse the SST fingerprint

EPOC and the EERIE project ran three coupled models at both standard and eddy-rich resolution under identical forcing. The AMOC weakens in all of them. But the SST response comes out opposite in sign across much of the subpolar North Atlantic. Eddy-rich models cool across the whole subpolar gyre. Standard models warm along its southern edge, east of Newfoundland.

The cause is the simulated mean state rather than the AMOC itself. Eddy-rich models capture the northward turn of the North Atlantic Current near Newfoundland, known as the Northwest Corner. The region therefore sits under warm subtropical water that a weakening circulation withdraws. Standard models run the current too zonally, a long-recognised deficiency[7], leaving cold subpolar water in its place. The salinity fingerprint does not have this problem, which is a further argument for preferring salinity to SST.

What this means for AMOC observing

Proxies supplement direct observation rather than replacing it. Salinity and surface heat flux perform best in models. Yet their observational records reach back only to around 1950 and remain sparse. The heat flux records used in recent literature derive from atmospheric reanalyses never designed to represent long-term trends in poorly observed variables. Model skill is therefore not evidence of real-world skill. The case for the AMOC observing system holds regardless of how far proxy methods improve.

This work forms part of EPOC’s wider effort on explaining past AMOC changes. It also complements our work on AMOC transport variability and coherence and on palaeo proxy records.

References

  1. Thornalley, D. J. R., et al., 2018: Anomalously weak Labrador Sea convection and Atlantic overturning during the past 150 years. Nature, 556, 227–230. doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0007-4
  2. Caesar, L., S. Rahmstorf, A. Robinson, G. Feulner, and V. Saba, 2018: Observed fingerprint of a weakening Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation. Nature, 556, 191–196. doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0006-5
  3. Terhaar, J., L. Vogt, and N. P. Foukal, 2025: Atlantic overturning inferred from air-sea heat fluxes indicates no decline since the 1960s. Nature Communications, 16, 222. doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-55297-5
  4. Ditlevsen, P., and S. Ditlevsen, 2023: Warning of a forthcoming collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Nature Communications, 14, 4254. doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-39810-w
  5. Boers, N., 2021: Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Nature Climate Change, 11, 680–688. doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01097-4
  6. Robson, J., et al., 2022: The Role of Anthropogenic Aerosol Forcing in the 1850–1985 Strengthening of the AMOC in CMIP6 Historical Simulations. Journal of Climate, 35, 3243–3263. doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-22-0124.1
  7. Danabasoglu, G., et al., 2014: North Atlantic simulations in Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments phase II (CORE-II). Part I: Mean states. Ocean Modelling, 73, 76–107. doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.10.005

PDF icon

Want to learn more?

EPOC Deliverable 3.1 Evaluation of the robustness of AMOC proxies. Report by Jon Robson, Soumi Chakravorty, Léo Aroucha, Gaurav Madan and David Thornalley, May 2026.

The full report will be available for download when the EC review process is complete.