The American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting in December 2025 drew around 25,000 participants from all over the globe. While that’s still a large crowd, it fell short of the usual 30,000. Concerns over visa issues likely kept many international attendees at home, and cuts to research funding in the U.S. didn’t help either.
During the event, shocking news broke: the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, would be reorganized. Its weather and climate modeling facilities are set to be moved elsewhere. Details are still fuzzy, and attendees left feeling unsettled.
Reactions from the climate community were swift and intense—protests, letters to politicians, and social media uproar highlighted how crucial NCAR is for both national and global climate efforts. Experts remind us that we must innovate and lead effectively in the face of such challenges.
Established in 1960, NCAR has been vital for atmospheric research, especially as climate change becomes more urgent. However, the current U.S. administration has shown resistance to acknowledging climate risks. This attitude raises questions: Can NCAR survive this political climate, especially when it’s seen as a symbol of “climate alarmism”?
Climate scientists continue to develop complex scenarios to predict future greenhouse gas emissions and societal responses. These models aim to help meet the Paris Agreement’s targets of keeping global warming well below 2°C. Studies show that future climate changes depend significantly on socioeconomic drivers, adding another layer of uncertainty—one that is influenced by current geopolitical conflicts.
An interesting fact: according to a recent report from the World Meteorological Organization, climate-related disasters have doubled over the last 40 years. This stark reality indicates the need for robust climate prediction systems, especially as communities battle the effects of extreme weather.
The discussions around NCAR reveal a larger concern: is the climate community prepared for the unexpected? Simply arguing that NCAR is essential may not be enough to withstand government actions that target climate science and renewable energy initiatives.
This moment could serve as a catalyst for change. Perhaps it’s time to view weather and climate services as shared global resources that require coordinated funding and support. Many countries are operating their own modeling systems, but a unified approach could streamline efforts and reduce redundancy.
Experts suggest creating a central global climate model capable of providing localized predictions. This could enhance preparedness and adaptability for nations facing distinct climate challenges. Utilizing advancements in AI could further optimize these modeling efforts.
We must change our narrative. Instead of just defending institutions like NCAR, the global climate community should work toward building a more resilient structure that benefits everyone. This can be achieved by establishing a global funding system that supports national and global climate needs. Such a system could absorb shocks from political changes or other disruptions.
Let’s face it: the climate community must be ready for surprises and adapt swiftly. If we can’t demonstrate innovative thinking in tough times, we risk losing credibility. Communities and businesses often adapt quickly to risks. It’s high time that the climate science community embraces the same proactive mindset.
In summary, while the future might be uncertain, the commitment to countering climate change should remain firm. Collaboration and innovation are essential as we navigate this continuously evolving landscape.
Raghu Murtugudde is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Maryland, also serving as a Visiting Professor at Kotak.
Source link
global climate commons,climate prediction infrastructure,weather and climate services,NCAR breakup climate science,climate governance global south,IPCC modelling systems,public funding climate research,why climate services should be global commons,political threats to climate science institutions,national versus global climate modelling systems
