If you listen carefully to the collective wailing coming out of Boulder, Colorado this week, you’d think the Trump administration had just announced plans to shut down the National Weather Service and replace Doppler radar with tea leaves.
In reality, what’s on the table is far more nuanced, and far less apocalyptic, than the headlines suggest.
According to USA TODAY, the administration is moving to dismantle or restructure the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), long regarded as a flagship institution in atmospheric and climate science . Predictably, this has been framed as an “attack on science,” “public safety at risk,” and — my personal favorite — a blow to America’s “competitive advantage.”
Cue the hysteria.
But let’s pause for a moment and separate weather science, useful computing infrastructure, and policy-driven climate alarmism, because conflating the three is exactly how we got into this mess in the first place.
NCAR was founded in 1960 to advance atmospheric chemistry, physical meteorology, and weather prediction. On that front, it has an impressive résumé. Hurricane dropsondes, numerical weather prediction advances, and severe weather research are real, tangible contributions that have saved lives and property. Even longtime critics of climate exaggeration — including Roger Pielke Jr. — acknowledge NCAR as a scientific “crown jewel” that deserves improvement, not destruction .
The problem is not that NCAR does weather.
The problem is what NCAR increasingly became.
Over the past two decades, NCAR — like much of federally funded climate science — drifted from observational rigor toward model-driven storytelling. Computer models, tuned to assumptions and parameterizations that consistently overstate warming and extreme weather trends, became the dominant product. Those outputs were then laundered through press offices and compliant media outlets as “settled science,” stripped of uncertainty and error bars.
That’s not atmospheric science. That’s advocacy.
When an institution begins hosting “justice-centered” programs, art exhibits about water relationships, and ideological framing exercises under the banner of Earth science, it invites scrutiny. The administration’s criticism of “woke” or policy-driven research may be blunt, but it is not entirely misplaced .
Climate Models are Useful Tools, but Terrible Oracles
Let’s be clear: climate models are not useless. They are tools — exploratory tools — not crystal balls.
Yet NCAR’s climate modeling efforts have been routinely used to justify sweeping policy claims: existential crises, “thresholds passed,” and forecasts of unprecedented catastrophe. Many of these claims fail basic validation against historical data. Satellite records, surface observations, and extreme weather statistics simply do not support the worst projections being sold to the public.
When models diverge from reality, the scientific response should be recalibration and humility — not louder press releases.
This is where skepticism becomes not only reasonable, but necessary.
That said, dismantling NCAR entirely — especially without a scalpel — risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
The USA TODAY article notes that NCAR operates a federally owned supercomputing center in Cheyenne, Wyoming. That facility is a national asset, regardless of one’s views on climate policy. High-performance computing is not inherently ideological. It can support:
- Short-term weather forecasting
- Severe storm modeling
- Aviation and military applications
- Hydrology and flood prediction
- Energy load forecasting
- Even non-climate scientific research entirely unrelated to CO₂
Shutting it down simply because some of its cycles were used to run overheated climate scenarios would be an act of bureaucratic vandalism.
A far more rational approach would be repurposing and refocusing.
Strip out the advocacy. Re-center on observational science. Decouple supercomputing from policy-driven climate modeling. Move critical infrastructure where it can serve broader national interests — or at least put it under management that understands the difference between uncertainty and certainty theater.
The media narrative wants a villain-versus-hero storyline: Trump versus science. Reality is messier — and more interesting.
There is legitimate criticism to be made of how climate science has been politicized, how uncertainty has been buried, and how institutions like NCAR have increasingly blurred the line between research and activism. Ignoring that problem would be irresponsible.
But responding with a blunt instrument risks collateral damage to areas of atmospheric science that actually work, and matter.
Reform NCAR? Absolutely.
Audit its programs? Long overdue.
Throttle back the model-driven hysteria? Please do.
But before anyone pulls the plug entirely, it might be wise to remember that weather is real, models are fallible, and supercomputers don’t vote.
If the goal is better science — not louder narratives — then precision, not demolition, should be the order of the day.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Of note, on the mast head of their affiliated website https://weather.rap.ucar.edu/ they have the following notice posted:
UCAR/NCAR Wx home page w/warning:
If you click on the image, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” to contract the image and return to “Comments”.
LOL. if they shut down power around here every time there was a “high bushfire” day…
… we would been without power for most of the summer.
And its winter in the USA isn’t it.. so what’s going on.!! ??
The NWS is forecasting gust to 61 mph for KCYS so caution is advised. The area is listed as “Moderate Drought”.
No doubt … I have been following the UCAR (NSF NCAR funded) weather page since the late 1990s; this is a FIRST for having an intentional power cut for weather (and its effects) ever, and therefore noteworthy (YMMV).
Do you recall the power cuts that began in California just a few years back on account of (real and/or imagined) fear that sparks / an ignition source from transmission line (and gee, from distribution lines too) failures / lines downed / tree contact etc. could occur and ‘start a fire’ on tinder dry underbrush? Seems this practice now becomes adopted in Colorado …
But whether they’re drawing power or not, the risk of sparks from line clashing is the same. There has to be something else to that story!
There have been numerous fires in California that were started by arcing on a power line. Cliff Mass has written numerous posts on that issue.
I remember well! I think that is a fig leaf to cover up their lack of accountability when it comes to power generation. I know that utilities in California, and I would assume Xcel, have always had vegetation management departments for the purposes of keeping the power lines safe. The difference in these times is that they have Ruinables in the power generation mix
Dec 30, 2021, the Marshall Fire, now considered Colorado’s most destructive by dollar amount, started about 2-3 miles southeast of the NCAR facility. Transmission lines may have contributed, but significant evidence points to the Marshall coal mine, defunct since the early 1900’s, which has been smouldering underground and which was blown to life by the 100 mph + Chinooks four years ago.
Xcel’s $640 million dollar settlement in September no doubt scorched into corporate memory and guiding the power company’s decisions tonight. Even if they weren’t primary causes of the fire, they have the deep pockets. The coal mine, meanwhile, sits under open space with its newly recovered, tinder try native grasses, and it is owned by the city of Boulder. Who to sue?? Hmm.
(nevermind)
Thank you, Anthony! Well said. I’m passing this on to my flaming liberal friends.
In the UK advocacy is the only thing on the menu.
Hopefully, some of the good stuff Trump is doing might just rub off on us.
This is just like the NASA Goddard Institute for
SpaceClimate Studies. They turn otherwise legit agencies into their own advocacy programs.The media pearl clutching is ridiculous. What OMB Director Vought actually announced (on X) is what AW is advocating here. His announcement said,
”NSF will be breaking up NCAR…one of the largest sources of climate alarmism. A comprehensive review is underway, and any vital activities such as weather research will be moved to another entity or location.”
Translation, kill the alarmism by firing the alarmists, but keep any useful research.
Improvements in the weather forecasting models would be a good use of the available resources. A 24 hour improvement in accurate forecasting of a hurricane’s path would be worth billions.
Lived in Fort Lauderdale for 25 years until this past August. Completely agree. The cone of uncertainty three days out is still way too wide to be useful. One day out is too late to realistically evacuate if needed. And key is predicted intensity. Our rule (based on much hard won personal experience) was stay if 1 or 2, evacuate if 3 or more. Prepped the go bag each spring.
And it would have no problem attracting private funding. Insurance companies alone are prime candidates to pay millions for that kind of honest research.
More accurate forecasts of hurricane tracks would save Federal, State and local governments billions, hence improving forecast accuracy is a proper use of federal funds to promote the general welfare.
Insurance would have some benefit if better forecasting leads to better preparation for the storm.
Shell Oil to be sued for “exacerbating” Typhoon Rai, in UK courts.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/shell-oil-sued-over-causing-typhoon-philippines-major-test-case
In court, Shell should says that they supplied fuel for the emergency vehicle and emergency power generators.
I have no problem with keeping the hardware. I’m more concerned with keeping the personnel. They have shown themselves to be biased and unfamiliar with the scientific process.
Maybe keep those under age 25. They can be trained. Bring in actual scientists to lead and train the young ones while getting back to NCAR’s original mission. And establish auditors to ensure they maintain that mission and only that mission.
I doubt more than 10 of the total full-time headcount is under 25.
Roger Pielke’s substack on this is one of the moaners. Along the way, he calls Governor Polis a libertarian, which seems to be at odds with his woke policies and gun control agenda.
But what I really like was a commenter who asks, Did NCAR push back against Michael Mann’s hockey stick? If they were a bastion of rigorous science, they would have been quite loud about Mann’s lies.
Seems like a pretty good litmus test for any scientist or science institution: did you call out Michael Mann, did you support him, or did you just keep your yap shut and go along to get along?
That same question could be asked about Phil Jones and his bastardization of the instrument-era temperature record.
As I write in my book Politics and Climate Change: A History, government corrupts all science it touches. Science in its purest form is about uncovering the truth through experiments, careful observations, and rigorous analysis. Unfortunately, NCAR and many other agencies, turned this on its head and used what they called “science” as a marketing tool to sell the idea of impending doom due to man-made climate change. I would like to see this agency, and many others, eliminated. Meteorology is important enough that it should be turned over to the private sector. Having the government run it is a waste of money and anti-scientific.
From what I have seen of replicability studies, and from what I remember of 20+ years of subscribing to Nature and Science, I’d bet a paycheck that 90% of the “science” paid for is worthless and the world would be better off without it and them.
Agreed. As far as I know, usefully predicting future states of the atmosphere is literally impossible. Richard Feynman pointed this out in one of his lectures many years ago, and using quantum mechanical principles or classical Newtonian laws arrived at the same outcome. The IPCC arrives at the same conclusion accepting chaos theory.
Short term “forecasts” based on naive projections of past observations are used in practice by wind turbine operators, being at least as skilful as numerical predictions, and much cheaper.
For some weather parameters, averaging 40 past periods tends to be a sweet spot, but I have no reason why this might be. Local experience and well situated windows seems about as good as anything.
Having worked for decades at publicly funded (DoE) SLAC and its synchrotron X-ray source (SSRL), I can say with no hesitation that the people there produced outstanding science. They are dedicated people.
The fact that SLAC and SSRL are both user facilities, with scientists coming in from all over the world to carry out experiments, means there’s space or use for politics.
SLAC management makes approving noises about sustainability, etc., and there’s a large battery effort. but by-and-large, the work is excellent.
Very nice Anthony. My first question is does NCAR have a mission statement? If it does are they following it? Does the mission statement include CAGW missions?
These would be good things to include in a mission statement, CAGW work should explicitly be prohibited as it is political not science/climate related. All the head decision makers from NCAR should be gathered together and confronted with the politics they have been engaging in. Shown what the new proper mission statement is and asked if they can work within that mission statement. Anyone who questions it or has doubts is handed a pink slip, anyone who claims they can but can’t work without the politics will immediately be fired. Following this guideline I see a bright and promising future for the new exciting NCAR.
Says Google: “The NSF NCAR mission is to understand Earth’s atmosphere and related systems (like oceans, land, and space) through advanced research, modeling, and supercomputing, while supporting and extending the capabilities of the national university and broader scientific communities, ultimately delivering knowledge for societal benefit, including improved weather forecasts, climate resilience, and air quality. They achieve this by providing cutting-edge tools (models, data, facilities) and fostering education and diversity in Earth system science.”
Examples with less salad:
“Nike’s mission is to bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete* in the world.”
“Google’s core mission statement is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful,”
The Coca-Cola Company’s core mission is to “Refresh the world. Inspire moments of optimism and happiness. Create value and make a difference”
The contrast demonstrates something minimalists can get behind – sometimes adding words subtracts meaning.
NCAR functions under the management of UCAR, a consortium of 130 colleges and universities across the U.S. whose members, “… provide input on research and education priorities.”
Not sure how that works, but sounds like NCAR has a whole lot of tentacles across academia… It’s a leviathan!
“Let’s be clear: climate models are not useless. They are tools — exploratory tools — not crystal balls….
…When models diverge from reality, the scientific response should be recalibration and humility — not louder press releases.”
I remember years ago watching on The History Channel’s “Modern Marvels” a segment about AutoCAD being used to design bumpers for cars and trucks.
They’d build a prototype of AutoCAD’s bumper but then they crash test it to see if performed as expected. If it didn’t, they’d feed the new data back into AutoCAD and build a new prototype and test crash it again until they got a bumper design to put into production.
Computers, supercomputers, models, etc., are wonderful tools that become useless without sound data.