{"id":418003,"date":"2025-12-20T19:36:43","date_gmt":"2025-12-20T18:36:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=418003"},"modified":"2025-12-20T19:36:45","modified_gmt":"2025-12-20T18:36:45","slug":"dont-throw-out-the-supercomputer-with-the-climate-models","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=418003","title":{"rendered":"Don\u2019t Throw Out the Supercomputer with the Climate Models"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Modern<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Anthony Watts<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you listen carefully to the collective wailing coming out of Boulder, Colorado this week, you\u2019d think the Trump administration had just announced plans to shut down the National Weather Service and replace Doppler radar with tea leaves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In reality, what\u2019s on the table is far more nuanced, and far less apocalyptic, than the headlines suggest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to USA TODAY<\/em><\/a>, 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 \u201cattack on science,\u201d \u201cpublic safety at risk,\u201d and \u2014 my personal favorite \u2014 a blow to America\u2019s \u201ccompetitive advantage.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cue the hysteria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But let\u2019s pause for a moment and separate weather science<\/strong>, useful computing infrastructure<\/strong>, and policy-driven climate alarmism<\/strong>, because conflating the three is exactly how we got into this mess in the first place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NCAR was founded in 1960 to advance atmospheric chemistry, physical meteorology, and weather prediction. On that front, it has an impressive r\u00e9sum\u00e9. 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 \u2014 including Roger Pielke Jr. \u2014 acknowledge NCAR as a scientific \u201ccrown jewel\u201d that deserves improvement, not destruction .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem is not that NCAR does weather.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem is what NCAR increasingly became<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the past two decades, NCAR \u2014 like much of federally funded climate science \u2014 drifted from observational rigor toward model-driven storytelling<\/strong>. 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 \u201csettled science,\u201d stripped of uncertainty and error bars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s not atmospheric science. That\u2019s advocacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When an institution begins hosting \u201cjustice-centered\u201d programs, art exhibits about water relationships, and ideological framing exercises under the banner of Earth science, it invites scrutiny. The administration\u2019s criticism of \u201cwoke\u201d or policy-driven research may be blunt, but it is not entirely misplaced .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate Models are Useful Tools, but Terrible Oracles<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s be clear: climate models are not useless. They are tools \u2014 exploratory tools \u2014 not crystal balls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet NCAR\u2019s climate modeling efforts have been routinely used to justify sweeping policy claims: existential crises, \u201cthresholds passed,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When models diverge from reality, the scientific response should be recalibration and humility \u2014 not louder press releases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is where skepticism becomes not only reasonable, but necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That said, dismantling NCAR entirely \u2014 especially without a scalpel \u2014 risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The USA TODAY<\/em> article notes that NCAR operates a federally owned supercomputing center in Cheyenne, Wyoming<\/a><\/strong>. That facility is a national asset, regardless of one\u2019s views on climate policy. High-performance computing is not inherently ideological. It can support:<\/p>\n\n\n\n