Five Cornell researchers co-authored a new commentary "Research priorities for robust climate assessments in the United States" published September 22 in Earth's Future and Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The paper brings together 175 authors to outline research priorities that can inform future national, regional, local, sectoral and topical climate assessments.
The commentary is the first paper in the U.S. Climate Collection: Informing Assessment of Risks and Solutions - a joint special collection of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society that will publish U.S.-focused climate assessment science and research synthesis papers that can inform future national and sub-national assessments.
Cornell authors on the commentary include: Steven Mana'oakamai Johnson, assistant professor of natural resources and the environment in the Ashley School of Global Development and the Environment in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS); Flavio Lehner, associate professor of earth and atmospheric sciences in CALS; Natalie Mahowald, Chair of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and Irving Porter Church Professor in Engineering in Cornell Duffield College of Engineering; Linda Shi, associate professor of city and regional planning in the College of Architecture, Art, and Planning; and Ariel Ortiz Bobea, associate professor in the Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, in the SC Johnson College of Business.
Johnson contributed to the commentary's oceans section, which identifies research priorities for ocean systems and the communities, industries and ecosystems that depend on them. His contributions focused on how climate assessments can better account for fisheries, coastal infrastructure, conservation and emerging ocean industries, while integrating community knowledge and social and economic considerations into future ocean governance.
These ocean research priorities were identified because ocean-dependent communities are already navigating rapid environmental change and making decisions about fisheries, coastal infrastructure, conservation, and emerging ocean industries, according to Johnson. "Integrating communities, Indigenous knowledge, and social and economic considerations into ocean assessments can help ensure that future governance is not only scientifically informed but also locally relevant, culturally grounded, and just," said Johnson.
Lehner and Mahowald contributed to the commentary's physical systems section, which outlines research priorities for understanding changes across the Earth system and improving confidence in future climate projections. Their work emphasizes the importance of evaluating climate models against an expanding observational record to better understand climate hazards and future risks.
"A key focus of Earth system science is to confront climate models with the ever-lengthening observational record," said Lehner and Mahowald. "We have now experienced 1.5°C of global warming, which manifests in various global and regional trends in impactful quantities such as heat waves, precipitation, or carbon fluxes. These emerging trends allow us to better evaluate - and understand - which models are 'fit for purpose' and thus which future projections are more likely to be true."
Shi contributed to the adaptation section of the commentary, which examines how communities, institutions and governments prepare for and respond to climate risks. Her contributions focused on research needs and assessment approaches that can help evaluate adaptation strategies and support decision-making in a changing climate. Adaptation in the U.S. has quickly accelerated, but remains sector- and hazard-specific, incremental, and insufficient to address either current or future risks, according to Shi.
"Future research and climate assessments should not only identify risks but illuminate tradeoffs in policy decisions, evaluate the efficacy and impacts of adaptation efforts, and synthesize case studies to shed light on cumulative impacts and advances," said Shi. "Linking monitoring and evaluation research with policy experimentation can help society learn what enables effective adaptation governance."
Ortiz Bobea contributed to the economic systems section, drawing on his experience as a contributor to the economics chapter of the Sixth National Climate Assessment. His work focused on research priorities for understanding the economic impacts of climate change and improving assessments of how economies respond to climate-related shocks.
"We have made large strides in documenting the economic impacts of climate change, both historical and projected. But the commentary highlights an important open question: whether the economy bounces back quickly after a climate shock, or recovers slowly and never fully catches up," said Ortiz Bobea. "Future assessments need to pay close attention to this, because the answer can change the estimated cost of climate change by a wide margin."
The commentary identifies assessment opportunities and research needs across planetary-scale systems, environmental settings, economic sectors, U.S. regions and U.S. international interests. Across these areas, the authors identify several cross-cutting priorities for research synthesis, including how greenhouse gas emissions continue to alter and amplify climate hazards; how compounding extremes and cascading risks are straining legacy policies, infrastructure, and institutions; how social systems shape both climate impacts and responses; and how future assessments should evaluate mitigation, adaptation, disaster management, climate interventions and resilience planning and implementation decisions as a climate action portfolio.
Scientific assessments synthesize complex bodies of evidence so households, communities, businesses, institutions and governments can make informed decisions as climate hazards intensify. The most recent U.S. National Climate Assessment was published in 2023; scientific understanding has advanced since then, and climate assessments are continuing by states, localities and businesses. The commentary argues that the pace of assessment and the integration of science with decision-making must accelerate as climate impacts continue to grow.
