Feed aggregator

Reliable predictions of how the Earth's climate will respond as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increase are based on climate models. These models, in turn, are based on data from past geological times in which the CO2 content in the Earth's atmosphere changed in a similar way to today and the near future. The data originate from measurable indicators (proxies), the interpretation of which is used to reconstruct the climate of the past.

While a wealth of nutrient export models exists, a knowledge gap persists regarding how climate and land-use changes specifically drive dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) export in subtropical catchments.

Editors’ Highlights are summaries of recent papers by AGU’s journal editors. Source: AGU Advances

Asteroids, moons, and comets near Earth act like fossils from the time when our solar system first formed. In a new article, de Kleer et al. [2025] explain how a powerful telescope called the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) has changed the way scientists study these small worlds. ALMA can detect very weak thermal emission (heat) signals, allowing researchers to map the surface features of asteroids and accurately measure the masses of distant objects beyond Neptune, known as Kuiper Belt Objects.

ALMA is also used to study gases released by volcanic eruptions on Jupiter’s moon Io and probe the thick atmosphere of Saturn’s moon Titan. The review emphasizes the study of isotopes, which are slightly different forms of the same chemical element. These isotopes act like chemical fingerprints, helping scientists track how elements such as nitrogen and sulfur have changed over time. By comparing these local measurements with observations of young planetary systems around other stars, scientists can better understand how the ingredients for life survived the violent process of planet formation.

Citation: de Kleer, K., Brown, M. E., Cordiner, M., & Teague, R. (2025). Satellites and small bodies with ALMA: Insights into solar system formation and evolution. AGU Advances, 6, e2025AV001778. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025AV001778

—Xi Zhang, Editor, AGU Advances

Text © 2026. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Source: Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences

Human activities add large quantities of nitrogen to the environment, much of which gets washed into streams and rivers. These waterways transport some of that nitrogen to the oceans, but they also remove a significant portion of it through a process called denitrification: Microbes facilitate a series of chemical reactions that turn nitrate into dinitrogen gas, which is then released into the atmosphere.

Existing research, largely in streams, shows a wide range of denitrification rates, but the factors affecting this process aren’t fully quantified, especially in rivers. Pruitt et al. compared denitrification rates in a stream and a river across three seasons to study how the process varies across waterway scales.

The researchers took hourly water samples from the Tippecanoe River and the Shatto Ditch in Indiana over 36-hour periods in spring, summer, and fall. They used open-channel metabolism and a membrane inlet mass spectrometry–based model to study how rates of denitrification fluctuated in both waterways as the seasons changed. They found the stream had higher denitrification rates per square meter than the river in all seasons. They attribute this in part to higher nitrate levels in the stream, as well as a proportionally greater contribution of microbial activity on the streambed. However, when the researchers scaled up, the denitrification rate in rivers per kilometer of channel length was equal to or even higher than that of streams.

The researchers also observed different seasonal denitrification patterns. In the stream, denitrification rates were highest in spring and lower in summer and fall, whereas in the river, denitrification rates were highest in the fall, followed by spring, and very low in summer. Fertilizer application and higher precipitation rates in spring likely drive the stream dynamics, they suggest, whereas higher rates of ecosystem respiration increasing denitrifier activity in the fall may explain the pattern seen in the river.

Additionally, nitrogen gas concentrations varied by hour, the authors report, which could help explain the large range of rates found by previous studies. They recommend that future work use both the open-channel method and an in situ chamber assay and compare the two sampling methods. The authors also suggest that separating incomplete from complete denitrification could be valuable to explore the release of nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere. (Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025JG009044, 2025)

—Nathaniel Scharping (@nathanielscharp), Science Writer

Citation: Scharping, N. (2026), Denitrification looks different in rivers versus streams, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO260029. Published on 16 January 2026. Text © 2026. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Source: Global Biogeochemical Cycles

A critical part of Earth’s carbon cycle is the sinking of particulate organic material from the ocean’s surface to its depths. Much of that material is classified as “marine snow,” which is primarily made of snow-sized (>0.5 mm) detrital organic matter and phytoplankton.

Siegel et al. participated in a field campaign in the northeast Atlantic Ocean during the demise of the spring phytoplankton bloom during May 2021. They set out to observe how both physical processes, such as turbulence created by storms, and biological processes, such as consumption by animals and microbes, affected marine snow dynamics. The researchers used three research vessels, three instrumented gliders, a Lagrangian float, and 10 water-following surface drifters to measure the size distribution and characteristics of marine snow particles in the upper 500 meters of the water column.

The researchers found that near the ocean’s surface, turbulence induced by intense storms caused the breakdown of marine snow particles that later aggregated during calmer conditions. The succession of multiple storm events helped to foster the downward movement of marine snow through the water column. Below a depth of 200 meters, consumption by zooplankton and other organisms drove the removal of the snow particles and their breakdown into smaller ones. The combination of these processes affected how quickly particles sank through the water column and therefore the timescales over which the sinking organic carbon was sequestered from the atmosphere.

Over the course of the experiment, the researchers found that the marine snow particles became fluffier, larger, and more porous, and more marine snow appeared in the water column overall. Additionally, the average particle sinking velocity above 200 meters of depth increased from roughly 17 meters per day to almost 100 meters per day, likely attributable to the increase in the particle size of the marine snow aggregates.

The results highlight how both abiotic and biotic processes affect how marine snow moves through the water column. That understanding could have implications for how scientists quantify the effects of the ocean’s biological pump within the planet’s carbon cycle, the researchers say. (Global Biogeochemical Cycles, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025GB008676, 2025)

—Madeline Reinsel, Science Writer

Citation: Reinsel, M. (2026), Marine snow grows faster and fluffier as it sinks, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO260030. Published on 16 January 2026. Text © 2026. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Scientists have discovered there is more to Antarctica than meets the eye. A new map of the landscape beneath the frozen continent's ice sheet has revealed a previously hidden world of mountains, deep canyons and rugged hills in unprecedented detail.

Editors’ Vox is a blog from AGU’s Publications Department.

Advancing our understanding of climate change and its impacts requires a multidisciplinary effort to generate, evaluate, and integrate reliable climate records at appropriate spatiotemporal scales. Reliable and traceable climate observations are essential for evidence-based climate governance.

Essential Climate Variables (ECVs) serve as the foundation for monitoring the Earth system. For instance, ECVs such as the Earth Radiation Budget and Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) provide critical information on energy exchanges within the Earth system, underpinning assessments of long-term variability and anthropogenic influences.

These variables are estimated from satellites, ground networks, and models, producing vast datasets whose usefulness depends not on size, but on quality, consistency, and careful integration. As measurement coverage is uneven, instruments differ in calibration, and techniques can yield conflicting results. Thus, transforming raw data into reliable information requires rigorous quality control and collaboration across scientific and technical disciplines.

International frameworks such as the WMO Integrated Global Observing System (WIGOS) set standards for measurement, documentation, uncertainty reporting, and open data sharing. These systems promote traceability and reliability—ensuring the ability to track how each data point was produced and processed—so that scientists can reproduce analyses and policymakers can trust the results. In addition, emerging approaches, including physics-informed Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL), enable enhanced detection of patterns, anomaly identification, and quality control in large, heterogeneous datasets. Thereby they are strengthening the role of ECVs in monitoring system integrity.

Moreover, geodetic observations of sea-level rise, cryospheric changes, and solid Earth deformation illustrate the key role of multidisciplinary ECV analysis. By providing a holistic understanding of environmental change, these data streams are foundational for developing next-generation predictive tools, including Earth’s Digital Twin, to monitor global and local dynamics.

In this context, the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) plays a key role by fostering global collaboration to develop interdisciplinary ECVs that are traceable and reliable. GCOS supports efforts to advance climate science by ensuring high-quality data, which is vital for informed climate action and adaptive policy development. Through innovation and interdisciplinary approaches, this framework enables more effective responses to the challenges posed by climate change.

This special collection serves as a venue for contributions that shed light on the role of continuous monitoring of ECVs, coupled with rigorous quality assurance, as a foundation for policy decisions, ultimately bridging the gap between technical observation and actionable climate governance. We especially welcome novel research that advances the methodologies required to demonstrate how robust, traceable data can empower society to build resilience against a changing climate. Contributions will include (but not be limited to) research into: best practices in observation, collection, and processing and curation of data. It can also include physics-informed machine and deep learning methods to identify relationships and feedback loops between atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and lithosphere, as well as evidence-based policies and remediation measures.

This is a joint special collection between Earth and Space Science, JGR: Machine and Computation, and Earth’s Future. Manuscripts can be submitted to any of these journals depending on their fit with each journal aims and scope. Submissions are now open and welcome until 7 March 2027.

—Jean-Philippe Montillet (Jean-Philippe.Montillet@pmodwrc.ch, 0000-0001-7439-7862), Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos World Radiation Center, Switzerland; Graziella Caprarelli (Graziella.Caprarelli@usq.edu.au, 0000-0001-9578-3228), University of Southern Queensland, Australia;  Gaël Kermarrec (0000-0001-5986-5269), Leibniz Universitat Hannover, Germany; CK Shum (0000-0001-9378-4067), Ohio State University, United States; Ehsan Forootan (0000-0003-3055-041X), Aalborg University, Denmark; Jan Sedlacek (0000-0002-6742-9130), Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos World Radiation Center, Switzerland; Elizabeth Weatherhead (0000-0002-9252-4228), University of Colorado at Boulder, United States; Orhan Akyilmaz (0000-0002-8499-2654), Istanbul Technical University, Turkey; Wolfgang Finsterle (0000-0002-6672-7523), Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos World Radiation Center, Switzerland; Yu Zhang, Ohio University, United States; Enrico Camporeale (0000-0002-7862-6383), University of Colorado Boulder, United States; and Kelly K. Caylor (0000-0002-6466-6448), University of California, Santa Barbara, United States

Citation: Montillet, J-P., G. Caprarelli, G. Kermarrec, CK. Shum, E. Forootan, J. Sedlacek, E. Weatherhead, O. Akyilmaz, W. Finsterle, Y. Zhang, E. Camporeale, and K. K. Caylor (2026), Bridging the gap: transforming reliable climate data into climate policy, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO265001. Published on 16 January 2026. This article does not represent the opinion of AGU, Eos, or any of its affiliates. It is solely the opinion of the author(s). Text © 2026. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Research reveals when and why ancient tropical seas transitioned from oxygen oases to marine dead zones, providing clues to the long-term evolution of oceanic environments.

There are concerns about the potential impact of an incipient landslide at Farwell Canyon on the Chilcotin River in British Columbia, Canada.

On 30 July 2024, a large landslide occurred on the Chilcotin River in British Columbia, Canada, blocking the flow. The scale of the landslide was massive – on the BC website about the event, it is estimated that the landslide was about 1,000 metres in length, 600 metres in width, and roughly 30 metres deep. There is a good Youtube video with footage of the landslide:-

And this image, from the BC Government, captures the landslide itself:-

The 30 July 2024 landslide on the Chilcotin River in Canada. Image from the BC Government.

The landslide breached and the lake drained on 5 August 2024.

In the aftermath of that landslide, geotechnical monitoring was established for the riverbanks, which has identified another site on the Chilcotin River that appears to be vulnerable to a landslide. A tension crack has developed at a site known as Snhaxalaus, located just downstream of the the Farwell Canyon Bridge (the bridge is at [51.82790, -122.56296].

The Tŝilhqot’in National Government has published this image of the site:-

The site of the incipient landslide near to Farwell Canyon Bridge on the Chilcotin River in Canada. Image from the Tŝilhqot’in National Government.

The tension crack, and the large displacements, are clearly evident.

The major concern at this site is the potential impact on Chilko salmon. Following 2024 landslide, an Emergency Salmon Task Force was established, led by the Tŝilhqot’in National Government but also working with the Williams Lake First Nation. To manage the threat posed by the incipient landslide on the Farwell Canyon, the Task Force is planning to undertake “a proactive slope stabilization plan that includes manual scaling and targeted trim blasting”, which seems like a reasonable approach.

However, national and/or provincial funding is not in place to undertake this work ahead of the salmon migration later this year, so the Tŝilhqot’in National Government is planning to fund the work itself. The costs are estimated to be in the range of CAN$2.5M – $3M. Tŝilhqot’in National Government is concerned that a failure at this site ahead of the salmon migration could cause devastating damage to the salmon populations on the Fraser River.

Return to The Landslide Blog homepage Text © 2026. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

When Floridians talk about extreme weather, hurricanes dominate the conversation. Each season brings updates on storm tracks, cone predictions and wind speeds, all in the hopes of predicting the unpredictable. But a quieter, more deceptive threat is already reshaping the way people live and work in the Sunshine State: extreme heat.

SummaryThe Geocenter Motion (GCM) time series captures periodic variations arising from diverse Earth system changes. This study pioneers the use of Successive Variational Mode Decomposition (SVMD) in GCM research, enabling the precise extraction and analysis of these meaningful geophysical signals. SVMD outperformed Singular Spectrum Analysis (SSA) by effectively isolating signals and minimizing interference from components with similar variance contributions. However, a high maximum penalty factor in SVMD may lead to noise-dominated Intrinsic Mode Functions (IMFs). To overcome this limitation, we propose an extraction criterion that utilizes the standard deviation of the correlation coefficient and mean kurtosis as thresholds. Validations with simulations and the real GCM time series demonstrate its superiority over traditional single- and dual-threshold criteria, effectively retaining valuable information while excluding most noise-dominated IMFs. This improved approach is further employed to explore the geophysical driving factors of key periodic variations in the GCM time series, focusing on the annual, semi-annual, 10.5-year, 451-day, ∼160-day, and ∼120-day periods. Multi-source GCM analyses combined with the fingerprint method reveal distinct contributions from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, terrestrial water storage, continental glaciers, and atmosphere-ocean interactions to different periodic signals. This study provides a robust methodology for decomposing GCM and attributing its variations to underlying Earth system changes, advancing our understanding and interpretation of global mass redistribution.

SummaryFull waveform inversion (FWI) is a popular method for subsurface parameter estimation. Despite its effectiveness in building high-resolution velocity models, the quality of the inversion result is significantly dependent on a fairly accurate, smooth initial model, which is often challenging to build. To weaken the influence related to the inaccurate initial model, we propose a deep learning (DL) matching-based FWI framework, namely DLM-FWI, where multiple convolution neural networks (CNNs) are used to construct an adaptive matching filter to better pinpoint the discrepancies between the synthetic and observed data. With the help of the CNN-based matching filter, the synthetic data will be regularized first, leading to intermediate data, and the model update will be conducted by minimizing the misfit between the intermediate and the observed data for improved data-fitting. More importantly, we integrate the whole inversion process into an automatic differentiation (AD) framework, simplifying the implementation of classic FWI. We apply the proposed DLM-FWI method to both synthetic and field datasets to validate its effectiveness. The results demonstrate that compared with classic FWI, DLM-FWI performs better in subsurface model reconstruction when the initial model is far from the global minimum.

Global change—a term that encompasses climate change and phenomena such as changes in land use or environmental pollution—is increasingly putting ecosystems around the world under pressure. Urban soils in particular are susceptible to stressors like heat, drought, road salt, nitrogen deposition, surfactants, and microplastics.

Multi-ignition wildfires are not overly common. But when individual fires do converge, the consequences can be catastrophic. The largest fire on record in California, the 2020 August Complex fire, grew from the coalescence of 10 separate ignitions.

By tracking swarms of very small earthquakes, seismologists are getting a new picture of the complex region where the San Andreas fault meets the Cascadia subduction zone, an area that could give rise to devastating major earthquakes.

Environmental phenomena and their consequences can disrupt social structures and destabilize political systems. An interdisciplinary research team demonstrated this using the example of the late Tang dynasty in medieval China.

Environmental research in the tropics is heavily skewed, according to a comprehensive study led by Umeå University. Humid lowland forest ecosystems receive a disproportionate amount of attention, while colder and drier regions that are more affected by climate change are severely underrepresented.

Understanding how water moves through the Earth system is fundamental to predicting climate impacts and ensuring sustainable water management. Yet despite decades of research, uncertainties persist regarding how global precipitation is partitioned into evapotranspiration and river flow—the two dominant pathways by which water returns from land to the atmosphere and oceans.

Editors’ Highlights are summaries of recent papers by AGU’s journal editors. Source: Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth

Magnetic mineral populations that recorded the Earth’s magnetic field during distinct stages of rock formation are often juxtaposed on micrometer-to-millimeter scales. This poses significant challenges for extracting reliable paleomagnetic information because standard methods —which measure the bulk magnetic moment of whole samples— cannot distinguish between magnetic minerals with overlapping demagnetization spectra.

The recently developed Quantum Diamond Microscope (QDM) yield micrometer-scale magnetization images of rock samples, which allow to extract individual magnetization contributions from different structures. Qi et al. [2025] demonstrate the advantage of this new approach with an example from the Troodos ophiolite, Cyprus. QDM measurements of a weakly and a strongly magnetized sample reveal magnetized structures from three distinct serpentinization episodes, from oldest to youngest: ridge-axis serpentinization (strongly magnetized sample, 90-92 Ma), recrystallization zones from mantle wedge serpentinization during subduction (weakly magnetized sample, 5.3-2.6 Ma), and meteoric-water serpentinization following surface exposure (weakly magnetized sample, <2.6 Ma). These episodes are also documented by oxygen isotope measurements indicating distinct alteration temperatures. The QDM technique can be applied to a variety of terrestrial rocks and meteorites with complex magnetization patterns which cannot be disentangled with traditional bulk measurements.

Quantum diamond microscope image of the magnetic field produced by the natural magnetization of minerals inside a rock sample from the Artemis serpentinite diapir, in its untreated from (a) and after demagnetizing the less stable magnetization components with an alternating field (b). Corresponding details from a recrystallization zone formed during subduction (5.3 to 2.6 million years ago) and from a microfracture formed during the latest stage of meteoric water serpentinization, after the rock was emplaced (<2.6 million years ago) are shown in (d, f) and (c, e), respectively. The zoomed details in (h, j) and (g, i) reveal the association between magnetite grains (light-gray structures) and magnetic signals (blue-red hues) in different microstructures. (k-n) Discrete field patterns produced by a single magnetic source, consisting of pairs of positive (red) and negative (blue) anomalies have been fitted with a magnetic dipole model, yielding the magnetization vector orientations shown in the equal area plots with geographical coordinates. Stars show the mean directions for each zone, together with their 95% confidence ellipses. Credit: Qi et al. [2025], Figure 5

Citation: Qi, L., Muxworthy, A. R., Baker, E. B., Cao, X., Allerton, S., Bryson, J. F. J., & Zhang, Y. (2025). Quantifying serpentinization-driven remagnetization from ridge axis to subduction zone using quantum diamond microscopy. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 130, e2025JB031606. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025JB031606

—Ramon Egli, Associate Editor, JGR: Solid Earth

Text © 2026. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

body { background-color: #eee6e0; } p { font-family: "Proxima Nova", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; } h4 { font-family: "Merriweather", serif; }

This article is Part 2 of “The State of the Science 1 Year On,” a report from Eos and AGU.

The State of the Science 1 Year On

• Executive Summary
• Climate Change and Energy
• Health and Safety
• The Federal Workforce
• Academia and Research
• Environment
• Concluding Remarks

• Joint Report
• Joint Report PDF
• Tracking Science Policy Decisions and Approaches

In the first year of his second term, President Donald Trump worked across agencies to roll back practical and political momentum to address the climate crisis.

Experts say the array of administration policies supporting the fossil fuel industry could halve U.S. progress on reducing carbon emissions, and actions such as withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement are projected to erase at least 0.1°C (0.18°F) of international efforts to limit warming by 2100.

Rolling Back Climate Policy

Trump’s interagency effort to roll back critical climate policies began immediately. An executive order (EO) signed on the first day of Trump’s second term titled “Unleashing American Energy” ordered additional oil and gas exploration, accelerated permitting for such drilling, eliminated credits and regulations favoring electric vehicles, and revoked 12 climate- and energy-related EOs issued by the administration of President Joe Biden.

In March, the EPA indicated it would move to reconsider the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which states that greenhouse gases “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” The Endangerment Finding underpins the federal government’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, power plants, oil and gas facilities, and factories.

On 29 July, the EPA formally proposed to rescind the finding, and the Department of Energy (DOE) published a report finding that carbon dioxide–induced warming “appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed,” that U.S. policy actions have “undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate,” and that claims of increased frequency or intensity of storms are “not supported” by historical data.

In September, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted their own review, stating that “EPA’s 2009 finding that the human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases threaten human health and welfare was accurate” and is “beyond scientific dispute.” In a letter to the National Academies, House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-KY) dismissed the review as a “blatant partisan act to undermine the Trump Administration.”

In August, the American Meteorological Society published a report identifying “five foundational flaws” in the DOE report that each place the report “at odds with scientific principles and practices.”

In addition to reconsidering the Endangerment Finding, the Trump administration immediately began to dismantle the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a $27 billion lending program meant to spur private investment in clean energy. In March, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin terminated $20 billion of this funding. Numerous lawsuits followed, but in July, Trump rescinded all funding for the program.

In February, Congress repealed a Biden era rule implementing a federal tax on methane pollution, which would have been the United States’ first tax on greenhouse gases. In June, the administration also proposed to rescind all greenhouse gas emissions standards for coal-, oil-, and gas-fired power plants.

The One Big Beautiful Bill, the omnibus spending bill that became law on 4 July, removes or rapidly phases out most clean energy, electric vehicle, and clean manufacturing tax credits introduced by Biden’s key climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act. While reducing support for clean energy projects, the law also grants $40 billion in new subsidies and tax credits to the fossil fuel industry through 2035, according to a report from Oil Change International, an anti–fossil fuel advocacy group.

In total, the One Big Beautiful Bill is expected to cut the development of new clean-power-generating capacity by up to 59% through 2035, according to a report by the Rhodium Group. An analysis by Carbon Brief and Princeton University found the passage of the law will set the United States up to drop emissions to 3% below current levels by 2030 rather than the 40% mandated by the Paris Agreement.

In November, the EPA announced it would delay methane emissions reduction requirements set by the Biden administration, giving oil and gas companies until January 2027 to comply. In December, the White House and Department of Transportation announced a proposal to revoke vehicle fuel efficiency standards that were tightened in 2024. The administration is expected to finalize this proposal in 2026.

Boosting Fossil Fuels, Obstructing Renewables

Trump’s declaration of a “national energy emergency” gave federal agency heads authority to grant emergency approvals to expedite the completion of energy projects.

“We’re going to drill, baby, drill,” Trump said after being sworn in. That day, Trump issued an executive order (EO) to resume processing permit applications for new liquefied natural gas projects, which had been halted under Biden.

“It is the policy of the United States that coal is essential to our national and economic security.”

In an April EO seeking to revive the “beautiful clean coal industry,” the Trump administration directed agencies to identify possible new coal resources on federal lands. The order also laid out plans to identify and revise existing regulations and policies that might lead the country away from coal power or coal production. “It is the policy of the United States that coal is essential to our national and economic security,” the EO states.

Also in April, the Department of the Interior said it intended to fast-track approvals for coal, gas, oil, and mineral projects. The administration opened up millions of acres of federal land to oil and gas companies and additional millions of acres to potential coal mining projects. In September, the DOE announced it would invest $625 million to retrofit and modernize aging coal power plants, followed by an additional $100 million in federal funding for similar projects. In May, the administration ordered a coal power plant in Michigan to abandon its plans to shut down, citing a “shortage of electric energy” in the Midwest. In December, it also ordered two coal plants in Indiana, two in Colorado, and one in Washington to remain open.

Among the federal land opened to oil drilling is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an iconic wilderness area in northern Alaska. In October, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced the federal government would open 1.56 million acres (631,000 hectares) of the refuge to oil and gas leasing, reversing a Biden moratorium on drilling activity there.

In November, the administration announced it planned to open almost 1.3 billion additional acres (526 million hectares) of U.S. coastal waters to new oil and gas drilling. The One Big Beautiful Bill mandated at least 36 oil and gas lease sales in federal waters.

“An offshore lease issued next year could keep pumping carbon into the atmosphere for the next 40 years,” Rebecca Loomis, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told The New York Times.

Renewable energy projects have mostly received the opposite treatment, as federal agencies made a concerted effort to halt existing solar and wind energy projects and slow the permitting and approval process for new ones. Trump took particular aim at wind energy: An EO on the first day of his term withdrew all new offshore wind energy lease opportunities and suggested the possibility of terminating or amending existing leases. A coalition of state attorneys sued the administration, saying Trump does not have the authority to unilaterally make such mandates. In December, a federal judge wrote that the EO violated federal law.

“This arbitrary and unnecessary directive threatens the loss of thousands of good-paying jobs and billions in investments, and it is delaying our transition away from the fossil fuels that harm our health and our planet,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said of the EO.

Solar projects have suffered, too. The Trump administration slowed development on a solar project in Nevada that, if built, would be one of the world’s largest. In October, the EPA canceled $7 billion in grants for a popular clean energy program, Solar for All, meant to help low- and moderate-income households install solar.

Oil and gas permitting, but not renewable energy permitting, continued during the 44-day government shutdown this fall, as the Trump administration approved more than 470 permits to drill on public land. After the January 2026 military action in Venezuela, President Trump announced the country “will be turning over” 30-50 million barrels of oil and that the federal government would maintain control over Venezuela’s oil industry.

Hindering Climate Science

As the Trump administration hindered clean energy projects and boosted fossil fuels, it also targeted climate science. In February, Trump prohibited federal scientists from traveling to take part in a planning meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Federal scientists were reportedly told to stop work on all IPCC-related activities, though some nonfederal U.S. scientists are still involved.

In April, the administration dismissed all scientists working on the United States’ own National Climate Assessment (NCA). In July, a spokeswoman for NASA told The New York Times that NASA would no longer host previous NCAs online. AGU and the American Meteorological Society have responded by creating a special collection on climate change to help catalyze and advance synthesis science to inform our understanding of risks and solutions for U.S. climate research and assessments. In December, the Trump administration asked a group of scientists known for their climate skepticism—the same group that authored the DOE report undermining the 2009 Endangerment Finding—to write the next installment of the NCA.

Additionally, many programs and offices collecting and analyzing climate data were shuttered this year because budgets were cut and staff were fired, creating a widening climate data void. In April, for example, the EPA failed for the first time to meet the obligations of a 1992 treaty setting greenhouse gas reporting requirements for wealthy countries. The Environmental Defense Fund released the data after filing a Freedom of Information Act request. The same month, political appointees told EPA staff that they planned to virtually eliminate the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which requires the country’s largest industrial sites to report their emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

“The public has a right to know how much climate pollution is being emitted.”

“The public has a right to know how much climate pollution is being emitted,” Vickie Patton, an attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund, told The New York Times. “The attack on the data, the attack on the science, is irresponsible.”

Pieces of signature energy reports from the Energy Information Administration, a data-tracking arm of the Department of Energy, were removed, while the publication of its International Energy Outlook for 2025 was scrapped.

NOAA, once identified as “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry,” has come under intense scrutiny. Under the Trump administration, the agency ended support for key data products at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, retired its Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters data product (though the nonprofit Climate Central is bringing it back to life), suspended work on a massive dataset meant to predict extreme rainfall, and consolidated climate data hosted on Climate.gov on another NOAA domain. The administration also canceled its lease for NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory in Hilo, Hawaii, an important site for scientists tracking carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Trump proposed cutting virtually all funding for climate research at NOAA, though Congress is considering spending bills that include much more modest cuts. Congress is also considering a bill that would ensure the uninterrupted storage of NOAA datasets indefinitely.

NASA’s climate programs suffered, too: This spring, the Trump administration began the process of shrinking the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which maintains critical climate data records. And over the summer, the administration directed NASA employees to draw up plans to end satellite missions designed to monitor carbon dioxide emissions. Acting Administrator Sean Duffy made clear the agency will deprioritize all climate science.

The Department of the Interior cut funding to a third of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Climate Adaptation Science Centers, which funds projects aimed to help people, wildlife, land, and water adapt to local effects of climate change. This includes mapping risks of wildfire and flooding, maintaining infrastructure such as storm drains, and assessing fish and wildlife populations for both hunting and conservation.

The Trump administration also axed funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a decades-old congressionally mandated interagency climate research program. And in November, a new organizational plan for the Energy Department no longer showed various offices that had overseen clean energy technology development.

More than 100 National Science Foundation (NSF) grants for climate-related science have been canceled as well. In December, the Trump administration announced that it would dismantle the NSF-funded National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), one of the world’s leading climate and Earth science laboratories.

The administration also systematically removed mentions of climate change and related language from agency websites and directed the Department of Energy not to use certain language, including the words “green” and “decarbonization.” The EPA also erased references linking human activities to climate change from sections of its website.

And while geoengineering has not been a priority of the Trump administration, Rep. Marjorie Tayler Greene (R-GA) introduced the Clear Skies Act in July, which would impose $100,000 fines and potential jail time for anyone conducting “weather modification” activities.

Stalling Global Progress

The Trump administration’s approach to climate and energy policy has reverberated globally. The administration’s decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement (to take effect in January 2026) will set global projected emissions back 0.1°C (0.18°F) by 2100, according to a United Nations report.

The same EO that withdraws the United States from the Paris Agreement also directs the administration to revoke contributions to international climate finance funds. This directive means the global climate finance goal agreed upon at COP29 (the 29th Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change) will be much more difficult to meet. In March, the administration also pulled the United States out of the Board of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage, a U.N. climate damage fund created at COP28 dedicated to helping finance developing countries’ climate adaptation efforts. The same month, the United States withdrew from the Just Energy Transition Partnership, an international collaboration formed at COP26 meant to help developing countries implement clean energy.

The Trump administration did not attend COP30 in Belém, Brazil, a move that other leaders admonished. “Mr. Trump is against humankind,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. It was the first time in COP history that the United States did not send a delegation.

In January 2026, the White House issued an EO ordering the withdrawal of the United States from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, a 1992 treaty that set the legal framework for international negotiations on climate change. According to the terms of the treaty, the formal withdrawal will occur one year after the government submits paperwork to the U.N., after which the United States will be the only country not engaged in the global agreement. The EO also ordered the withdrawal of the United States from the IPCC.

At an International Energy Agency meeting held in London in April, Trump administration staff members opposed policies to regulate fossil fuels. In September, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright traveled to Italy to attend the world’s largest natural gas conference. While in Europe, Wright urged European governments to ditch methane regulations, called net-zero goals “a colossal train wreck,” and downplayed the risks of climate change. “It’s turned out that not only does climate change not look to be an urgent threat…but doing something about it has proven remarkably difficult,” Wright told reporters in Brussels.

The Trump administration also attempted to use economic levers to encourage other nations to walk back their climate goals. In July, for instance, the administration agreed to reduce some tariffs on the European Union (EU) if the EU purchased $750 billion in American oil and gas. In December, the Trump administration asked the EU to exempt US oil and gas companies that sell oil and gas to Europe from European methane regulations.

Next Steps

Despite criticism of the DOE report and widespread opposition to the reconsideration of the rule—even Tesla wants to preserve it—the EPA is expected to move forward with revoking the Endangerment Finding in early 2026. The decision is expected to face serious legal challenges, and the Trump administration faces an ongoing lawsuit from the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists over the controversial DOE report. Final repeals of federal vehicle fuel economy standards and power plant emissions limits are also expected in early 2026.

The future of climate programs like the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, Solar for All, electric vehicle infrastructure funds, and other climate-related grants likely lies in the courts, not the ballot box. Environmental groups and other stakeholders have filed multiple lawsuits challenging these actions, and they are still proceeding through the legal system. A coalition of states has even sued Trump and his administration over the president’s initial declaration of a “national energy emergency.”

Curated Links

Key resources for this report and people interested in this topic:

American Geophysical Union (2025), Science societies take action after NCA authors’ dismissal this week, 2 May, news.agu.org/press-release/agu-and-ams-join-forces-on-special-collection-to-maintain-momentum-of-research-supporting-the-u-s-national-climate-assessment/.

American Meteorological Society (2025), The practice and assessment of science: Five foundational flaws in the Department of Energy’s 2025 climate report, 27 Aug., www.ametsoc.org/ams/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/the-practice-and-assessment-of-science-five-foundational-flaws-in-the-department-of-energys-2025-climate-report/.

Carbon Brief (2025), Chart: Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ blows US emissions goal by 7bn tonnes, 4 July, www.carbonbrief.org/chart-trumps-big-beautiful-bill-blows-us-emissions-goal-by-7bn-tonnes/.

Cartier, K. M. S. (2025), NASA planning for unauthorized shutdown of carbon monitoring satellites, Eos, 5 Aug., eos.org/research-and-developments/nasa-planning-for-unauthorized-shutdown-of-carbon-monitoring-satellites.

Colman, Z. (2025), Energy Dept. adds ‘climate change’ and ‘emissions’ to banned words list, Politico, 28 Sept., www.politico.com/news/2025/09/28/energy-department-climate-change-emissions-banned-words-00583649.

Chemnick, J. (2025), Trump gutted climate rules in 2025. He could make it permanent in 2026. E&E News, 17 Dec., www.eenews.net/articles/trump-gutted-climate-rules-in-2025-he-could-make-it-permanent-in-2026/.

Dieckman, E. (2025), Executive order seeks to revive “America’s Beautiful, Clean Coal Industry,” Eos, 9 Apr., eos.org/research-and-developments/executive-order-seeks-to-revive-americas-beautiful-clean-coal-industry.

Dzomback, R. (2025), NASA website will not provide previous National Climate Reports, New York Times, 14 July, www.nytimes.com/2025/07/14/climate/nasa-website-climate-report.html.

Friedman, L. (2025), Interior Department to fast-track oil, gas and mining projects, New York Times, 23 Apr., www.nytimes.com/2025/04/23/climate/interior-department-gas-and-mining-projects.html.

Janis, B., and C. Richards (2025), Who will fill the climate-data void left by the Trump administration?, Nature, 14 Nov., https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-03532-4.

Perez, N., and R. Waldholz (2025), Trump is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement (again), reversing U.S. climate policy, NPR, 21 Jan., www.npr.org/2025/01/21/nx-s1-5266207/trump-paris-agreement-biden-climate-change.

U.S. Department of Energy (2025), A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, Climate Working Group, Washington, D.C., www.energy.gov/topics/climate.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2025), Proposed rule: Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and greenhouse gas vehicle standards, 22 Aug., www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule-reconsideration-2009-endangerment-finding.

van Deelen, G. (2025), NOAA halts maintenance of key Arctic data at National Snow and Ice Data Center, Eos, 8 May, eos.org/research-and-developments/noaa-halts-maintenance-of-key-arctic-data-at-national-snow-and-ice-data-center.

van Deelen, G. (2025), Proposed NOAA budget calls for $0 for climate research, Eos, 2 July, eos.org/research-and-developments/proposed-noaa-budget-calls-for-0-for-climate-research.

van Deelen, G. (2025), Public speaks out against EPA plan to rescind Endangerment Finding, Eos, 25 Aug., eos.org/research-and-developments/public-speaks-out-against-epa-plan-to-rescind-endangerment-finding.

van Deelen, G. (2025), Trump proposes weakening fuel economy rules for vehicles, Eos, 3 Dec., eos.org/research-and-developments/trump-proposes-to-weaken-fuel-economy-rules-for-vehicles.

Waldman, S. (2025), It’s the gold standard of US climate research. Contratians could write the next one., E&E News, 22 Dec., www.eenews.net/articles/its-the-gold-standard-of-us-climate-research-contrarians-could-write-the-next-one/.

—Eos (@eos.org)

Citation: AGU (2026), The state of the science 1 year on: Climate change and energy, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO260002. Published on 15 January 2026. Text © 2026. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.