Recently, Congress decided that we need a National Climate Service (NCS). Since then there has been some discussion—though not too much—about the implications of such a move. For instance, might this not potentially lead to greater politicization of the science? (Though the contrary is presumably one of the reasons it is being sought). Where should it live? In a bureau of its own? The National Academies? The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Goddard Space Flight Center Climate and Radiation Branch, Goddard Institute for Space studies Global Climate Modeling)? National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA; Climate Program, Climate Prediction Center, Climate Diagnostics Center, National Weather Service Climate Systems Division)? … Besides, might this not also be a bit redundant given the aforementioned offices, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and various efforts in academia?

Fortunately, somewhat cooler heads have prevailed. While we will still soon have an NCS, it will be located at NOAA alongside its sister the National Weather Service, and its core shall be formed from two existing divisions. There are also plans for extensive collaboration with universities, which will hopefully depoliticize things as well. Unfortunately, none of this is likely to help some people realize that weather isn’t the same thing as climate.