Climate Research Priorities: The 2025 Playbook

Climate Research Priorities: The 2025 Playbook

This playbook gives a clear, usable map of the top research gaps in climate science for 2025 and a simple way to pick what to study or fund next. It is for researchers, policy advisers, program officers, and journalists who need a fast, evidence-based view of climate change research gaps.

Short answer: Five macro-areas

• Data & monitoring — close observational and indicator gaps that block adaptation tracking.
• Health & equity — link climate impacts to health outcomes and fair solutions.
• Infrastructure & resilience — study cascading risks for critical systems.
• Mitigation technologies — accelerate understanding of carbon removal and mineralization.
• Governance & finance — research how money and rules shape equitable action.

For detailed evidence, see the National Academy of Medicine climate and health agenda, the NCBI review of climate and health research gaps, and UN reports on adaptation and emissions at UN Climate Reports.

Top 10 climate research priorities for 2025

Use this table as your quick reference. Each item links to a primary source or a recent summary from expert institutions.

Priority	Key question	Why urgent
1. High-quality monitoring & indicators	How can governments and researchers close climate data gaps and build a consistent monitoring framework?	Adaptation planning needs reliable indicators; the UK Adaptation Progress 2025 flags weak indicator evidence.
2. Climate & health equity	Which exposures drive health disparities and which interventions reduce harm equitably?	NAM and NCBI emphasize gaps at the intersection of climate, health, and equity.
3. Critical infrastructure risk cascades	How do failures in one system (power, water, transport) spread to others?	Research shows growing interconnected risks for cities and regions; see 10 Insights.
4. Hydromet services & forecasting	Which investments in weather and hydrological services most reduce losses?	The UN Hydromet Gap Report highlights weak links in vulnerable countries.
5. Adaptation finance effectiveness	What financial mechanisms actually close the adaptation gap for vulnerable populations?	Germanwatch and UN analyses show adaptation finance remains far short of needs.
6. Carbon removal & mineralization science	What are realistic pathways, costs, and risks for scaling mineralization and engineered removal?	Funders and innovators need better evidence; see CZI summaries.
7. Urban climate solutions	Which city-scale measures deliver both adaptation and mitigation benefits?	Cities are key agents for change; read Nature Climate Change on cities.
8. Emissions trajectories & policy responses	Which policy mixes actually reduce national emissions fast enough to meet 1.5°C?	Production and emissions gap reports (e.g., SEI) show growing shortfalls.
9. Societal acceptance & behavior change	What frames and interventions increase public support for rapid mitigation?	Social research in the scientific consensus context is crucial for policy uptake.
10. Integrated earth system & socioeconomic models	How can models better include social, political, and cultural behavior?	Model improvements help decision-making; see modeling recommendations in climate research priorities.

How to prioritize projects: the Research Priority Scorecard (brief)

Use the scorecard to turn these priorities into a ranked list you can defend to funders or reviewers. The scorecard has five criteria: Impact, Feasibility, Urgency, Equity, and Data Availability. Score each 1–5 and multiply weights you choose (example below).

Step-by-step

1. List candidate topics (use the Top 10 above).
2. Score each topic on the five criteria.
3. Apply weights that match your mission (example: funder might weight Impact=0.35, Equity=0.25).
4. Rank topics by weighted score.
5. Write a one-paragraph justification citing one primary source per topic.

Download or build a simple spreadsheet following this method to get a defensible shortlist in under an hour. For framing on health-focused priorities, see the NAM climate and health page.

Quick methods to close common gaps

• Data gaps: Coordinate national statistics agencies with private-sector partners and use remote sensing to fill meteorological station gaps; the CCC recommends better coordination.
• Equity and community engagement: Co-design studies with affected communities and include qualitative social science methods; see the NCBI domain on community engagement.
• Modeling limits: Invest in cross-disciplinary teams that pair social scientists with Earth system modelers (recommendation in BAMS).
• Finance research: Study flows of adaptation finance, track outcomes, and connect investments to local adaptation indicators (UN and Germanwatch analyses are useful starting points).

One clear data point and practical implication

Recent research shows the current annual global average temperature is the highest in the past 10,000 years. Practical implication: research and policy must treat extreme heat and ecosystem thresholds as immediate priorities for health and infrastructure planning.

Examples of fundable, high-impact projects

• Build an open, standardized adaptation indicator set for a region and pilot it with local delivery agencies (answers the monitoring & indicators priority).
• Run a randomized trial of a heat-health early warning system in a city with linked hospital outcome data (answers climate & health equity).
• Field-scale trials of accelerated carbon mineralization pathways with full lifecycle assessment (answers carbon removal research).

Where to look for evidence and partners

Primary sources and program pages to consult:

• NAM research and innovation in climate change and health
• NCBI climate and health research gaps
• Chan Zuckerberg Initiative summaries of breakthrough research
• 10 New Insights in Climate Science and NASA climate resources
• UN Climate Reports including adaptation and hydromet analyses
• SEI Production Gap Report 2025 for mitigation gaps

Common FAQs

How does this playbook differ from long reports?

This playbook synthesizes cross-disciplinary findings into a short, usable prioritization tool. It points to long reports for evidence while giving an action path you can run in a day.

Can small teams use the scorecard?

Yes. Small labs and foundations can use lighter weights and one- or two-person reviews to get a defensible shortlist quickly.

Is there a ready-made scorecard file?

This article points you to primary sources. Build a one-sheet spreadsheet with the five criteria above. For health-specific metrics, consult the US EPA climate and health research page.

Next steps for readers

1. Pick 3 candidate topics from the Top 10.
2. Score them using the 5-criteria scorecard and set weights that match your goals.
3. Consult one primary source linked above and draft a short funding or research brief.

"Research that connects data, equity, and decision use is the highest-value investment for 2025."

Author note: I chose practical emphasis because strong, cross-disciplinary priorities close the gap between knowledge and action. One funding trend to watch is increased interest in city-scale resilience paired with mitigation research; another is a push for measurable adaptation indicators from national governments.

Want the scorecard template? Start a new spreadsheet with the columns: Topic, Impact, Feasibility, Urgency, Equity, Data, Weights, Weighted Score. Test one topic now.

Selected sources throughout: NAM, NCBI, CCC, UN, CZI, 10 Insights, SEI, NASA, BAMS.