Strategic Governance of AI Models in Earth Science

Large foundation models (FMs) are transforming Earth science by integrating heterogeneous multimodal data, such as multi-platform imagery, gridded reanalysis data, diverse geophysical and geochemical observations, and domain-specific text, to support tasks ranging from basic perception to advanced scientific discovery. This paper provides a unified review of Earth science foundation models (Earth FMs) through two complementary dimensions: depth, which traces the evolution of model capabilities from perception to multimodal reasoning and agentic scientific workflows, and breadth, which summarizes their expanding applications across the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, anthroposphere, and cryosphere, as well as coupled Earth system processes. Using this framework, we review representative multimodal Earth foundation models and compile more than 200 datasets and benchmarks spanning diverse Earth science tasks and modalities. We further discuss key challenges in multimodal data heterogeneity, scientific reliability and continual updating, scalability and sustainability, and the transition from foundation models to agentic and embodied Earth intelligence, and outline future directions toward more integrated, trustworthy, and actionable AI Earth scientists. Overall, this paper offers a structured roadmap for understanding the development of Earth foundation models from both capability depth and application breadth.

Forecasting the wide variety of high-impact weather events experienced globally is a challenge for both Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) models and it is critical that such models be properly verified before deployment. Although AI weather models are rapidly evolving, much of their evaluation is currently done either with a global-scale evaluation or by hand-picking a small number of case studies or a region. A widely-used open-source benchmark suite focusing on high-impact weather will help to drive the science forward for all scales of weather models, as it has for other AI fields. Here we introduce Extreme Weather Bench (EWB), a new community-driven benchmark suite that facilitates model validation and verification on a variety of high-impact hazards that matter to people around the globe. EWB provides a standard set of case studies (spanning across multiple spatial and temporal scales and different parts of the weather spectrum), observational data, impact-based metrics, and open-source code for users to evaluate their models. Verifying that a model works against a standard set of case studies, especially events that are high-impact for the general public, is a key piece of improving the trustworthiness of AI models. EWB will help to drive the science forward for all weather models, enabling true comparisons across models and evaluating models on specific high-impact phenomena through the use of case studies. EWB is a free open-source community-driven system and will continue to evolve to include additional phenomena, test cases and metrics in collaboration with the worldwide weather and forecast verification community.

Could it be that AI weather models are solving physical equations, although they may not be the equations used by conventional NWP models? We compute correlations of forecast skill and Centered Kernel Alignment, providing evidence that different AI weather models represent the atmosphere in similar ways, despite differences in architecture and capacity. We argue that the architecture and training of the AI models constrains the form of the physical laws that they might simulate. In particular, we propose that the models implement a particle description of the atmosphere, where the latent variables at each mesh point correspond to the position of a particle in the high dimensional latent space. We hypothesize that the movement of the particles follows a gradient flow in the latent space towards a minimum of a learned free energy functional. Analysis of the GraphCast and Aurora models show that they make changes on large spatial scales in the early processor layers and move to smaller scale with increasing layer depth, consistent with the gradient flow hypothesis.