Edward Nikulin, weather model expert and head of the trading division at the European broker Mind Money.
Discover top fintech news and events!
Subscribe to FinTech Weekly's newsletter
Read by executives at JP Morgan, Coinbase, Blackrock, Klarna and more
Markets nowadays react directly to real climate impacts: extended droughts, mistimed heat waves, erratic rainfall, and temperature jolts that disrupt production forecasts and demand patterns. These events have become routine, not rare shocks.
As a result, traders, asset managers, and commodity firms now build climate and weather data into their core risk models. It’s no longer an afterthought; it stands alongside fundamentals and economic indicators as an essential factor in every decision. In response to this, we’ve built a sophisticated weather model that maps the links between structural inputs and tracks their real‑time impact on price formations.
Climate Risk Has Moved From Theory to P&L
Let me clarify the whole story and its implications.
Throughout my career, I’ve seen time and again that a single heat anomaly can ripple through agricultural yields, river transport, power demand, and storage capacities — often all at once. For example, in energy markets, abnormal temperature patterns frequently and protractedly distort demand curves. In agriculture, moisture stress during critical growth phases and crops can alter supply expectations months before harvest data confirms the damage.
These familiar recurrent patterns have forced me to rethink of how risk is modeled. Traditional approaches built on historical averages and stable seasonal patterns struggle when variability itself becomes the dominant signal. Climate volatility compresses reaction times and widens price distributions. Markets respond earlier, faster, and often more asymmetrically than before.
Why Weather Forecasts Aren’t Enough
One of the most common misconceptions is that integrating climate risk simply means tracking better weather forecasts. In practice, that approach barely scratches the surface.
What’s important to understand is that modern weather–commodity models rely on multiple layers of information. Near-term numerical weather prediction models are combined with hyper-local station data near production zones. Using satellite data, we can easily discern specifics like vegetation health, drought stress, and soil moisture — details that ground forecasts miss. The climate data adds even more depth, pulling in years of patterns such as ENSO, NAO, and PDO, which drive changes across whole regions and can linger for months or longer. But data alone cannot do magic.
The real challenge lies in their quantification, i.e. turning physical variables into market-relevant impacts. Surely, rainfall does not move prices by itself, but crop stress does. Temperature does not drive volatility; demand elasticity does. So the main focus of the model is to develop numerical, often non-linear formulas that routinely produce satisfactory outputs. In other words, effective models are only those that formalize these relationships through probabilistic frameworks that map environmental inputs to production, logistics, or consumption outcomes.
That said, the output is not a forecast, but a decision tool that displays probability-weighted scenarios, risk asymmetries, and time-shifted impact estimates. All these can be integrated into trading or hedging strategies using necessary customization and, overall, a great deal of discretion.
Climate Signals Are Probabilistic, Not Deterministic
One of the biggest risks in climate-driven analysis is false precision.
Climate data is high-dimensional, slow-moving, and emotionally vulnerable subject to media TOV and narratives. This creates fertile ground for overfitting, hindsight bias, and the illusion that more data automatically produces better decisions.
The truth is, climate trends don’t erase uncertainty per se. They reallocate it, thereby reducing the chance of sporadic disruptive inputs.
The most common mistakes include ignoring time lags between weather events and market responses, treating correlations as causal, or assuming climate trends imply linear outcomes. Markets don’t price climate change; they price the surprise relative to expectations.
That distinction matters. Treating climate signals as deterministic can lead to overconfidence and misaligned risk exposure, especially when extreme events cluster rather than unfold smoothly.
Agriculture and Energy: Where the Signals Are Sharpest
The influence of climate models is most visible in agriculture and energy — sectors where physical constraints collide directly with market expectations.
Thus, in agriculture, for example, persistent moisture balance indicators have become more important than individual storms. Soil moisture depletion, vegetation stress, and temperature extremes during sensitive growth stages increasingly define yield risk.
These signals emerge well before official reports, giving early movers a structural edge.
In energy markets, demand-side anomalies dominate. Winter heating volatility and summer heat stress on power systems can rapidly alter consumption patterns. Large-scale climate oscillations continue to shape regional imbalances, influencing everything from natural gas flows to electricity pricing.
In both cases, the key insight is persistence. Markets react less to isolated events and more to conditions that suggest sustained deviation from normal patterns.
The Organizational Challenge
The bottomline is that integrating climate data into market decisions is not just a technical problem, but rather an organizational one.
Hiring in-house meteorologists can really improve weather literacy among analysts, but it does not automatically solve the translation gap between environmental signals and pricing dynamics. That requires a hybrid skill set: people who understand physical mechanisms, regional specifics, data limitations, and, most importantly, how markets process information under uncertainty.
Researchers generally face two viable paths. Either they collaborate with teams that have already built this capability and can deliver actionable signals, or they invest in developing in-house climate desks that combine environmental science with market expertise. Both approaches are costly, and neither is optional anymore.
A Market Defined by Extremes
Looking ahead, climate change is unlikely to manifest as smooth trend shifts. Instead, it is amplifying volatility.
We can see this transition already happening: risk premiums are up, supply chains feel uncertain, and companies are zeroing in on adaptable logistics and smarter inventory strategies. Some regions that once seemed reliable just aren’t considered so anymore. Others have become essential — not because they’re cheaper, but because they can weather disruptions and keep operations running.
In this environment, climate models are no longer a niche solution. In fact, they are becoming a prerequisite for understanding how prices form in a world where the past is no longer a reliable guide.
Over time, I expect climate risk to be treated on commodity markets similarly to macro or volatility risk: not as a separate ESG category, but as a core component of market risk.
