Welcome back to Meteorology Matters.
I'm your host, Rob Jones.
And we always talk about some pretty fascinating
weather phenomena, but today we're-
Shifting gears.
Yeah, shifting gears a little bit
to examine something that really impacts
the very foundation of meteorology.
And that is the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
You probably know it as NOAA.
Right, and it's about so much more
than just tomorrow's forecast.
NOAA plays a critical role in tracking hurricanes,
understanding climate change,
and its impact extends far beyond US borders.
Right, it's global, so what's happening at NOAA
that has everybody talking?
Well, you know, these new restrictions
from NOAA headquarters are causing a great deal
of concern among scientists,
both in the US and internationally.
Can you give us some specifics?
What kind of restrictions do we talk about?
Well, for instance, emails and virtual meetings
with foreign nationals now require approval
from headquarters.
Wow.
And get this, all international collaborations
need to be documented and greenlit
by a Trump political appointee.
Every single interact.
Every single one.
That seems like it would create a huge bottleneck.
How are scientists reacting to these new procedures?
I've been speaking with some NOAA scientists,
and the overall sentiment is one of unease.
You know, they've described the situation
as a crackdown on climate,
and some have even expressed feeling disturbed
and terrified.
That's concerning.
Can you share an example of how these restrictions
are playing out in practice?
Sure, one scientist told me they had to put
their research on hold because they were waiting
for approval to simply email a colleague in Europe.
Wow.
It's really highlighting how routine
international collaboration is in this field.
It's amazing to think that critical work,
like hurricane prediction, could be stalled
because of bureaucratic red tape.
What's the international response been
to this shift at NOAA?
European scientists who often collaborate closely
with NOAA are very worried.
They're appalled and saddened by these restrictions.
And as one climate scientist at the Copernicus Agency
pointed out, the climate crisis is a global issue.
Right.
It demands international cooperation.
Makes sense.
We're all in this together after all.
But how might these new policies impact
the national weather service?
Right.
The NWS is a critical part of NOAA, right?
Absolutely.
They're responsible for all US weather forecasts,
and they provide crucial atmospheric
and oceanic data globally.
The NWS relies heavily on international collaboration
and this new level of bureaucracy
could significantly delay critical data sharing,
making it harder to produce accurate forecasts.
Wow.
It's important to remember that this data
is used globally.
Right.
The ripple effects of these restrictions
could be felt worldwide.
It sounds like we're talking about potential impacts
to public safety then, not just scientific research.
Exactly.
And on top of that, there are also rumors swirling
about potential budget and staffing cuts at NOAA.
Yes, I've heard whispers about that as well.
What's the latest on that front?
Well, word on the street is that employees
are bracing for a potential 50% reduction in staff
and budget cuts of around 30%.
Wow, 50%.
That's a massive reduction in workforce.
What's the driving force behind such drastic cuts?
Well, it appears there are multiple factors at play here.
Russell Vote, the architect of Project 2025,
has been pushing for substantial budget cuts
across the government, including a proposed 38% cut to NOAA.
What is Project 2025 and why is NOAA being targeted?
Project 2025 is a plan focused on shrinking
the federal government.
Vote wants to curb what he calls excessive mission creep
and halt what he calls steadily increasing climate
extremism within the department.
So he sees NOAA's work on climate change as extraneous.
That's quite a departure from the view of many scientists
and international organizations.
It certainly is.
And that difference of perspective
really underscore the potential consequences
of these budget cuts.
Scientists are deeply concerned that such drastic reductions
will severely impact NOAA's ability
to maintain a functional public weather service.
Right.
As we've discussed, that has implications not just
for the US, but for the whole world.
There's also concern that access to NOAA's data
could be restricted abroad further hindering
global scientific collaboration.
It seems almost unbelievable that at a time
when understanding and addressing climate change
is more urgent than ever, we'd be
talking about dismantling the very organization
tasked with doing so.
But it seems there may be even more to this story.
I've heard rumblings about a push to privatize the National
Weather Service.
You're right.
That idea has been gaining traction among some policy experts
within the Trump administration.
Privatizing a crucial public service
like the National Weather Service.
That sounds like a pretty radical proposition.
It is.
However, it's important to point out
that a recent study found that the National Weather Service
provides a staggering return on investment
for the American people.
For every dollar invested, it generates $73 in value.
$73 for every dollar invested.
That's an incredible return.
Why would anyone want to tamper with a system that's
clearly providing such immense value?
It's a valid question.
And many people share your concern,
including Greg Carbon, the former chief at the Forecast
Operations Branch for the NWS's Weather Prediction Center.
He has been very vocal about the potential dangers
of privatizing the NWS, emphasizing
that weather and climate services are
an essential safeguard for our nation's security, economy,
and well-being.
So we've got budget cuts looming the specter of privatization,
and now this talk of mission creep and climate extremism.
It feels like there's a real tongue of war going on
over the future of NOAA.
You're hitting the nail on the head there.
And just when you think it can't get any more complicated,
enter Elon Musk and his Department of Government
Efficiency, or DOGE, as it's known.
DOGE like the meme, this can't be real, can it?
It's very real, I assure you.
And DOGE has been making its presence felt within NOAA.
They've taken control of internal websites,
removed pages related to diversity and inclusion,
and are currently gathering information
on programs that might clash with Trump's executive order
on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Wait, so they're actively scrubbing diversity initiatives
from NOAA.
That's a whole other conversation.
We may need to have it a future episode.
But what about NOAA's scientific mission?
How is DOGE impacting that?
There are reports that NOAA staff
have been asked to compile lists of all climate-related
programs the agency runs or funds, which is definitely
raising eyebrows.
Some people see this as a sign that DOGE might be shifting
priorities away from climate research.
This is all starting to feel like something out
of a science fiction film, a government agency
under immense pressure, mysterious new players pulling
strings the fate of the world hanging in the balance.
But in all seriousness, this is deeply concerning.
What does all of this mean for the future
of international collaboration on weather and climate research?
There's a palpable sense of anxiety
among European scientists who collaborate with NOAA.
They're worried about the potential disruption
to data sharing and research partnerships.
One atmospheric scientist at Copenicus
told me that while it's not yet clear if access to US data
will be restricted, such an extreme scenario
remains plausible and could have significant consequences.
So the world is watching and waiting,
hoping that things don't spiral out of control.
That's a good way to put it.
Peter Thorn, a climate scientist at Maineath University
who has worked extensively with both Copernicus and NOAA,
emphasized that the US has been a leader in climate
and weather science for decades, particularly
in fundamental climate observations.
He pointed out that if NOAA were to go dark,
it wouldn't be an existential crisis for the field,
but it wouldn't be pretty.
It would be a significant setback.
This episode definitely took a more serious turn
than I anticipated.
We started out talking about the fascinating world
of meteorology, and now I have to admit,
all this news has me feeling a bit stormy.
I'm sure our listeners are feeling it too.
We've covered a lot of ground, but there's still much to discuss.
We've only just scratched the surface.
Exactly.
We'll dig deeper into the potential impacts of these changes
and what they might mean for our ability to predict and prepare
for future weather events and climate change in part two.
Don't go anywhere, folks.
We'll be right back after this.
Welcome back to Meteorology Matters.
Before we went to a break, we were
discussing some pretty significant changes
happening at NOAA, and it's a lot to process.
Yeah, it is indeed.
We've talked about restrictions on communication,
possible budget cuts, and even the potential for privatization.
And the scientific community is really
feeling the impact of these shifts.
It's clear this is a complex situation,
but let's try to break it down.
What do all of these changes mean for the everyday person?
What are the real world consequences if NOAA is weakened?
That's the key question.
And unfortunately, a less effective NOAA translates
to a less safe and less informed public.
A great example is weather forecasting.
The National Weather Service, which is part of NOAA,
provides the forecasts that keep us safe during severe weather
events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and blizzards.
It's true.
Those warnings are lifesavers.
And I always tell people, don't mess with your local meteorologist.
We're the ones telling you to take cover.
You're absolutely right.
Those warnings are vital.
But if the NWS faces staffing shortages
and budget cuts, it could be stretched thin,
leading to slower and less accurate forecasts.
And it's not just about predicting the weather.
It's about communicating that information effectively
to the public so they can take appropriate action.
So a forecast is only as good as its ability
to reach the people who need it most.
Exactly.
We could end up with less accurate forecasts being
delivered less effectively.
That's a dangerous combination.
Precisely.
And these changes could impact more than just immediate weather
events.
Consider the long-term effects of climate change.
Right.
NOAA plays a crucial role in monitoring and understanding
those climate trends, providing the data that
informs policy decisions and helps us adapt to a changing
world.
If NOAA's ability to collect and analyze climate data
is compromised, could that have a ripple effect
on our understanding of climate change
and our ability to respond effectively?
Absolutely.
We could be making decisions based
on incomplete or outdated information.
It would be like navigating uncharted territory
without a map or compass.
Trying to understand the rationale
behind some of these changes, what is the ultimate goal here?
It's a complicated question.
It seems there are several factors converging.
There's a push for smaller government and reduced spending,
which often translates to budget cuts for agencies like NOAA.
But as we discussed earlier, the NWS
provides an incredible return on investment.
It doesn't seem logical to cut funding for a service that
provides so much value.
I agree.
But we also have to consider the ideological component
the skepticism towards climate science
and the perception of mission creep
within agencies like NOAA.
So are we potentially sacrificing scientific progress
and public safety in the name of ideology?
That's a tough question to answer.
But there's no doubt that those factors are playing
a role in these decisions.
And let's not forget about the possibility of privatization.
Right.
Powerful interests see weather forecasting and climate data
as potential sources of profit.
So instead of a publicly funded service
that prioritizes the well-being of its citizens,
we could end up with a system driven by profit.
It's a real possibility and one that should give us all pause.
You've painted a pretty bleak picture.
But are there any potential upsides here?
Could this period of upseaval lead to any positive outcomes?
It's a good question.
There's always a chance that this could force NOAA
to find new efficiencies and become more innovative
in how it operates.
This restructuring could lead to a streamlining of processes
or a renewed focus on core missions.
It's certainly possible.
And it's important to remember that the scientific community
is resilient and resourceful.
Scientists are deeply committed to their work,
and they will find ways to continue
advancing our understanding of weather and climate,
even in the face of obstacles.
That's heartening to hear.
But it still feels like we're entering a new era full
of unknowns.
What can our listeners do to stay informed and engaged
on this issue?
Staying informed is key.
I encourage everyone to follow reputable news sources that
cover science and the environment,
as well as the work of NOAA and the NWS.
There are also advocacy groups working
to protect these institutions and ensure that science continues
to inform policy decisions.
And of course, you can always tune into meteorology matters
for updates and in-depth discussions
on these very topics.
Absolutely.
But what about more direct action?
Can listeners make a difference beyond just staying informed?
Absolutely.
Let your elected officials know you support NOAA
and its mission advocate for robust funding for the agency
and oppose any efforts to privatize
the National Weather Service.
So pick up the phone, write an email, make your voice heard.
It really can make a difference.
It absolutely can.
And don't underestimate the power of collective action.
Many organizations are working to protect NOAA
and advocate for science-based policy.
Consider supporting these groups,
whether through donations or volunteering.
There's strength in numbers.
And speaking of reaching a wider audience,
social media can play a powerful role as well.
Sharing articles, engaging in discussions,
and amplifying the voices of scientists and advocates
can go a long way in shaping public opinion
and putting pressure on decision-makers.
I completely agree.
Social media can be a force for change.
And on that note, let's not forget
the importance of science literacy.
Encourage curiosity about weather and climate
in your communities.
Support science education programs.
Visit science museums and talk about these topics
with your friends and family.
I love that.
The more we can foster a sense of wonder
and appreciation for science,
the more likely we are to protect the institutions
that make scientific progress possible.
You're absolutely right.
Ultimately, the future of NOAA and our ability
to address the challenges of weather and climate change
depends on an engaged and informed public.
It's our responsibility to raise our voices,
support science, and hold our leaders accountable.
Well said.
This deep dive has been a whirlwind of information.
We've explored a lot of complex issues
and it's easy to feel overwhelmed.
But I also feel a sense of hope.
Hope that by working together, we can ensure
that NOAA continues to be a leader in scientific excellence
and a vital resource for generations to come.
I share that hope.
It's been a pleasure exploring these important issues
with you.
And to our listeners, thank you for joining us on this journey.
Remember, stay informed, stay in age,
and keep those weather radios handy.
Before we wrap up, I want to remind everyone
that you can find more episodes of Meteorology Matters
on my YouTube channel, Rob Jones Hurricane.
And don't forget to follow me on Instagram and TikTok
for more weather insights.
You can find me on Instagram at meteorologist
and on TikTok at TV meteorologist.
We'll be right back after this.
Welcome back to Meteorology Matters, everyone.
This is part three of our in-depth look
at the challenges and uncertainties facing NOAA.
It's been a thought-provoking discussion so far.
But I want to shift our focus now from concerns to solutions.
What can we as citizens who care about science
and the planet's future do to make a difference?
It's heartening to see this groundswell of support
for NOAA.
People recognize just how crucial this agency is
to our lives.
So where do we begin?
Well, first and foremost, knowledge is power.
Stay informed about these issues.
The proposed budget cuts, the possibility of privatization,
and the efforts to restrict scientific collaboration.
Share this information with your friends and family.
The more people who understand what's at stake, the better.
It's all about raising awareness and making sure
these crucial issues remain in the public eye.
What else can we do?
Use your voice.
Contact elected officials.
Let them know you support NOAA and its mission advocate
for robust funding for the agency and oppose any efforts
to privatize essential services like the National Weather
Service.
So make your voice heard.
Pick up the phone.
Write an email.
Make it known that these issues matter to you.
What about getting involved with organizations?
Absolutely.
There are numerous groups working tirelessly to protect NOAA
and promote science-based policymaking.
Consider joining or supporting these organizations,
whether it's through donations or volunteering your time.
Strength in numbers is important.
And speaking of reaching a broad audience,
let's not forget about the power of social media.
Sharing articles, engaging in discussions,
and amplifying the voices of scientists and advocates
can go a long way in shaping public opinion and influencing
decision makers.
Social media has definitely become a force for change.
And while we're talking about shaping public opinion,
let's also consider the importance of science literacy.
Encourage curiosity about weather and climate
in your communities.
Support science education programs,
visit science museums, and start conversations
about these topics with the people around you.
I love that idea.
The more we can cultivate a sense of wonder
and appreciation for science, the better equipped
will be to protect the institutions that
drive scientific progress.
I couldn't agree more.
Ultimately, the future of NOAA and indeed our collective
ability to address the challenges of weather and climate
change hinges on an engaged and informed public.
It's up to all of us to use our voices,
support scientific endeavors, and hold our leaders accountable.
It's been a whirlwind of a discussion covering
a lot of complex territory.
But amidst the uncertainty and concern,
I'm also feeling a sense of hope.
Hope that by working together, we can
ensure that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration continues to be a beacon of scientific excellence
and a valuable resource for generations to come.
I share that hope.
It's been a pleasure exploring these critical issues
with you today.
And to our listeners, thank you for joining us on this journey.
Remember, stay informed, stay engaged,
and as always, keep those weather radios handy.
For more episodes of Meteorology Matters,
head over to my YouTube channel, Rob Jones Hurricane.
And don't forget to follow me on Instagram at TikTok
for more weather insights.
You can find me on Instagram at meteorologist and on TikTok
at TV Meteorologist.
Until next time, stay curious and stay safe.