WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.379 Welcome to Meteorology Matters, everyone. Today, 00:00:02.480 --> 00:00:03.980 we're going to take a look at some pretty big 00:00:03.980 --> 00:00:06.299 changes going on in the institutions that study 00:00:06.299 --> 00:00:08.599 weather and climate. And we'll be discussing 00:00:08.599 --> 00:00:10.820 a really interesting debate about just where 00:00:10.820 --> 00:00:14.619 climate science stands at this moment. You've 00:00:14.619 --> 00:00:16.300 brought some really fascinating stuff for us 00:00:16.300 --> 00:00:18.780 to dig into today, an article about shake -ups 00:00:18.780 --> 00:00:21.739 at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 00:00:22.280 --> 00:00:24.460 I'll just call it NOAA from now on. Sure. NOAA. 00:00:24.640 --> 00:00:26.600 And also a really thought -provoking piece from 00:00:26.600 --> 00:00:30.059 nature that takes a close look at how our knowledge 00:00:30.059 --> 00:00:32.600 about the climate is changing. I think our aim 00:00:32.600 --> 00:00:34.600 today should be to really break these sources 00:00:34.600 --> 00:00:37.479 down for our listeners. You know, pick out the 00:00:37.479 --> 00:00:39.500 most important takeaways and maybe even find 00:00:39.500 --> 00:00:41.780 some surprising links between them. Absolutely. 00:00:42.299 --> 00:00:44.939 So let's kick things off with the news from NOAA. 00:00:45.159 --> 00:00:47.479 One of the articles you shared, it's from Axios, 00:00:47.859 --> 00:00:50.659 talks about NOAA merging its Climate Prediction 00:00:50.659 --> 00:00:53.439 Center, that's the CPC, with another branch of 00:00:53.439 --> 00:00:56.820 the organization. And get this, the article cites 00:00:56.820 --> 00:00:59.479 anonymous sources who say that one of the main 00:00:59.479 --> 00:01:02.859 reasons for this move is a worry that the CPC, 00:01:03.219 --> 00:01:05.459 simply because of what it's called, might be 00:01:05.459 --> 00:01:08.299 targeted for budget cuts. Oh, wow. It's kind 00:01:08.299 --> 00:01:10.219 of alarming, you know, especially when you think 00:01:10.219 --> 00:01:12.400 about the fact that other federal agencies have 00:01:12.400 --> 00:01:15.040 actually cut funding for climate research before 00:01:15.040 --> 00:01:17.459 and even removed climate change data from their 00:01:17.459 --> 00:01:20.319 websites. It really does highlight, you know, 00:01:20.579 --> 00:01:24.209 the, how should I put this, the difficult atmosphere 00:01:24.209 --> 00:01:26.650 surrounding climate -related work within government 00:01:26.650 --> 00:01:28.829 right now. The idea that just the name Climate 00:01:28.829 --> 00:01:30.650 Prediction Center could be seen as a liability, 00:01:30.849 --> 00:01:33.109 well, it's concerning to say the least. Yeah. 00:01:33.549 --> 00:01:35.450 The article does say, though, that the CPC is 00:01:35.450 --> 00:01:36.950 expected to stay a separate center, at least 00:01:36.950 --> 00:01:38.769 for now, while they work out this integration. 00:01:39.349 --> 00:01:42.049 And their primary function, monitoring and predicting 00:01:42.049 --> 00:01:44.969 things like El Nino and La Nina and issuing those 00:01:44.969 --> 00:01:47.349 seasonal outlooks, it's a pretty big deal. Yeah. 00:01:47.489 --> 00:01:49.540 Hugely important. I mean that information has 00:01:49.540 --> 00:01:52.579 a huge impact on so many different sectors like 00:01:52.579 --> 00:01:56.390 agriculture and energy. It gives them those critical 00:01:56.390 --> 00:01:59.250 early warnings about big shifts in weather patterns 00:01:59.250 --> 00:02:01.450 that are coming down the line. But it's important 00:02:01.450 --> 00:02:03.730 to remember that the CPC isn't solely focused 00:02:03.730 --> 00:02:06.849 on tracking human -caused climate change or making 00:02:06.849 --> 00:02:09.509 those really long -term projections, the ones 00:02:09.509 --> 00:02:12.849 that go way beyond just a season or two. That 00:02:12.849 --> 00:02:15.250 responsibility actually falls to other parts 00:02:15.250 --> 00:02:17.610 of NOAA, like the National Centers for Environmental 00:02:17.610 --> 00:02:20.250 Information. Right. It's such a critical distinction 00:02:20.250 --> 00:02:22.030 to make, too. When we're talking about the CPC, 00:02:22.389 --> 00:02:25.229 we're mainly talking about the shorter cyclical 00:02:25.229 --> 00:02:27.490 climate patterns that have a pretty big impact 00:02:27.490 --> 00:02:30.169 on us right now. The long -term trends and the 00:02:30.169 --> 00:02:32.610 influence of, you know, human activity. That 00:02:32.610 --> 00:02:35.090 stuff is monitored and analyzed by different 00:02:35.090 --> 00:02:38.530 groups within NOAA. So if the CPC is perceived 00:02:38.530 --> 00:02:41.789 as being under threat, it really means our ability 00:02:41.789 --> 00:02:44.750 to forecast and prepare for things like El Nino 00:02:44.750 --> 00:02:47.229 and La Nina events, which could lead to widespread 00:02:47.229 --> 00:02:49.210 drought or flooding. That's what's at stake. 00:02:49.400 --> 00:02:51.340 And, you know, speaking of that bigger picture, 00:02:51.500 --> 00:02:53.719 the Axios article also brings up something interesting. 00:02:53.939 --> 00:02:57.060 It seems like NOAA is kind of downplaying the 00:02:57.060 --> 00:02:59.759 public visibility of its climate change related 00:02:59.759 --> 00:03:02.680 work. They've paused those monthly media calls 00:03:02.680 --> 00:03:04.979 that used to focus on global climate monitoring, 00:03:05.340 --> 00:03:07.300 and they've even changed the names of some of 00:03:07.300 --> 00:03:10.340 their monthly reports. And on top of that, there's 00:03:10.340 --> 00:03:13.099 talk of potential staff cuts within NOAA, which, 00:03:13.340 --> 00:03:15.349 well, it's understandable that people are worried 00:03:15.349 --> 00:03:17.509 about that. Plus, there's been discussion, the 00:03:17.509 --> 00:03:19.349 article says, about the current administration 00:03:19.349 --> 00:03:22.689 maybe considering privatizing or downsizing the 00:03:22.689 --> 00:03:25.210 National Weather Service. And experts are concerned 00:03:25.210 --> 00:03:27.349 that, you know, that could really upset the balance 00:03:27.349 --> 00:03:29.349 that's already in place, this collaboration between 00:03:29.349 --> 00:03:32.110 the government, universities, and the private 00:03:32.110 --> 00:03:34.750 sector when it comes to gathering and sharing 00:03:34.750 --> 00:03:37.590 all that crucial weather and climate data. And 00:03:37.590 --> 00:03:39.750 the article also points out that the director 00:03:39.750 --> 00:03:41.370 of the Weather Prediction Center, you know, the 00:03:41.370 --> 00:03:43.590 one that focuses on the shorter range fork, well, 00:03:43.689 --> 00:03:45.830 they'll be overseeing the CPC during this whole 00:03:45.830 --> 00:03:47.389 merger. Yeah, I think it's definitely something 00:03:47.389 --> 00:03:49.810 to keep an eye on. I mean, both centers, they 00:03:49.810 --> 00:03:51.909 both deal with forecasting, but their time horizons 00:03:51.909 --> 00:03:54.830 and specific areas of expertise are quite different. 00:03:55.090 --> 00:03:57.050 It does raise questions about how priorities 00:03:57.050 --> 00:03:59.469 might change and how resources are going to be 00:03:59.469 --> 00:04:02.909 allocated going forward. And that decreased public 00:04:02.909 --> 00:04:05.009 profile of climate change work, well, that's 00:04:05.009 --> 00:04:07.120 a significant development too. I mean, even if 00:04:07.120 --> 00:04:09.719 the data itself is still accessible, having less 00:04:09.719 --> 00:04:12.060 public discussion about it, it can easily lead 00:04:12.060 --> 00:04:14.319 to less public awareness and understanding of 00:04:14.319 --> 00:04:16.699 these crucial trends and the ongoing research 00:04:16.699 --> 00:04:19.439 that NOAA is doing. Absolutely. All right, let's 00:04:19.439 --> 00:04:21.839 switch gears a bit and turn to that perspective 00:04:21.839 --> 00:04:24.220 piece in nature called The Other Climate Crisis. 00:04:24.939 --> 00:04:27.259 The authors, Tiffany A. Shaw and Bjorn Stevens, 00:04:27.839 --> 00:04:30.300 they lay out a pretty compelling argument. They 00:04:30.300 --> 00:04:32.560 say that the main way climate science has been 00:04:32.560 --> 00:04:34.600 tackling things, they call it the standard approach, 00:04:35.100 --> 00:04:38.550 is basically hitting a wall. This standard approach, 00:04:38.689 --> 00:04:40.689 the way they explain it, has been pretty effective 00:04:40.689 --> 00:04:42.930 in explaining some of those big global climate 00:04:42.930 --> 00:04:44.889 patterns we've observed. You know, things like 00:04:44.889 --> 00:04:47.189 why land areas are warming up faster than the 00:04:47.189 --> 00:04:49.430 oceans and why the Arctic is warming so rapidly. 00:04:49.949 --> 00:04:52.290 And they say that this success was based on the 00:04:52.290 --> 00:04:53.829 idea that there's a clear distinction between 00:04:53.829 --> 00:04:56.250 large scale and small scale weather and climate 00:04:56.250 --> 00:04:59.430 phenomena and on applying fundamental laws of 00:04:59.430 --> 00:05:01.689 physics. It's kind of like that initial broad 00:05:01.689 --> 00:05:03.629 strokes understanding of how the planet reacts 00:05:03.629 --> 00:05:05.850 to having more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 00:05:05.910 --> 00:05:09.459 Yeah. Exactly. The standard approach has been 00:05:09.459 --> 00:05:12.040 the bedrock of a lot of our current understanding, 00:05:12.079 --> 00:05:13.639 wouldn't you say? Yeah. It allowed us to get 00:05:13.639 --> 00:05:16.779 a grasp on the basic mechanisms driving global 00:05:16.779 --> 00:05:20.100 climate change and to build models that can actually 00:05:20.100 --> 00:05:23.100 predict these responses on a large scale. The 00:05:23.100 --> 00:05:25.040 idea that there was this neat separation between 00:05:25.040 --> 00:05:27.339 these different scales, well, it kind of simplified 00:05:27.339 --> 00:05:29.709 what is an incredibly complex system. You know, 00:05:29.810 --> 00:05:31.750 it made it easier to analyze and predict things 00:05:31.750 --> 00:05:34.310 at the global level. Yeah. But here's the thing. 00:05:34.610 --> 00:05:36.930 Shaw and Stevens argue that as the planet keeps 00:05:36.930 --> 00:05:39.449 warming, we're starting to see these gaps between 00:05:39.449 --> 00:05:41.430 what's actually happening out there in the real 00:05:41.430 --> 00:05:43.350 world and what the standard approach would have 00:05:43.350 --> 00:05:45.860 predicted. And these discrepancies are particularly 00:05:45.860 --> 00:05:47.819 noticeable when we zoom in and look at things 00:05:47.819 --> 00:05:50.839 on a regional level. At the same time, they point 00:05:50.839 --> 00:05:53.439 out that these new computational methods are 00:05:53.439 --> 00:05:55.439 giving us different ways to look at these problems, 00:05:55.639 --> 00:05:58.500 new tools in our toolbox, so to speak. They actually 00:05:58.500 --> 00:06:01.379 draw a parallel to these like turning point moments 00:06:01.379 --> 00:06:04.319 in other areas of science. You know, when a bunch 00:06:04.319 --> 00:06:06.420 of unexplained observations eventually start 00:06:06.420 --> 00:06:08.560 to chip away at the confidence people have in 00:06:08.560 --> 00:06:10.759 the prevailing theory. I think the comparison 00:06:10.759 --> 00:06:13.480 to scientific revolutions in other fields is 00:06:13.360 --> 00:06:16.620 really, really insightful. It suggests that we 00:06:16.620 --> 00:06:19.060 might be standing at a pretty important crossroads 00:06:19.060 --> 00:06:21.220 in climate science. You know, the fact that we're 00:06:21.220 --> 00:06:23.079 seeing more and more of these regional discrepancies, 00:06:23.139 --> 00:06:25.740 it's not just a bit of random noise. It could 00:06:25.740 --> 00:06:27.459 be a sign that there's a fundamental limitation 00:06:27.459 --> 00:06:28.980 in how we're currently thinking about things. 00:06:29.300 --> 00:06:31.800 Yeah. And the nature piece emphasizes that while 00:06:31.800 --> 00:06:33.920 the standard approach has, for the most part, 00:06:34.100 --> 00:06:36.540 focused on those big planetary scale dynamics, 00:06:37.120 --> 00:06:39.000 many of the discrepancies that are building up 00:06:39.000 --> 00:06:41.480 are actually happening at those smaller regional 00:06:41.480 --> 00:06:44.459 scales. This might suggest that maybe that assumption 00:06:44.459 --> 00:06:46.560 that we started with about a clean separation 00:06:46.560 --> 00:06:49.279 between the big and the small stuff, it might 00:06:49.279 --> 00:06:52.160 not be holding up so well. Or it could be that 00:06:52.160 --> 00:06:54.060 there are really important processes happening 00:06:54.060 --> 00:06:56.759 at smaller scales that our current dominant way 00:06:56.759 --> 00:06:59.980 of thinking just isn't capturing very well. So 00:06:59.980 --> 00:07:01.899 while we've got to handle on the global warming 00:07:01.899 --> 00:07:04.899 trend overall, accurately predicting exactly 00:07:04.899 --> 00:07:07.199 how that's going to play out in your specific 00:07:07.199 --> 00:07:09.920 neighborhood is proving to be a lot trickier. 00:07:10.089 --> 00:07:12.889 And this is where things start to get really 00:07:12.889 --> 00:07:15.910 real for people. I mean, if the way large scale 00:07:15.910 --> 00:07:18.250 and small scale climate interact is actually 00:07:18.250 --> 00:07:20.649 more complicated than we thought, or if there 00:07:20.649 --> 00:07:23.069 are important regional factors that our global 00:07:23.069 --> 00:07:25.290 models aren't fully accounting for, well then 00:07:25.290 --> 00:07:27.649 our ability to give people accurate and actually 00:07:27.649 --> 00:07:30.459 useful climate information. at the local level. 00:07:30.680 --> 00:07:32.600 And that's the level where people actually feel 00:07:32.600 --> 00:07:34.600 the impacts. It's going to be limited. For sure. 00:07:35.220 --> 00:07:37.319 So the authors go on to talk about what these 00:07:37.319 --> 00:07:39.879 potential problems mean for policy, whether it's 00:07:39.879 --> 00:07:42.240 a full blown crisis or just a period of really 00:07:42.240 --> 00:07:44.779 significant change in the science. They argue 00:07:44.779 --> 00:07:47.060 that going forward, we need to use the actual 00:07:47.060 --> 00:07:49.000 climate signals that we're observing out there 00:07:49.000 --> 00:07:51.660 in the real world to really put those underlying 00:07:51.660 --> 00:07:54.139 assumptions and processes that drive warming 00:07:54.139 --> 00:07:56.540 to the test. We need to develop new ideas that 00:07:56.540 --> 00:07:59.199 can actually be tested and promote a more integrated 00:07:59.199 --> 00:08:01.439 way of thinking about the climate system, you 00:08:01.439 --> 00:08:03.379 know, one that can bridge the gaps between the 00:08:03.379 --> 00:08:05.779 different branches of climate science. The policy 00:08:05.779 --> 00:08:08.180 implications are huge, too. I mean, if the level 00:08:08.180 --> 00:08:10.360 of certainty we have at the regional level isn't 00:08:10.360 --> 00:08:12.800 as strong as we thought, it's directly going 00:08:12.800 --> 00:08:14.879 to affect how communities and governments plan 00:08:14.879 --> 00:08:17.839 for and adapt to the specific ways the climate 00:08:17.839 --> 00:08:20.040 change is going to hit them. That call for a 00:08:20.040 --> 00:08:21.920 more rigorous examination of the assumptions 00:08:21.920 --> 00:08:23.759 we're making in the development of new theories, 00:08:24.139 --> 00:08:26.860 that's essential. for both advancing the science 00:08:26.860 --> 00:08:29.480 and making our predictions more reliable at those 00:08:29.480 --> 00:08:31.860 local scales, the scales that matter most to 00:08:31.860 --> 00:08:34.320 people. Right. So in essence, what the Nature 00:08:34.320 --> 00:08:36.379 article is saying is that even though we've come 00:08:36.379 --> 00:08:38.840 a long way in understanding climate change as 00:08:38.840 --> 00:08:41.700 this global phenomenon, actually predicting and 00:08:41.700 --> 00:08:44.039 understanding the changes that happen on a regional 00:08:44.039 --> 00:08:46.559 level is proving to be a really, really tough 00:08:46.559 --> 00:08:49.779 challenge. And it might require us to completely 00:08:49.779 --> 00:08:52.179 rethink how we approach the science. They're 00:08:52.179 --> 00:08:54.100 basically calling for us to take a more critical 00:08:54.100 --> 00:08:57.129 look at the very foundation of our current climate 00:08:57.129 --> 00:08:59.769 models, you know, those basic assumptions. And 00:08:59.769 --> 00:09:01.929 they're saying we need to put more emphasis on 00:09:01.929 --> 00:09:04.919 figuring out why there's such a mismatch between 00:09:04.919 --> 00:09:06.779 what the models are predicting and what we're 00:09:06.779 --> 00:09:08.919 actually seeing on the ground in different places. 00:09:09.240 --> 00:09:13.059 It's a call for more granular and nuanced understanding, 00:09:13.179 --> 00:09:14.799 right? Yeah. I mean, we all get the big picture. 00:09:14.879 --> 00:09:17.019 The planet is getting warmer. That's clear. But 00:09:17.019 --> 00:09:19.000 the specifics of how that warming is playing 00:09:19.000 --> 00:09:21.139 out in different regions, that's proving to be 00:09:21.139 --> 00:09:24.379 incredibly complex. And addressing these discrepancies, 00:09:24.600 --> 00:09:27.580 that's absolutely essential for giving communities 00:09:27.580 --> 00:09:30.620 and policymakers the kind of localized, actionable 00:09:30.620 --> 00:09:33.019 information that they need to make informed decisions 00:09:33.019 --> 00:09:36.590 about the future. Just to kind of sum things 00:09:36.590 --> 00:09:39.570 up here, you've given us two perspectives that 00:09:39.570 --> 00:09:41.970 are connected, but also distinct, right? On the 00:09:41.970 --> 00:09:44.470 one hand, we have potential changes happening 00:09:44.470 --> 00:09:47.029 within the institutions in the U .S. that are 00:09:47.029 --> 00:09:49.149 actually doing the climate research and the forecasting. 00:09:49.350 --> 00:09:52.490 We've got the merger at NOAA and these broader 00:09:52.490 --> 00:09:54.590 concerns about, you know, where government efforts 00:09:54.590 --> 00:09:56.529 on climate are headed. And then on the other 00:09:56.529 --> 00:09:58.730 hand, we have the Nature article, which is presenting 00:09:58.730 --> 00:10:01.269 more fundamental challenge to the very way we 00:10:01.269 --> 00:10:03.490 scientifically understand climate change, you 00:10:03.490 --> 00:10:05.389 know, suggesting that the methods we've been 00:10:05.389 --> 00:10:07.929 relying on might be reaching their limits, especially 00:10:07.929 --> 00:10:09.750 when it comes to those regional forecasts, which 00:10:09.750 --> 00:10:11.850 are arguably the most important for people. And 00:10:11.850 --> 00:10:14.370 what's really fascinating here is how these two 00:10:14.370 --> 00:10:17.139 developments could interact. I mean, if those 00:10:17.139 --> 00:10:19.740 established ways of doing climate science really 00:10:19.740 --> 00:10:21.980 are struggling to accurately explain the changes 00:10:21.980 --> 00:10:25.019 happening on a regional level, then if we weaken 00:10:25.019 --> 00:10:28.259 the research capacity or reduce public communication 00:10:28.259 --> 00:10:30.659 about climate trends, well, that could seriously 00:10:30.659 --> 00:10:33.080 hold us back from actually addressing these discrepancies 00:10:33.080 --> 00:10:35.700 and coming up with those innovative new approaches 00:10:35.700 --> 00:10:38.700 that Shaw and Stevens are calling for in the 00:10:38.700 --> 00:10:40.919 Nature article. Right. It's all connected. And 00:10:40.919 --> 00:10:42.980 it brings up a super important question for everyone 00:10:42.980 --> 00:10:46.159 listening. How should these potential changes 00:10:46.159 --> 00:10:48.720 within these institutions and the fact that our 00:10:48.720 --> 00:10:50.820 scientific understanding is always evolving? 00:10:51.289 --> 00:10:54.129 How should those things influence how we interpret 00:10:54.129 --> 00:10:56.230 the climate information that's out there, and 00:10:56.230 --> 00:10:58.409 how we get ourselves ready for the future? The 00:10:58.409 --> 00:11:00.470 nature piece encourages us to think critically 00:11:00.470 --> 00:11:02.570 about, you know, the very basis of those climate 00:11:02.570 --> 00:11:05.470 predictions. And the news from NOAA really underscores 00:11:05.470 --> 00:11:07.049 the fact that this incredibly important science 00:11:07.049 --> 00:11:09.789 is always happening within a dynamic political 00:11:09.789 --> 00:11:12.769 and administrative context. It really highlights 00:11:12.769 --> 00:11:15.830 the need for both continuous progress in climate 00:11:15.830 --> 00:11:18.929 science itself and having a strong, well -supported 00:11:18.929 --> 00:11:21.019 system for conducting and communi - indicating 00:11:21.019 --> 00:11:23.759 that science effectively. And recognizing the 00:11:23.759 --> 00:11:26.100 limitations and the uncertainties that we have 00:11:26.100 --> 00:11:27.940 in our current understanding, like the Nature 00:11:27.940 --> 00:11:30.220 article points out, that's just as important 00:11:30.220 --> 00:11:32.759 as having the resources and the institutional 00:11:32.759 --> 00:11:35.080 backing to keep pushing those boundaries of climate 00:11:35.080 --> 00:11:36.919 knowledge forward. Couldn't have said it better 00:11:36.919 --> 00:11:39.620 myself. We hope this conversation today has given 00:11:39.620 --> 00:11:42.019 you a clearer picture of these important developments. 00:11:42.840 --> 00:11:44.879 And hey, don't forget to follow meteorologist 00:11:44.879 --> 00:11:48.620 Rob Jones on Instagram at meteorologist on TikTok 00:11:48.620 --> 00:11:51.480 at TV meteorologist and on YouTube. Just search 00:11:51.480 --> 00:11:54.460 for Rob Jones hurricane. You'll also find the 00:11:54.460 --> 00:11:57.019 Meteorology Matters podcast playlist on YouTube. 00:11:57.379 --> 00:12:01.100 And here's a final thought to chew on. If our 00:12:01.100 --> 00:12:03.279 current climate models, like that nature article 00:12:03.279 --> 00:12:05.740 suggested, are having a hard time with regional 00:12:05.740 --> 00:12:08.679 accuracy, what does that actually mean for how 00:12:08.679 --> 00:12:12.220 we plan and adapt at the local level? It seems 00:12:12.220 --> 00:12:14.600 to me it means that we need robust research, 00:12:15.179 --> 00:12:17.240 open discussions within the scientific community, 00:12:17.440 --> 00:12:19.600 and maybe an even more nuanced understanding 00:12:19.600 --> 00:12:21.740 of the uncertainties that come with those climate 00:12:21.740 --> 00:12:24.000 projections, especially at the scales where we 00:12:24.000 --> 00:12:25.860 feel the most direct and significant impacts. 00:12:26.179 --> 00:12:27.200 Thanks for listening, everybody.