Welcome to Meteorology Matters, everyone. Today,
we're going to take a look at some pretty big
changes going on in the institutions that study
weather and climate. And we'll be discussing
a really interesting debate about just where
climate science stands at this moment. You've
brought some really fascinating stuff for us
to dig into today, an article about shake -ups
at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
I'll just call it NOAA from now on. Sure. NOAA.
And also a really thought -provoking piece from
nature that takes a close look at how our knowledge
about the climate is changing. I think our aim
today should be to really break these sources
down for our listeners. You know, pick out the
most important takeaways and maybe even find
some surprising links between them. Absolutely.
So let's kick things off with the news from NOAA.
One of the articles you shared, it's from Axios,
talks about NOAA merging its Climate Prediction
Center, that's the CPC, with another branch of
the organization. And get this, the article cites
anonymous sources who say that one of the main
reasons for this move is a worry that the CPC,
simply because of what it's called, might be
targeted for budget cuts. Oh, wow. It's kind
of alarming, you know, especially when you think
about the fact that other federal agencies have
actually cut funding for climate research before
and even removed climate change data from their
websites. It really does highlight, you know,
the, how should I put this, the difficult atmosphere
surrounding climate -related work within government
right now. The idea that just the name Climate
Prediction Center could be seen as a liability,
well, it's concerning to say the least. Yeah.
The article does say, though, that the CPC is
expected to stay a separate center, at least
for now, while they work out this integration.
And their primary function, monitoring and predicting
things like El Nino and La Nina and issuing those
seasonal outlooks, it's a pretty big deal. Yeah.
Hugely important. I mean that information has
a huge impact on so many different sectors like
agriculture and energy. It gives them those critical
early warnings about big shifts in weather patterns
that are coming down the line. But it's important
to remember that the CPC isn't solely focused
on tracking human -caused climate change or making
those really long -term projections, the ones
that go way beyond just a season or two. That
responsibility actually falls to other parts
of NOAA, like the National Centers for Environmental
Information. Right. It's such a critical distinction
to make, too. When we're talking about the CPC,
we're mainly talking about the shorter cyclical
climate patterns that have a pretty big impact
on us right now. The long -term trends and the
influence of, you know, human activity. That
stuff is monitored and analyzed by different
groups within NOAA. So if the CPC is perceived
as being under threat, it really means our ability
to forecast and prepare for things like El Nino
and La Nina events, which could lead to widespread
drought or flooding. That's what's at stake.
And, you know, speaking of that bigger picture,
the Axios article also brings up something interesting.
It seems like NOAA is kind of downplaying the
public visibility of its climate change related
work. They've paused those monthly media calls
that used to focus on global climate monitoring,
and they've even changed the names of some of
their monthly reports. And on top of that, there's
talk of potential staff cuts within NOAA, which,
well, it's understandable that people are worried
about that. Plus, there's been discussion, the
article says, about the current administration
maybe considering privatizing or downsizing the
National Weather Service. And experts are concerned
that, you know, that could really upset the balance
that's already in place, this collaboration between
the government, universities, and the private
sector when it comes to gathering and sharing
all that crucial weather and climate data. And
the article also points out that the director
of the Weather Prediction Center, you know, the
one that focuses on the shorter range fork, well,
they'll be overseeing the CPC during this whole
merger. Yeah, I think it's definitely something
to keep an eye on. I mean, both centers, they
both deal with forecasting, but their time horizons
and specific areas of expertise are quite different.
It does raise questions about how priorities
might change and how resources are going to be
allocated going forward. And that decreased public
profile of climate change work, well, that's
a significant development too. I mean, even if
the data itself is still accessible, having less
public discussion about it, it can easily lead
to less public awareness and understanding of
these crucial trends and the ongoing research
that NOAA is doing. Absolutely. All right, let's
switch gears a bit and turn to that perspective
piece in nature called The Other Climate Crisis.
The authors, Tiffany A. Shaw and Bjorn Stevens,
they lay out a pretty compelling argument. They
say that the main way climate science has been
tackling things, they call it the standard approach,
is basically hitting a wall. This standard approach,
the way they explain it, has been pretty effective
in explaining some of those big global climate
patterns we've observed. You know, things like
why land areas are warming up faster than the
oceans and why the Arctic is warming so rapidly.
And they say that this success was based on the
idea that there's a clear distinction between
large scale and small scale weather and climate
phenomena and on applying fundamental laws of
physics. It's kind of like that initial broad
strokes understanding of how the planet reacts
to having more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Yeah. Exactly. The standard approach has been
the bedrock of a lot of our current understanding,
wouldn't you say? Yeah. It allowed us to get
a grasp on the basic mechanisms driving global
climate change and to build models that can actually
predict these responses on a large scale. The
idea that there was this neat separation between
these different scales, well, it kind of simplified
what is an incredibly complex system. You know,
it made it easier to analyze and predict things
at the global level. Yeah. But here's the thing.
Shaw and Stevens argue that as the planet keeps
warming, we're starting to see these gaps between
what's actually happening out there in the real
world and what the standard approach would have
predicted. And these discrepancies are particularly
noticeable when we zoom in and look at things
on a regional level. At the same time, they point
out that these new computational methods are
giving us different ways to look at these problems,
new tools in our toolbox, so to speak. They actually
draw a parallel to these like turning point moments
in other areas of science. You know, when a bunch
of unexplained observations eventually start
to chip away at the confidence people have in
the prevailing theory. I think the comparison
to scientific revolutions in other fields is
really, really insightful. It suggests that we
might be standing at a pretty important crossroads
in climate science. You know, the fact that we're
seeing more and more of these regional discrepancies,
it's not just a bit of random noise. It could
be a sign that there's a fundamental limitation
in how we're currently thinking about things.
Yeah. And the nature piece emphasizes that while
the standard approach has, for the most part,
focused on those big planetary scale dynamics,
many of the discrepancies that are building up
are actually happening at those smaller regional
scales. This might suggest that maybe that assumption
that we started with about a clean separation
between the big and the small stuff, it might
not be holding up so well. Or it could be that
there are really important processes happening
at smaller scales that our current dominant way
of thinking just isn't capturing very well. So
while we've got to handle on the global warming
trend overall, accurately predicting exactly
how that's going to play out in your specific
neighborhood is proving to be a lot trickier.
And this is where things start to get really
real for people. I mean, if the way large scale
and small scale climate interact is actually
more complicated than we thought, or if there
are important regional factors that our global
models aren't fully accounting for, well then
our ability to give people accurate and actually
useful climate information. at the local level.
And that's the level where people actually feel
the impacts. It's going to be limited. For sure.
So the authors go on to talk about what these
potential problems mean for policy, whether it's
a full blown crisis or just a period of really
significant change in the science. They argue
that going forward, we need to use the actual
climate signals that we're observing out there
in the real world to really put those underlying
assumptions and processes that drive warming
to the test. We need to develop new ideas that
can actually be tested and promote a more integrated
way of thinking about the climate system, you
know, one that can bridge the gaps between the
different branches of climate science. The policy
implications are huge, too. I mean, if the level
of certainty we have at the regional level isn't
as strong as we thought, it's directly going
to affect how communities and governments plan
for and adapt to the specific ways the climate
change is going to hit them. That call for a
more rigorous examination of the assumptions
we're making in the development of new theories,
that's essential. for both advancing the science
and making our predictions more reliable at those
local scales, the scales that matter most to
people. Right. So in essence, what the Nature
article is saying is that even though we've come
a long way in understanding climate change as
this global phenomenon, actually predicting and
understanding the changes that happen on a regional
level is proving to be a really, really tough
challenge. And it might require us to completely
rethink how we approach the science. They're
basically calling for us to take a more critical
look at the very foundation of our current climate
models, you know, those basic assumptions. And
they're saying we need to put more emphasis on
figuring out why there's such a mismatch between
what the models are predicting and what we're
actually seeing on the ground in different places.
It's a call for more granular and nuanced understanding,
right? Yeah. I mean, we all get the big picture.
The planet is getting warmer. That's clear. But
the specifics of how that warming is playing
out in different regions, that's proving to be
incredibly complex. And addressing these discrepancies,
that's absolutely essential for giving communities
and policymakers the kind of localized, actionable
information that they need to make informed decisions
about the future. Just to kind of sum things
up here, you've given us two perspectives that
are connected, but also distinct, right? On the
one hand, we have potential changes happening
within the institutions in the U .S. that are
actually doing the climate research and the forecasting.
We've got the merger at NOAA and these broader
concerns about, you know, where government efforts
on climate are headed. And then on the other
hand, we have the Nature article, which is presenting
more fundamental challenge to the very way we
scientifically understand climate change, you
know, suggesting that the methods we've been
relying on might be reaching their limits, especially
when it comes to those regional forecasts, which
are arguably the most important for people. And
what's really fascinating here is how these two
developments could interact. I mean, if those
established ways of doing climate science really
are struggling to accurately explain the changes
happening on a regional level, then if we weaken
the research capacity or reduce public communication
about climate trends, well, that could seriously
hold us back from actually addressing these discrepancies
and coming up with those innovative new approaches
that Shaw and Stevens are calling for in the
Nature article. Right. It's all connected. And
it brings up a super important question for everyone
listening. How should these potential changes
within these institutions and the fact that our
scientific understanding is always evolving?
How should those things influence how we interpret
the climate information that's out there, and
how we get ourselves ready for the future? The
nature piece encourages us to think critically
about, you know, the very basis of those climate
predictions. And the news from NOAA really underscores
the fact that this incredibly important science
is always happening within a dynamic political
and administrative context. It really highlights
the need for both continuous progress in climate
science itself and having a strong, well -supported
system for conducting and communi - indicating
that science effectively. And recognizing the
limitations and the uncertainties that we have
in our current understanding, like the Nature
article points out, that's just as important
as having the resources and the institutional
backing to keep pushing those boundaries of climate
knowledge forward. Couldn't have said it better
myself. We hope this conversation today has given
you a clearer picture of these important developments.
And hey, don't forget to follow meteorologist
Rob Jones on Instagram at meteorologist on TikTok
at TV meteorologist and on YouTube. Just search
for Rob Jones hurricane. You'll also find the
Meteorology Matters podcast playlist on YouTube.
And here's a final thought to chew on. If our
current climate models, like that nature article
suggested, are having a hard time with regional
accuracy, what does that actually mean for how
we plan and adapt at the local level? It seems
to me it means that we need robust research,
open discussions within the scientific community,
and maybe an even more nuanced understanding
of the uncertainties that come with those climate
projections, especially at the scales where we
feel the most direct and significant impacts.
Thanks for listening, everybody.