Welcome to Meteorology Matters. Pretty significant
potential shifts in U .S. government funding
for climate and weather research today. Yes,
focusing on proposed changes at NOAA and NASA.
The information suggests some, well, concerning
potential impacts on research and our ability
to predict future conditions. Right. So our mission
today is to unpack these proposals, figure out
what areas are affected and what the bigger picture
implications might be. Exactly. Understanding
the ripple effects. OK, let's let's start with
NOAA. What's the big headline there? What jumps
out? Well, the scale, really. The Trump administration
is proposing to essentially eliminate Noah's
climate research division. That's the Office
of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, or OAR.
Illuminate. That sounds drastic. It is. Think
of OAR as Noah's core for understanding climate
change. The proposal would cut its funding by
about $485 million. Wow. Leaving it with how
much? Just over $171 million. And the internal
documents apparently suggest that level would
effectively eliminate OAR as a functioning office.
So not just a trim. This is aiming to dismantle
a major part of the U .S. climate research infrastructure.
That seems to be the thrust of it, yes. The plan
goes further, looking to end funding for NOAA's
climate research centers entirely. And the scientists.
And cut hundreds of federal and academic scientists,
the ones actually studying human -driven global
warming. Okay, let's break that down. What specific
things would disappear if OAR funding is cut
like that? Well, all funding for their climate,
weather, and ocean labs. and the cooperative
institutes they partner with. How many labs are
we talking about? NOAA has 10 research labs nationwide.
You've got ocean centers in Florida and Washington,
atmospheric labs in Colorado, Maryland. The severe
storm lab in Oklahoma. Exactly. And the geophysical
fluid dynamics lab in New Jersey, GFDO, which
is huge for modeling. Plus a Great Lakes lab.
And they fund university scientists, too. So
it's the federal labs and the academic network
they support? Correct. And the proposal would
also end NOAA's competitive climate research
grants program. How much is that worth? It gives
out about $70 million a year to academic researchers.
Cutting that. Well, it would really damage the
wider climate research field in the U .S. So
who picks up that research if the funding just
vanishes? That's a big question. A very big question.
And it gets more granular, too. Support for collecting
regional climate data could be terminated. You
mean the data that, like, agriculture uses? Yeah.
For planting decisions and things like that?
Precisely. That detailed, practical information.
Okay, so this isn't just high -level science.
It hits practical sectors. Absolutely. And other
things too, like the National Oceanographic Partnership
Program, college sea grants, aquaculture grants,
all potentially ending. And the National Centers
for Coastal Ocean Science. Also on the chopping
block, according to the proposal. It sounds like
a really broad sweep across climate and ocean
science within NOAA. And there's more. The National
Ocean Service could be cut in half. Half? Wow.
What does that entail? The proposal language
is pretty specific. No funding for integrated
ocean observing system, regional observations,
competitive research, coastal zone management
grants, National Coastal Resilience Fund, or
the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.
So basically programs for watching and protecting
coastlines, sea level data, coastal erosion monitoring,
gone. That's what the proposal suggests. It's
like dismantling the infrastructure for understanding
our coasts. And it extends to satellites, too,
right? The weather satellites managed by NSDIS.
Yes, radical changes proposed there, too. Potentially
cutting instruments on the next -gen geostationary
satellites. What kind of instruments? Things
that track atmospheric pollution, ocean color,
infrared sounders. Uh -huh. The sounders are
really key for storm forecasting, aren't they?
Understanding atmospheric structure. Crucial.
And lightning mappers, too. It seems the focus
might be narrowing to just basic weather data,
ignoring these vital environmental links. It's
like wanting the forecast without understanding
the ingredients. What about the data archives?
The National Center for Environmental Information,
the main climate data archive, facing an $18
million cut. That's where all the historical
records are kept. Reducing funding there seems
risky for long -term understanding. It definitely
raises questions about data integrity and access.
Plus, another proposed cut of $141 million for
just mission support for satellites and data
systems. That could really hamper operations.
It really does paint a picture of a major rollback.
And there was something about personnel, too.
Staff being fired. Yes, that's another angle.
Hundreds of probationary workers at NOAA, specialists
in areas like El Niño, La Niña tracking, severe
storm risks, climate change impacts. They were
refired after a a court ruling temporarily reinstated
them. So losing expertise as well as funding.
Exactly. A lot of uncertainty and disruption
for the people doing the work. OK, let's pivot
to NASA. The situation there sounds, well, maybe
even more dramatic in scale. It does. An early
version of the budget proposal suggested cutting
NASA's entire science budget by nearly half.
Half. From what to what? From around $7 .3 billion
down to about $3 .9 billion. That is huge. Which
science areas would take the biggest hits? Astrophysics,
heliophysics, the study of the Sun, and Earth
science are all looking at massive reductions.
Well over 50 % cuts proposed for each. Let's
see. Astrophysics cut by two -thirds, heliophysics
even more. That's right. And Earth science down
from about $2 .2 billion to just over $1 billion.
A billion dollars for Earth science. The material
suggested that could mean shutting down satellites.
and maybe even closing NASA Goddard. That was
mentioned as a potential consequence. Yes, Goddard
is a huge center for Earth observation. Closing
it would be a major blow. Senator Van Hollen
mentioned that concern, I recall. He did. And
planetary science, while maybe a smaller percentage
cut at 30%, could still see major impacts. Like
stopping the Mars sample return mission. That
was flagged as a potential casualty. Yes, a very
high profile, ambitious mission. And it's not
just future plans, right? Existing or nearly
ready missions, too. Apparently so. Missions
like Da Vinci to Venus and even the Nancy Grace
Roman Space Telescope. But isn't the Roman telescope
almost built, ready to launch fairly soon? Largely
complete, scheduled for launch possibly as early
as September 2026. Canceling something that advanced.
It does seem incredibly wasteful. Casey Dreyer
from the Planetary Society has strong words for
it, didn't he? He called the overall NASA science
cuts an extinction level event, highlighting
the waste of terminating missions already underway
or near completion. OK, let's talk about the
Princeton funding cuts. This seemed much more
targeted. It did, nearly $4 million in federal
funding cuts, specifically for climate change
research there, which is a collaboration with
NOAA. And the administration gave a specific
reason. Yes. The stated rationale was that the
research promoted, quote, exaggerated and implausible
climate threats and increased climate anxiety
among young Americans. That's quite a justification
for cutting scientific funding. It is notable.
And they cut the Cooperative Institute for modeling
the Earth system, the NOAA -Princeton collaboration.
Isn't that the program where... Sukuro Manabe
worked the Nobel Prize winner for climate modeling?
The very same. He won the Nobel in physics in
2021 for work done through that program. So,
yes, cutting funding for a Nobel Laureate Producing
Institute. Wow. And it wasn't just the high level
modeling, right? Educational parts too? Correct.
Educational initiatives aimed at K -12 students
run by that program also lost funding. So hitting
research and education about climate science.
And other projects too. A five -year study on
water availability changes due to global warming.
Another predicting coastal flood impacts from
rainfall and sea level rise. Those sound incredibly
practical. Vital research for communities. They
do. And perhaps most worrying was the signal
that more cuts might come. How so? The Commerce
Department, which houses NOAA, is reportedly
reviewing all grants with terms like climate
science, climate crisis, clean air. energy, environmental
quality, and pollution. That suggests a much
broader potential effort to defund environmental
research based on keywords. It certainly points
in that direction. OK, so we've laid out the
proposed cuts. What has the reaction been? We
touched on some expert views. Right. Senator
Chris Van Hollen, for example, believes there
will be strong bipartisan pushback in Congress.
He called it eating your seed corn, didn't he?
damaging for the future. Yes, highlighting impacts
on space, national security, tech leadership.
He seemed fairly optimistic about congressional
resistance. But others were more alarmed, like
Craig McLean, the former head of NOAA's OAR.
Very alarmed. He said the NOAA cuts wouldn't
just gut the research, they'd shut it down. He
used the phrase back to the 1950s in terms of
climate understanding. That's a stark warning.
And Representative Lofgren called the NOAA plan
outrageous and dangerous, specifically warning
it would harm weather forecasting capabilities,
which affects everyone. Day -to -day. Good point.
It's not just long -term climate stuff. And international
scientists weighed in, too. Yes. Valérie Masson
-Delmotte from France reminded us that, you know,
ignoring climate risks doesn't make them vanish.
Undermining the science just leaves people less
prepared. Makes sense. And Rick Spinrad, the
former NOAA administrator, had strong words about
the Princeton cut specifically. He did. Called
it a slap in the face and nose thumbing at Dr.
Manabi's Nobel -winning work. And he stressed
the practical importance, like needing good precipitation
forecasts for so many sectors. OK, so pulling
this all together, the picture emerging is one
of potentially really significant shifts in US
government support for climate, weather, and
even space science. Definitely. These proposed
cuts to NOAA and NASA. and the specific targeting
of university research like at Princeton, they
raise fundamental questions about the future
direction of scientific understanding and prediction
in the U .S. The potential consequences seem
vast, from basic Earth system science, space
exploration, all the way to practical weather
forecasts and climate models that industries
and, frankly, all of us rely on. It's a complex
situation touching on many facets of science
and society. And it's still developing, right?
Congress ultimately holds the purse strings and
can change these proposals. Absolutely. These
are proposals, not final budgets yet. So staying
informed is key. And really thinking about what
these potential changes could mean. What stands
out most to you from all this? What questions
does it bring up for you personally? Yeah, it
makes you consider the long -term priorities.
We encourage everyone listening to keep following
this. You can follow meteorologist Rob Jones
on Instagram, that's meteorologist, on TikTok,
TV meteorologist, and on YouTube, follow Rob
Jones Hurricane. You can also find the Meteorology
Matters podcast playlist there for more discussions
like this one. Definitely keep engaged with the
topic. And maybe a final thought to leave folks
with. Think about the long -term consequences
of prioritizing some science over others. If
these changes happen, what knowledge might we
lose? What future discoveries or warnings might
we miss? That's the critical question, isn't
it? What are the downstream effects of decisions
made today?