WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.240 Welcome to Meteorology Matters. Pretty significant 00:00:04.240 --> 00:00:06.320 potential shifts in U .S. government funding 00:00:06.320 --> 00:00:08.679 for climate and weather research today. Yes, 00:00:08.699 --> 00:00:11.380 focusing on proposed changes at NOAA and NASA. 00:00:11.660 --> 00:00:14.240 The information suggests some, well, concerning 00:00:14.240 --> 00:00:16.539 potential impacts on research and our ability 00:00:16.539 --> 00:00:18.719 to predict future conditions. Right. So our mission 00:00:18.719 --> 00:00:21.140 today is to unpack these proposals, figure out 00:00:21.140 --> 00:00:23.739 what areas are affected and what the bigger picture 00:00:23.739 --> 00:00:25.640 implications might be. Exactly. Understanding 00:00:25.640 --> 00:00:28.120 the ripple effects. OK, let's let's start with 00:00:28.120 --> 00:00:29.679 NOAA. What's the big headline there? What jumps 00:00:29.679 --> 00:00:32.859 out? Well, the scale, really. The Trump administration 00:00:32.859 --> 00:00:36.079 is proposing to essentially eliminate Noah's 00:00:36.079 --> 00:00:38.380 climate research division. That's the Office 00:00:38.380 --> 00:00:41.299 of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, or OAR. 00:00:41.359 --> 00:00:44.320 Illuminate. That sounds drastic. It is. Think 00:00:44.320 --> 00:00:46.960 of OAR as Noah's core for understanding climate 00:00:46.960 --> 00:00:49.119 change. The proposal would cut its funding by 00:00:49.119 --> 00:00:53.100 about $485 million. Wow. Leaving it with how 00:00:53.100 --> 00:00:56.960 much? Just over $171 million. And the internal 00:00:56.960 --> 00:00:58.740 documents apparently suggest that level would 00:00:58.740 --> 00:01:02.700 effectively eliminate OAR as a functioning office. 00:01:03.060 --> 00:01:06.680 So not just a trim. This is aiming to dismantle 00:01:06.680 --> 00:01:10.000 a major part of the U .S. climate research infrastructure. 00:01:10.180 --> 00:01:13.140 That seems to be the thrust of it, yes. The plan 00:01:13.140 --> 00:01:15.939 goes further, looking to end funding for NOAA's 00:01:15.939 --> 00:01:18.500 climate research centers entirely. And the scientists. 00:01:18.879 --> 00:01:21.840 And cut hundreds of federal and academic scientists, 00:01:22.140 --> 00:01:25.099 the ones actually studying human -driven global 00:01:25.099 --> 00:01:28.010 warming. Okay, let's break that down. What specific 00:01:28.010 --> 00:01:31.769 things would disappear if OAR funding is cut 00:01:31.769 --> 00:01:34.590 like that? Well, all funding for their climate, 00:01:34.870 --> 00:01:37.379 weather, and ocean labs. and the cooperative 00:01:37.379 --> 00:01:39.519 institutes they partner with. How many labs are 00:01:39.519 --> 00:01:42.519 we talking about? NOAA has 10 research labs nationwide. 00:01:42.799 --> 00:01:44.939 You've got ocean centers in Florida and Washington, 00:01:45.620 --> 00:01:48.000 atmospheric labs in Colorado, Maryland. The severe 00:01:48.000 --> 00:01:50.859 storm lab in Oklahoma. Exactly. And the geophysical 00:01:50.859 --> 00:01:53.299 fluid dynamics lab in New Jersey, GFDO, which 00:01:53.299 --> 00:01:55.879 is huge for modeling. Plus a Great Lakes lab. 00:01:56.019 --> 00:01:58.950 And they fund university scientists, too. So 00:01:58.950 --> 00:02:00.829 it's the federal labs and the academic network 00:02:00.829 --> 00:02:03.349 they support? Correct. And the proposal would 00:02:03.349 --> 00:02:05.590 also end NOAA's competitive climate research 00:02:05.590 --> 00:02:08.009 grants program. How much is that worth? It gives 00:02:08.009 --> 00:02:11.509 out about $70 million a year to academic researchers. 00:02:12.370 --> 00:02:15.189 Cutting that. Well, it would really damage the 00:02:15.189 --> 00:02:18.389 wider climate research field in the U .S. So 00:02:18.389 --> 00:02:20.729 who picks up that research if the funding just 00:02:20.729 --> 00:02:23.150 vanishes? That's a big question. A very big question. 00:02:23.210 --> 00:02:26.229 And it gets more granular, too. Support for collecting 00:02:26.229 --> 00:02:28.650 regional climate data could be terminated. You 00:02:28.650 --> 00:02:31.930 mean the data that, like, agriculture uses? Yeah. 00:02:32.629 --> 00:02:34.430 For planting decisions and things like that? 00:02:34.530 --> 00:02:37.129 Precisely. That detailed, practical information. 00:02:37.289 --> 00:02:38.949 Okay, so this isn't just high -level science. 00:02:39.289 --> 00:02:42.199 It hits practical sectors. Absolutely. And other 00:02:42.199 --> 00:02:44.819 things too, like the National Oceanographic Partnership 00:02:44.819 --> 00:02:48.340 Program, college sea grants, aquaculture grants, 00:02:49.020 --> 00:02:51.439 all potentially ending. And the National Centers 00:02:51.439 --> 00:02:53.780 for Coastal Ocean Science. Also on the chopping 00:02:53.780 --> 00:02:55.860 block, according to the proposal. It sounds like 00:02:55.860 --> 00:02:58.740 a really broad sweep across climate and ocean 00:02:58.740 --> 00:03:01.439 science within NOAA. And there's more. The National 00:03:01.439 --> 00:03:04.060 Ocean Service could be cut in half. Half? Wow. 00:03:04.419 --> 00:03:06.259 What does that entail? The proposal language 00:03:06.259 --> 00:03:09.800 is pretty specific. No funding for integrated 00:03:09.800 --> 00:03:12.639 ocean observing system, regional observations, 00:03:13.400 --> 00:03:15.759 competitive research, coastal zone management 00:03:15.759 --> 00:03:19.219 grants, National Coastal Resilience Fund, or 00:03:19.219 --> 00:03:21.780 the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 00:03:22.280 --> 00:03:24.900 So basically programs for watching and protecting 00:03:24.900 --> 00:03:28.699 coastlines, sea level data, coastal erosion monitoring, 00:03:29.379 --> 00:03:31.599 gone. That's what the proposal suggests. It's 00:03:31.599 --> 00:03:34.180 like dismantling the infrastructure for understanding 00:03:34.180 --> 00:03:37.150 our coasts. And it extends to satellites, too, 00:03:37.169 --> 00:03:39.449 right? The weather satellites managed by NSDIS. 00:03:39.590 --> 00:03:42.629 Yes, radical changes proposed there, too. Potentially 00:03:42.629 --> 00:03:45.650 cutting instruments on the next -gen geostationary 00:03:45.650 --> 00:03:47.370 satellites. What kind of instruments? Things 00:03:47.370 --> 00:03:49.810 that track atmospheric pollution, ocean color, 00:03:50.150 --> 00:03:52.229 infrared sounders. Uh -huh. The sounders are 00:03:52.229 --> 00:03:54.169 really key for storm forecasting, aren't they? 00:03:54.349 --> 00:03:56.530 Understanding atmospheric structure. Crucial. 00:03:56.710 --> 00:03:58.729 And lightning mappers, too. It seems the focus 00:03:58.729 --> 00:04:01.569 might be narrowing to just basic weather data, 00:04:01.789 --> 00:04:04.610 ignoring these vital environmental links. It's 00:04:04.610 --> 00:04:06.490 like wanting the forecast without understanding 00:04:06.490 --> 00:04:09.169 the ingredients. What about the data archives? 00:04:09.569 --> 00:04:11.569 The National Center for Environmental Information, 00:04:12.110 --> 00:04:15.150 the main climate data archive, facing an $18 00:04:15.150 --> 00:04:17.410 million cut. That's where all the historical 00:04:17.410 --> 00:04:20.209 records are kept. Reducing funding there seems 00:04:20.209 --> 00:04:23.209 risky for long -term understanding. It definitely 00:04:23.209 --> 00:04:25.829 raises questions about data integrity and access. 00:04:25.970 --> 00:04:29.709 Plus, another proposed cut of $141 million for 00:04:29.709 --> 00:04:31.990 just mission support for satellites and data 00:04:31.990 --> 00:04:34.110 systems. That could really hamper operations. 00:04:34.310 --> 00:04:36.629 It really does paint a picture of a major rollback. 00:04:36.810 --> 00:04:38.750 And there was something about personnel, too. 00:04:38.930 --> 00:04:41.370 Staff being fired. Yes, that's another angle. 00:04:41.889 --> 00:04:44.410 Hundreds of probationary workers at NOAA, specialists 00:04:44.410 --> 00:04:47.410 in areas like El Niño, La Niña tracking, severe 00:04:47.410 --> 00:04:51.149 storm risks, climate change impacts. They were 00:04:51.149 --> 00:04:53.759 refired after a a court ruling temporarily reinstated 00:04:53.759 --> 00:04:56.279 them. So losing expertise as well as funding. 00:04:56.639 --> 00:04:58.720 Exactly. A lot of uncertainty and disruption 00:04:58.720 --> 00:05:00.560 for the people doing the work. OK, let's pivot 00:05:00.560 --> 00:05:03.980 to NASA. The situation there sounds, well, maybe 00:05:03.980 --> 00:05:06.639 even more dramatic in scale. It does. An early 00:05:06.639 --> 00:05:08.680 version of the budget proposal suggested cutting 00:05:08.680 --> 00:05:11.240 NASA's entire science budget by nearly half. 00:05:11.439 --> 00:05:14.480 Half. From what to what? From around $7 .3 billion 00:05:14.480 --> 00:05:18.980 down to about $3 .9 billion. That is huge. Which 00:05:18.980 --> 00:05:22.539 science areas would take the biggest hits? Astrophysics, 00:05:22.539 --> 00:05:25.060 heliophysics, the study of the Sun, and Earth 00:05:25.060 --> 00:05:28.000 science are all looking at massive reductions. 00:05:28.519 --> 00:05:31.560 Well over 50 % cuts proposed for each. Let's 00:05:31.560 --> 00:05:34.959 see. Astrophysics cut by two -thirds, heliophysics 00:05:34.959 --> 00:05:37.259 even more. That's right. And Earth science down 00:05:37.259 --> 00:05:40.860 from about $2 .2 billion to just over $1 billion. 00:05:41.060 --> 00:05:44.100 A billion dollars for Earth science. The material 00:05:44.100 --> 00:05:46.339 suggested that could mean shutting down satellites. 00:05:46.939 --> 00:05:50.000 and maybe even closing NASA Goddard. That was 00:05:50.000 --> 00:05:52.420 mentioned as a potential consequence. Yes, Goddard 00:05:52.420 --> 00:05:54.720 is a huge center for Earth observation. Closing 00:05:54.720 --> 00:05:56.839 it would be a major blow. Senator Van Hollen 00:05:56.839 --> 00:05:59.079 mentioned that concern, I recall. He did. And 00:05:59.079 --> 00:06:01.819 planetary science, while maybe a smaller percentage 00:06:01.819 --> 00:06:04.500 cut at 30%, could still see major impacts. Like 00:06:04.500 --> 00:06:06.480 stopping the Mars sample return mission. That 00:06:06.480 --> 00:06:08.899 was flagged as a potential casualty. Yes, a very 00:06:08.899 --> 00:06:10.959 high profile, ambitious mission. And it's not 00:06:10.959 --> 00:06:13.180 just future plans, right? Existing or nearly 00:06:13.180 --> 00:06:15.500 ready missions, too. Apparently so. Missions 00:06:15.500 --> 00:06:19.079 like Da Vinci to Venus and even the Nancy Grace 00:06:19.079 --> 00:06:22.819 Roman Space Telescope. But isn't the Roman telescope 00:06:22.819 --> 00:06:26.680 almost built, ready to launch fairly soon? Largely 00:06:26.680 --> 00:06:29.600 complete, scheduled for launch possibly as early 00:06:29.600 --> 00:06:33.579 as September 2026. Canceling something that advanced. 00:06:34.040 --> 00:06:36.600 It does seem incredibly wasteful. Casey Dreyer 00:06:36.600 --> 00:06:39.060 from the Planetary Society has strong words for 00:06:39.060 --> 00:06:41.639 it, didn't he? He called the overall NASA science 00:06:41.639 --> 00:06:44.939 cuts an extinction level event, highlighting 00:06:44.939 --> 00:06:47.300 the waste of terminating missions already underway 00:06:47.300 --> 00:06:49.660 or near completion. OK, let's talk about the 00:06:49.660 --> 00:06:51.879 Princeton funding cuts. This seemed much more 00:06:51.879 --> 00:06:55.000 targeted. It did, nearly $4 million in federal 00:06:55.000 --> 00:06:57.480 funding cuts, specifically for climate change 00:06:57.480 --> 00:06:59.439 research there, which is a collaboration with 00:06:59.439 --> 00:07:01.899 NOAA. And the administration gave a specific 00:07:01.899 --> 00:07:04.300 reason. Yes. The stated rationale was that the 00:07:04.300 --> 00:07:07.379 research promoted, quote, exaggerated and implausible 00:07:07.379 --> 00:07:10.180 climate threats and increased climate anxiety 00:07:10.180 --> 00:07:12.240 among young Americans. That's quite a justification 00:07:12.240 --> 00:07:14.519 for cutting scientific funding. It is notable. 00:07:14.519 --> 00:07:17.180 And they cut the Cooperative Institute for modeling 00:07:17.180 --> 00:07:19.959 the Earth system, the NOAA -Princeton collaboration. 00:07:20.319 --> 00:07:22.930 Isn't that the program where... Sukuro Manabe 00:07:22.930 --> 00:07:25.610 worked the Nobel Prize winner for climate modeling? 00:07:25.910 --> 00:07:28.810 The very same. He won the Nobel in physics in 00:07:28.810 --> 00:07:31.529 2021 for work done through that program. So, 00:07:31.769 --> 00:07:34.410 yes, cutting funding for a Nobel Laureate Producing 00:07:34.410 --> 00:07:36.709 Institute. Wow. And it wasn't just the high level 00:07:36.709 --> 00:07:39.550 modeling, right? Educational parts too? Correct. 00:07:39.769 --> 00:07:42.370 Educational initiatives aimed at K -12 students 00:07:42.370 --> 00:07:45.379 run by that program also lost funding. So hitting 00:07:45.379 --> 00:07:47.699 research and education about climate science. 00:07:48.000 --> 00:07:50.500 And other projects too. A five -year study on 00:07:50.500 --> 00:07:53.019 water availability changes due to global warming. 00:07:53.399 --> 00:07:55.800 Another predicting coastal flood impacts from 00:07:55.800 --> 00:07:59.100 rainfall and sea level rise. Those sound incredibly 00:07:59.100 --> 00:08:01.540 practical. Vital research for communities. They 00:08:01.540 --> 00:08:04.680 do. And perhaps most worrying was the signal 00:08:04.680 --> 00:08:07.139 that more cuts might come. How so? The Commerce 00:08:07.139 --> 00:08:09.720 Department, which houses NOAA, is reportedly 00:08:09.720 --> 00:08:12.319 reviewing all grants with terms like climate 00:08:12.319 --> 00:08:15.050 science, climate crisis, clean air. energy, environmental 00:08:15.050 --> 00:08:17.790 quality, and pollution. That suggests a much 00:08:17.790 --> 00:08:20.470 broader potential effort to defund environmental 00:08:20.470 --> 00:08:22.910 research based on keywords. It certainly points 00:08:22.910 --> 00:08:25.009 in that direction. OK, so we've laid out the 00:08:25.009 --> 00:08:27.430 proposed cuts. What has the reaction been? We 00:08:27.430 --> 00:08:30.069 touched on some expert views. Right. Senator 00:08:30.069 --> 00:08:32.149 Chris Van Hollen, for example, believes there 00:08:32.149 --> 00:08:35.250 will be strong bipartisan pushback in Congress. 00:08:35.610 --> 00:08:37.529 He called it eating your seed corn, didn't he? 00:08:37.799 --> 00:08:40.399 damaging for the future. Yes, highlighting impacts 00:08:40.399 --> 00:08:43.100 on space, national security, tech leadership. 00:08:43.639 --> 00:08:46.039 He seemed fairly optimistic about congressional 00:08:46.039 --> 00:08:48.840 resistance. But others were more alarmed, like 00:08:48.840 --> 00:08:51.080 Craig McLean, the former head of NOAA's OAR. 00:08:51.360 --> 00:08:53.879 Very alarmed. He said the NOAA cuts wouldn't 00:08:53.879 --> 00:08:56.940 just gut the research, they'd shut it down. He 00:08:56.940 --> 00:08:59.919 used the phrase back to the 1950s in terms of 00:08:59.919 --> 00:09:02.080 climate understanding. That's a stark warning. 00:09:02.419 --> 00:09:04.700 And Representative Lofgren called the NOAA plan 00:09:04.700 --> 00:09:07.340 outrageous and dangerous, specifically warning 00:09:07.340 --> 00:09:09.639 it would harm weather forecasting capabilities, 00:09:10.259 --> 00:09:13.080 which affects everyone. Day -to -day. Good point. 00:09:13.259 --> 00:09:16.100 It's not just long -term climate stuff. And international 00:09:16.100 --> 00:09:18.799 scientists weighed in, too. Yes. Valérie Masson 00:09:18.799 --> 00:09:20.840 -Delmotte from France reminded us that, you know, 00:09:21.000 --> 00:09:23.080 ignoring climate risks doesn't make them vanish. 00:09:23.600 --> 00:09:25.960 Undermining the science just leaves people less 00:09:25.960 --> 00:09:28.600 prepared. Makes sense. And Rick Spinrad, the 00:09:28.600 --> 00:09:30.960 former NOAA administrator, had strong words about 00:09:30.960 --> 00:09:33.679 the Princeton cut specifically. He did. Called 00:09:33.679 --> 00:09:36.500 it a slap in the face and nose thumbing at Dr. 00:09:36.639 --> 00:09:39.360 Manabi's Nobel -winning work. And he stressed 00:09:39.360 --> 00:09:42.120 the practical importance, like needing good precipitation 00:09:42.120 --> 00:09:45.940 forecasts for so many sectors. OK, so pulling 00:09:45.940 --> 00:09:48.399 this all together, the picture emerging is one 00:09:48.399 --> 00:09:51.240 of potentially really significant shifts in US 00:09:51.240 --> 00:09:54.379 government support for climate, weather, and 00:09:54.379 --> 00:09:56.820 even space science. Definitely. These proposed 00:09:56.820 --> 00:10:00.320 cuts to NOAA and NASA. and the specific targeting 00:10:00.320 --> 00:10:02.779 of university research like at Princeton, they 00:10:02.779 --> 00:10:04.740 raise fundamental questions about the future 00:10:04.740 --> 00:10:07.039 direction of scientific understanding and prediction 00:10:07.039 --> 00:10:09.440 in the U .S. The potential consequences seem 00:10:09.440 --> 00:10:12.600 vast, from basic Earth system science, space 00:10:12.600 --> 00:10:14.769 exploration, all the way to practical weather 00:10:14.769 --> 00:10:17.330 forecasts and climate models that industries 00:10:17.330 --> 00:10:19.549 and, frankly, all of us rely on. It's a complex 00:10:19.549 --> 00:10:21.929 situation touching on many facets of science 00:10:21.929 --> 00:10:23.809 and society. And it's still developing, right? 00:10:24.309 --> 00:10:25.909 Congress ultimately holds the purse strings and 00:10:25.909 --> 00:10:28.330 can change these proposals. Absolutely. These 00:10:28.330 --> 00:10:30.970 are proposals, not final budgets yet. So staying 00:10:30.970 --> 00:10:33.850 informed is key. And really thinking about what 00:10:33.850 --> 00:10:36.870 these potential changes could mean. What stands 00:10:36.870 --> 00:10:39.210 out most to you from all this? What questions 00:10:39.210 --> 00:10:41.070 does it bring up for you personally? Yeah, it 00:10:41.070 --> 00:10:42.789 makes you consider the long -term priorities. 00:10:43.029 --> 00:10:45.309 We encourage everyone listening to keep following 00:10:45.309 --> 00:10:47.450 this. You can follow meteorologist Rob Jones 00:10:47.450 --> 00:10:50.629 on Instagram, that's meteorologist, on TikTok, 00:10:51.190 --> 00:10:53.830 TV meteorologist, and on YouTube, follow Rob 00:10:53.830 --> 00:10:56.629 Jones Hurricane. You can also find the Meteorology 00:10:56.629 --> 00:10:59.309 Matters podcast playlist there for more discussions 00:10:59.309 --> 00:11:01.409 like this one. Definitely keep engaged with the 00:11:01.409 --> 00:11:03.549 topic. And maybe a final thought to leave folks 00:11:03.549 --> 00:11:06.679 with. Think about the long -term consequences 00:11:06.679 --> 00:11:10.100 of prioritizing some science over others. If 00:11:10.100 --> 00:11:12.840 these changes happen, what knowledge might we 00:11:12.840 --> 00:11:15.700 lose? What future discoveries or warnings might 00:11:15.700 --> 00:11:17.860 we miss? That's the critical question, isn't 00:11:17.860 --> 00:11:19.919 it? What are the downstream effects of decisions 00:11:19.919 --> 00:11:20.620 made today?