Welcome to Meteorology Matters. If you've ever
wondered how changes in weather data, you know,
climate research, actually hit home, how they
affect your life, well, you've tuned into the
right conversation. Absolutely. Today, we're
looking closely at some recent shifts, things
happening in the federal government concerning
climate science and how we track severe weather.
Yeah, and these changes could have some pretty
surprising consequences, really, for every single
American. Exactly. We're going to dig into what's
happening with scientists involved in the National
Climate Assessment. Right, hundreds of them basically
told their work wasn't needed anymore. And we'll
also talk about NOAA, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, ending its database,
the one tracking those billion -dollar weather
and climate disasters. It's been around a long
time. Yeah, that database is, well, was. Pretty
significant. Now these might sound like, you
know, bureaucratic tweaks, technical stuff happening
behind the scenes, but we really want to unpack
what they could mean for you, how you understand
the risks around you, how prepared you can be
for severe weather. And ultimately, yeah, the
impact on your wallet. That's a big part of it.
So where should we start? Let's maybe begin with
those scientists, the ones no longer on the National
Climate Assessment. OK, well. The number itself
is striking. It's nearly 400 scientists. These
were people actively working on the assessment
when they were told, essentially, their expertise
wasn't required. And this assessment, it's not
just some report, right? It's mandated by Congress.
That's correct. Every four years, it summarizes
climate change impacts right here in the U .S.
And it's used by, well, a whole range of people.
Federal agencies making policy, local governments
planning. Even businesses. Oh, definitely. Businesses
use it to assess future risks. It's foundational.
So it really lays the groundwork for understanding
what's happening. Sea level rise, changes for
farmers, the intensity of storms. Exactly. It
touches on all of that. It helps understand threats
to lives, property, the economy. And now the
people putting that together are being dismissed.
And it's telling that major scientific groups
like the American Geophysical Union and the American
Meteorological Society They've stepped up. They've
announced they'll publish work from these scientists
themselves in a special collection. Hmm. That
sounds like a big signal, like there's a real
concern in the scientific community. It strongly
suggests worries about whether the official report
will be as comprehensive, as detailed as it needs
to be. Right. The administration says, okay,
they're legally required to produce the assessment.
Yes, they have to. But they're also reevaluating
its scope. what it covers. That seems to be the
plan, yes. Evaluating the scope. So think about
that. If the scope gets narrowed, if the knowledge
from those nearly 400 experts isn't fully included,
what does that mean for the report you see? The
one policymakers use, will it be the full picture?
And that hits directly on planning for the future.
It's critical. How can governments, federal,
state, local, how can they prepare effectively
for climate impacts without the most a thorough
assessment possible. Yeah, things like building
infrastructure, public health planning. Precisely.
Planning for heat waves, disease vectors, emergency
response protocols. It all relies on good projections
of future risk. And if those projections become,
what, fuzzier, less detailed? It just makes it
much harder to make sound decisions, adaptation
efforts, mitigation efforts. They can really
be hampered. It's like, um... Trying to navigate
in fog without all your instruments, maybe? That's
a good analogy. You're less sure of what's ahead.
OK, so that's the assessment side. Let's shift
gears a bit. Let's talk about the money. The
end of NOAA's billion -dollar disastrous database.
This sounds potentially huge, too. It really
is another significant change for public understanding.
NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
kept this database going since 1980. Forty -plus
years. Wow. Meticulously tracking the financial
costs. only events causing over a billion dollars
in damage. So the really big ones, hurricanes,
droughts, major floods, hail storms. Exactly.
The kind of events that can devastate communities,
cripple regional economies. And this data wasn't
just for scientists, was it? No, not at all.
It was a vital resource for the public, for journalists
covering these disasters, anyone wanting to grasp
the actual financial toll. It put a hard, you
know, a dollar figure on the cost of the country.
Right. It made it tangible. And NOAA themselves
said, look, the database wasn't designed to pinpoint
climate change as the sole cause for each event.
They acknowledged other factors matter, like
more people living in risky areas, more expensive
stuff getting damaged. Sure, development patterns
play a role. Absolutely. But the data did clearly
show a trend, an undeniable upward trend in losses
over time. And that trend aligns with what climate
science tells us about certain extreme weather
events becoming more frequent or more intense.
It certainly does. Many studies link rising temperatures
to increases in the severity or frequency of
heat waves, heavy rainfall, some types of storms,
factors that drive up disaster costs. So even
without saying climate change caused X, the database
showed the financial bleeding from the types
of events climate change makes worse? That's
a fair way to put it. It provided compelling
evidence of that growing financial strain. And
now, it's stopping. Why? Well, Newell mentioned
things like staffing cuts, also increased scrutiny
on climate -related programs. The existing data
up through 2024 will be archived. You can still
access the history. But no new updates after
this year. That makes tracking future trends
consistently much, much harder. Okay, this feels
like where it really connects to American families.
I think so. Because this database wasn't just
government numbers, right? It pulled info from
the insurance industry, other sources. Exactly.
It was a unique compilation. public and private
data synthesized. And experts like Jeremy Porter
from the First Street Foundation, they're saying
this will be incredibly hard, maybe impossible,
for others to replicate properly. Yes. He specifically
mentioned analyzing damage trends regionally.
That becomes very difficult without this established,
consistent federal resource. It provided a baseline.
So let's spell it out. What are the consequences
for taxpayers? For homeowners. Well, think about
understanding risk. Without this clear public
data tracking the costs, how well can you really
know the financial danger of living in a certain
area prone to floods or wildfires or hurricanes?
It becomes harder to gauge. Much harder. And
that could definitely affect insurance. Premiums
might go up significantly. Or could people lose
access to insurance altogether in some places?
That is a real concern, yes. Insurance availability
could shrink in high -risk zones if the risk
isn't transparently quantified and tracked over
time. That's quite unsettling. If you can't easily
find the data on rising costs, how do you assess
your personal risk? Right. And how do insurance
companies set fair rates based on predictable
trends? In maybe bigger picture, how does the
public hold officials accountable for managing
these risks if the scoreboard showing the financial
damage keeps getting hidden or just stops updating?
It removes a key piece of public accountability,
arguably. A clear measure of the growing burden.
It feels like losing a crucial warning light
on the dashboard. Precisely. And this isn't happening
in a vacuum. It coincides with broader staff
reductions reported at NOAA at the National Weather
Service. Which could affect other things, too.
Forecasts? Warnings? Potentially, yes. Those
services rely on adequate staffing and resources.
Plus, looking ahead, the White House has proposed
some pretty deep budget cuts for NOAA for 2026.
Oh. Like what? Proposals included potentially
eliminating NOAA's entire research division,
closing weather and climate labs. That would
obviously further reduce the data available.
OK, so fewer scientists working on the big picture
climate assessment and stopping the main tool
tracking the dollar cost of extreme weather hitting
us now. That's the combination. And meanwhile,
big reinsurance companies like Swiss Re, they're
reporting global insured losses from disasters
are rising. Yes, the financial impact globally
is climbing. The data is clear on that front
from the insurance world. So the problem isn't
going away. It seems like our ability to officially
track and analyze its impact here in the U .S.
is potentially shrinking. Well, when you connect
those two dots, the scientists and the database,
it does suggest potentially a move towards downplaying
the impacts, downplaying climate change effects,
and the very real rising costs of extreme weather.
How so? Well, if you reduce the scientific power
focused on understanding the problem comprehensively.
And you simultaneously stop tracking a key metric
of its financial damage. It just makes it harder
for everyone. For you, listening at home. For
policymakers. Harder to fully grasp the scale
and urgency. And that lack of data, lack of analysis.
It ripples out, doesn't it? Absolutely. It hinders
informed decisions at every single level. Individuals
might not get the full picture of risk in their
town. Local governments might struggle to plan
adequately for what's coming. And higher levels
of government might feel less pressure, perhaps,
to enact policies needed to mitigate risks or
help communities adapt if the problem isn't being
clearly and consistently documented. So a weaker
understanding leads to weaker preparation. Almost
inevitably. And we know what inadequate preparation
means. It usually means greater financial costs
down the road for homeowners, for taxpayers footing
recovery bills. And tragically, greater human
costs, too. Yes. And without that easy access
to data on the rising costs, the burden on communities,
on taxpayers, it becomes less visible, less transparent,
which you could argue makes it harder to have
an informed public conversation about solutions.
So for you listening, what does this boil down
to? It means the information you rely on to understand
climate shifts in your area, the real risks from
extreme weather, that information might become
less complete, maybe less reliable, harder to
find. And that can make it tougher for you to
make big life decisions, where to live, how to
protect your home, what kind of future to plan
for. These changes we've discussed today on meteorology
matters, scaling back climate research, stopping
the disaster cost database. They're pretty significant
shifts. They really are. Shifts in how the nation
monitors, understands, and ultimately responds
to a changing climate and its impacts. And these
developments could genuinely create bigger challenges
for people, for communities, for businesses,
trying to prepare for those increasing risks
and costs. Yeah, that absence of comprehensive
public data readily available science. It can
have really far reaching consequences for all
of us in American society. We definitely encourage
you to stay informed. Think critically about
this. How might these changes affect your future,
your community's future? And you can keep exploring
these topics by following meteorologist Rob Jones.
That's me on Instagram at Meteorologist. Did
plug. Uh huh. And on TikTok at TV Meteorologist.
And check out the Rob Jones Hurricane YouTube
channel. You'll find the Meteorology Matters
podcast playlist there too. So, maybe the final
thought for you today is what questions do these
developments raise for you personally? Yeah,
and what more information would you want to seek
out now?