Over recent months, the Trump administration has initiated efforts to dismantle regulations targeting climate change, reduce funding for climate-related programs, and discontinue methods assessing climate change impacts on American society and its economy. This includes direct challenges to climate science and research, a move that notable scientists in the nation caution could have perilous outcomes.
Proposed budget cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) threaten a longstanding partnership with Princeton University, a collaboration critical for producing some of the world’s most sophisticated climate modeling and forecasting systems. NOAA’s research plays a crucial role in American economic stability, national defense, and geopolitical strategies. The potential removal of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) could inflict lasting damage on global climate understanding, national security, and the country’s competitive edge.
A memo from the Office of Management and Budget, recently leaked, outlines sweeping reductions to the Department of Commerce, which oversees NOAA. The proposed cuts, amounting to a 27% decrease in NOAA’s overall budget, aim to divest functions deemed misaligned with the President’s goals, particularly those related to climate change. The reorganization suggests significant reductions across various NOAA programs and a severe 74% cut to the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), home to key climate science and modeling work, signaling possible elimination of the office.
The complete erosion of OAR, alongside its pivotal facility at Princeton, is expected to markedly set back climate preparedness, potentially causing lasting detriment that experts fear the nation may not recover from.
Without strong climate models, which are essential for understanding current changes and predicting future scenarios, the U.S. could regress to the technological and proficiency levels of the 1950s. Craig McLean, formerly a top administrator at NOAA, noted that lacking these models would significantly degrade current capabilities, as the tools required would be unavailable due to insufficient data and personnel.
The Department of Commerce, NOAA, and the Office of Management and Budget have not responded to inquiries about their stance on the proposed changes or their implementation strategy.
Princeton University and NOAA, through their historical post-World War II scientific initiatives, have pioneered advancements in weather and climate science. The Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton, since its inception in 1955, has consistently progressed in climate science, producing models foundational to both short-term weather forecasting and long-term climate predictions, influencing NOAA and the National Weather Service’s operations.
Today, Princeton, in collaboration with GFDL, continues to develop climate models with impressive accuracy, evidenced by their successful predictions during events like Hurricane Harvey. However, the future of GFDL remains uncertain, as funding cuts risk debilitation or closure, threatening vital components of U.S. economic and security frameworks.
NOAA’s freely available data, integral to numerous sectors from insurance and shipping to agriculture, banking, and beyond, significantly influences national and global economic activities and strategic decisions. The elimination of climate-related programs under Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, despite his past acknowledgment of climate science’s importance, potentially imperils critical forecasting capabilities.
Amidst these developments, policymakers and scientists voice concerns over the potential strategic disadvantages and heightened security threats posed by weakened climate prediction infrastructure. The loss of advanced, indigenous climate forecasts would critically impair the U.S. in strategic and operational realms, possibly leaving the nation vulnerable to multifaceted global threats.
The uncertain future of GFDL and related NOAA resources poses significant implications for the nation’s economic, environmental, and security strategies, raising questions about the rationale behind these administrative decisions.
