Poignard
Well-Known Member
It certainly is happening: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/11/climate/trump-noaa-budget-cuts/index.html
Curs to NOAA US National Weather Service
- Thread starter franksingleton
- Start date
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
The article rightly emphasises the seamless aspects of weather forecasting, weather and climate research. Hit one and you hit the others. I would probably be banned if I said what the implications are for climate change. I will note that the Heritage Foundation has not changed its spots.
What the article seems to overlook is the international aspect. No country can go it alone. Through WMO, there is total free international exchange of data, forecasts, experience, research and ideas generally. Globally, meteorology is less dependent on on NOAA/NASA/NWS than it was 30 years ago. However, a degradation of these organisations will make life more dangerous for us all, particularly with respect to operational forecasts.
What the article seems to overlook is the international aspect. No country can go it alone. Through WMO, there is total free international exchange of data, forecasts, experience, research and ideas generally. Globally, meteorology is less dependent on on NOAA/NASA/NWS than it was 30 years ago. However, a degradation of these organisations will make life more dangerous for us all, particularly with respect to operational forecasts.
AngusMcDoon
Well-Known Member
Still no webpage update on my contribution to the World Magnetic Model by NOAA despite repeatedly trying. Uncustomary silence from my contact. I fear he has gone.
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
Were I religious, I might say, “Forgive them, O Lord. They know not what they do”
Poignard
Well-Known Member
I think Trump and his myrmidons know perfectly well what they do; and they are happy doing it!Were I religious, I might say, “Forgive them, O Lord. They know not what they do”
They're having a whale of a time, and probably enriching themselves.
Marsali_1
Well-Known Member
Sadly, Frank, some of them do but are doing it anyway. I have wondered, and maybe you can advise, how dependent is the ECMWF on data from the US?
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
I do not have a definitive answer, so this is just some thoughts. Those with low attention span can say TLDR. Simple questions about weather can rarely be answered simply.
It used to be a truism of mine that, to predict weather somewhere, you have to know about weather everywhere. That is still true to some extent because of connectivity in the atmosphere. Crudely, it is like a big air bed, push down somewhere and it will rise somewhere else. Without any in situ, surface or upper air data over the USA, ECMWF would provide useful forecasts over the USA and over the world as a whole. For specific local details, local data would be helpful to local forecasters. So, lack of in situ data over the USA would not be catastrophic for us and, for much of the time not a great problem9 over there. In some severe weather situations, eg hurricanes, local in situ data could be critical. Without it loss of life could be an outcome.
The big problem would be satellite data. About 35 jyears ago, virtually all satellite data came from US satellites. Nowadays, we have European satellites in low Earth orbit as well as satellites in geoosynchronous orbit run by Europe, India, Japan/Korea. NWP forecast output depends largely on satellite data. About 12% of a NWP forecast output depends on G EOS data. Much more data comes from satellites in low earth orbit. Infrared and microwave soundings account for about 50% of the input to forecasts. I do not know the breakdown between NOAA and EUMETSAT/ESA. I guess about even Stevens. In time, Europe could, in principle provide all LEO data. It might need some instruments provided by other countries.
Perhaps, if she is online, miniPiddy would be able to provide information on just how serious it would be in the short term if NOAA weather satellites failed to function.
As I have said before, operational meteorology can really only function through international cooperation. Because of its lead in satellite technology, the US has been the main provider. From the mid 80s, Europe became increasingly active. As in other fields, we need more cooperation from the willing.
Stemar
Well-Known Member
lustyd
Well-Known Member
This assumes GHGs can be reduced. From what I can tell every method of reducing CO2 will increase methane production. It’s not a popular view due to the profitability of things like tree planting, but the science seems pretty clear. As such I think it’s vital we keep funding research around this subject as the answers we currently have are extremely naive at best in a subject still very much in its infancy.
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
I do not know about carbon capture and how that affects methane. Removal of CO2 by natural means, reforestation, does not increase methane. In the “natural” world, CH4 tracks CO2. That was seen in the Great Dying in S America following the arrival of the Spanish when natural reforestation occurred. Research at UCL showed that a reduction in CO2 led to a reduction in global temperatures. Of course, we had a vastly smaller global human population then. A major reforestation might not have the same effect.
However you look at it, we are not in a good position. I can only agree your comments about funding,
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
I had to check my French dictionary as I would have expected deluge to be feminine. Wrong, yet again
Stemar
Well-Known Member
It's variously attributed to Louis XV and Madame de Pompadour, as an expression of indifference to what happens when they're gone.I had to check my French dictionary as I would have expected deluge to be feminine. Wrong, yet again
According to Wikiquote, Nero had said something similar
When I am dead let th’ earth be fused with fire!
I care not, I; for things go well with me.
Lovely people, both of them.
lustyd
Well-Known Member
Not so, unfortunately. Leaves and other debris that fall to the ground can often get eaten by bacteria which produce methane as a byproduct. The Amazon rainforest is a net producer of greenhouse gases for this reason and methane as I’m sure you know is many times worse than CO2. The blind belief that planting trees will fix this is part of the problem and will eventually come back to bite us. As I said, the field is in its infancy relatively speaking and research will help with understanding what it truly effective and what just looks effective.
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
It is easy to make such arguments and easy to find counter arguments, all with ho numeracy. What you say sounds plausible. However,a counter would be that lower CO2 would lead to lower growth and, therefore, less vegetation being available to create CH4. We know, historically that CO2 and CH4 concentrations are highly correlated, see https://weather.mailasail.com/w/uploads/Franks-Weather/1000basco2ch4.png
Whether what you say is correct or not, I do not know. I have not delved into modelling of that. We do have the UCL/Leeds U paper, https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com...4565150580609500e56&rr=9309ff3a9fd61774&cc=gb. This suggests that rhe LIA was a result of massive natural reforestation of S America following the wiping out of the highly organised indigenous population post 1492. However, attempts to model this have been inconclusive. All we have is the fact of the great dying, the reforestation and the cooling. All very suggestive.
I can hear TDLR.
lustyd
Well-Known Member
This is the problem and the reason more funding is required. Right now there’s too much reliance on “obvious” truths even by very well educated people and until more research happens we won’t know for sure we’re doing the right thing.
Even the question of is there new coal being made or not seems unanswered with the newer research suggesting that evolution has ended that with the creation of bacteria that eat dead trees. The evidence seems to lean towards evolution eventually making global warming inevitable regardless of human actions which would be even more worrying.
Whether correct or not, it would seem we have an opportunity to find a way to combat methane as well as carbon, but as long as carbon dioxide remains a lucrative fetish that won’t happen.
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
I said that I did not know the answer because I am not an expert in that field. My understanding is that experts in the field do see reforestation as being a tool for sequestering CO2. I used Google to ask, “Do climate models show that reforestation would be of significant help in reducing Greenhouse gases?” I got an AI reply. It said -
“Yes, climate models generally show that reforestation, or planting trees in previously forested areas, can significantly help reduce greenhouse gases.Trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, storing it in their biomass and soil. This process helps lower atmospheric CO2 levels, which is a major greenhouse gas contributing to climate change”
As a champion of AI, I am sure that you will want to read the more complete reply. AI has its uses
lustyd
Well-Known Member
The problem is that in many cases the experts are being paid well to say those things. Yes, obviously, planting a tree collects CO2 initially. Less obviously, the leaves and branches that fall off into muddy floors can be eaten by bacteria which produce methane. Same for seagrass which is currently being hailed as the wonder fix for climate change.
AI models reflect more common text, so yes they obviously say that. The only way to make them say useful things is to ground them with good sources, but since the research money is specifically around CO2 right now there are no good sources, or vanishingly few which have more advanced research.
Not sure why you keep implying I’m not reading the whole post.
AI models reflect more common text, so yes they obviously say that. The only way to make them say useful things is to ground them with good sources, but since the research money is specifically around CO2 right now there are no good sources, or vanishingly few which have more advanced research.
Not sure why you keep implying I’m not reading the whole post.
AntarcticPilot
Well-Known Member
Actually, quite a lot of research into "Blue" ecosystems such as seagrass and mangroves. I've reviewed and revised many proposals and papers regarding this, and they DO look at the various emissions and gas balances. And that's one small corner of the academic world. Of course, institutions based in coastal cities tend to favour such research, so my sample (Hong Kong) is a bit biased. As @lustyd says, you have to look at the overall ecosystem, not just one element, but the evidence I've seen is that such systems do sequestrate carbon, but the catch is WHEN IN GOOD HEALTH. Degraded or unbalanced ecosystems can be net emitters.
After all, the coal and oil we've been burning to create the problem was laid down in environments where there was a net sequestration of carbon! and some of those environments (e.g. carboniferous coal measures) were laid down in ecologies similar to that of rain forests.
Another point is that there are now satellites that can track emissions, with more on the stocks; again, I know of Chinese initiatives that aim to track individual sources such as factories. So I'm sure that on a global scale there is pretty good understanding of where gases such as CO2 and CH4 are coming from.
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
Most of the research is done by university and government scientists. I have never been aware that either were paid particularly well. Obviously, rotting vegetation produces CH4. The lesson from the UCL/Leeds U study is clear and the only credible explanation I have seen of the LIA. But, rather than trust my own or your guesses, I have to note what the experts say. Remember that, for every 10 ppm increase in CO2 has led to a 0.1 degC increase in global temperatures.
You are showing the usual misunderstanding about funding and reasons for climate research. Most funding comes from national governments and international agencies. Who else would you trust to approach the problem objectively? Not the industry or its pet poodles such as happened during the tobacco dispute and as we are seeing now, particularly in the USA with the Heritage Foundation. There are others.
CO2 is obviously the main GHG. Equally we know that CO2 and CH4 are highly correlated. Obviously, CO2 gets most publicity.
lustyd
Well-Known Member
But coal was created prior to the bacteria that can eat the trees and make methane. There’s no new coal being made so that process can’t work as a cure here.
I’m not misunderstanding at all. If you think governments don’t have agendas then you’re incredibly naive. Governments fund research often because it creates business opportunities that their friends then get grants to fulfil. If you open your eyes and look at the whole system there’s a very clear bias and money trail. Right now CO2 is the focus and it’s being milked for all it’s worth and until that money dries up no funding will be used to disprove CO2 as the problem. To anyone with half a brain CO2 is obviously not the problem, yet here we are spending money on tree planting and seagrass. There’s still no tax on jet fuel though, so it’s clear that solving the problem isn’t the goal.