William Brangham:

The Trump administration says it plans to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, which is the nation’s premier atmospheric science center.

In announcing the closing, Budget Director Russell Vought called the center — quote — “one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country.”

NCAR, as the center is known, was founded in 1960 and has facilitated generations of breakthroughs in climate and weather science. The announcement has drawn outcry from meteorologists and climate scientists across the country.

Earlier this week, I spoke with two of them who are very familiar with the center’s work. Brown University’s Kim Cobb is a climate scientist and director of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society, and Matthew Cappucci is senior meteorologist at MyRadar.

Thank you both so much for being here.

Kim Cobb, to you first. What is NCAR and why, as a climate scientist, is it so important and seemingly precious to this community?

Kim Cobb, Brown University:

Thanks for having me, William.

NCAR is a really historic institution in our field. It, of course, dates back decades now. And, over that time, it has really woven itself into the fabric of both weather and climate science across the country and around the world.

We’re talking about unique, one-of-a-kind facilities like supercomputers, ticked-out airplanes, and most importantly, a staff of over 800 people who are at the top of their game in innovating in weather and climate science for public good, putting out data that is on every single climate scientist’s computer around the country, if not around the world, and a nexus of collaboration as well that is important training grounds for the next generation of leaders.

William Brangham:

And, Matthew Cappucci, as a meteorologist, how important is NCAR to your profession?

Matthew Cappucci, Senior Meteorologist, MyRadar:

I mean, NCAR is really the birthplace of all the tools we use, both technologically.

And, really, the discoveries that are made at NCAR are crucial to our understanding of how the atmosphere works. That’s where we first learned about the MJO, the Madden-Julian Oscillation, one of the biggest overturning circulations in the atmosphere that governs how so many things, for example, hurricanes behave.

It’s where we first created a special product used by airplanes when they’re landing to avoid wind shear, disruptive changing winds with height that could cause plane crashes. They invented a system there to prevent that. That’s where dropsondes were invented, those little probes that are dropped out of the belly of airplanes in the middle of hurricanes to figure out how strong the hurricanes are.

So, so many different tools and discoveries have come from NCAR. In addition, the modeling is incredibly important. And if we’re sort of putting the brakes on that, I worry about the implications for weather forecasting.

William Brangham:

Kim Cobb, well, what more on that? Well, let’s say NCAR is broken up. What are the impacts, both for the scientific community and for Americans who benefit from its research?

Kim Cobb:

I think what’s really important to remember is that NCAR focuses on the entire continuum from weather that ranges over hours and days that’s designed to aid the forecasts that keep people safe and protect infrastructure and our economy.

But they also go all the way out to looking decades into the future and really understanding that most important intersection right now, how weather is responding to ongoing climate change. It’s these kinds of questions at the very forefront of our field that they’re focused on right now.

And these are innovations that are going to reap absolutely untold dividends through time. So, by breaking this — these up and its component parts, if you will, first of all, the administration has made clear that it’s the climate portion of the portfolio which they are taking squarely in aim.

And, of course, that is the portion that is right now so important to invest in as we seek to understand more about the coming threats and impacts of ongoing climate change, 2025, of course, wrapping up to be tied for the second warmest year ever.

William Brangham:

And, Matthew, the White House has argued that NCAR and its undertakings and its work is somehow contaminated with woke ideology or climate alarmism.

Is there research or data that is coming out of NCAR that is politicized or ideological in any way?

Matthew Cappucci:

Truth be told, no. The atmosphere does not possess a voter registration card. I think it’s important to remember that scientists do science. And, really, the only people doing the politicization are, for the most part, politicians and the general public and the media.

It worries me, though, that this fits into an overall pattern of the demonization of both science and academia. The idea that we’re trying to shut down science that produces results we don’t like, it’s a very worrisome trend. And we have seen this other times in history, and it never really ended well.

And I’m just very concerned about the tone that’s being taken that simply because one political party or even one political person doesn’t like the fact that we’re learning about the atmosphere.

William Brangham:

I mean, Kim, as Matthew is saying, we know that President Trump has called climate change a hoax. He believes it’s nothing that we need to focus on. He has directed so much of the administration to move away from climate research, from renewable energy, doubling down on fossil fuels.

I’m just curious as to what — are you worried similarly about the future of climate research if we continue to chip away at these foundational projects?

Kim Cobb:

Well, obviously, as Matthew said, we turn our backs on science to great risk and peril.

And I think most Americans get it right now. In the headlines every year are these horrific climate-fueled disasters that have taken such a toll on communities and our national economy, to the tune of billions of dollars per year. So this is not a controversial subject in that regard. People do want the best available science information to protect themselves.

And that’s exactly what NCAR and its scientists are focused on. And I think the Trump administration is just not understanding how long an investment has been made to get us to this point and the many dividends that we have already reached and that, once you break something like this, it’s really going to be hard to put it back together again. That’s my concern.

William Brangham:

Matthew, the OMB director in his announcement said they will do a systematic review of the work that NCAR does, and critical weather information and research will just get sent somewhere else or done in another location.

How confident are you that a breakup of NCAR could still keep some of the critical elements intact?

Matthew Cappucci:

I think so many times this administration has historically put the cart before the horse. And what I mean by that is, it seems like just a year ago, they were cutting a huge chunk of National Weather Service forecasters.

And then, after they were laid off, the government realized, oh, wait, we kind of need them, and brought them back. This seems like another really shortsighted decision made by the administration without realizing or fully researching the potential implications of what could happen.

And I also just sort of think this strikes the wrong tone for just about everybody. Weather and climate affect everybody. And, realistically, you’re much more likely to be hit by a tornado or hurricane in a red state. And so I’m surprised by sort of Trump and his administration doing something that could potentially have negative impacts on his own core audience and following.

William Brangham:

All right, that is Matthew Cappucci and Kim Cobb.

Thank you both so much for being here. We really appreciate it.