Little more than a month ago, Boulder scientists were publicly counseling a cautious, wait-and-see approach to feared budget cuts by the administration of a president who has called climate change a hoax perpetrated by China.

They waited, and late last week, they saw.

A report appeared Friday from the Washington Post, which had obtained a four-page memo outlining a 17 percent budget cut for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which the newspaper called one of the nation’s premier agencies for climate science.

One critic of those proposed cuts pointed out that the $990 million savings would fund the Department of Defense for 12 hours.

The Post’s story said Trump’s budget promised steep cuts to NOAA research funding and satellite programs, and would also wipe out funding for an assortment of smaller programs such as external research, coastal management, estuary reserves and “coastal resilience,” the aim of which is to strengthen the ability of low-lying coastal areas to survive major storms and higher seas.

The memo also shows that NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research would lose 26 percent, or $126 million, of its funds under the current budget, the Post reported. Additionally, its satellite division would say goodbye to 22 percent, or $513 million, of its current funding under the Trump spending plan.

NOAA’s Boulder office, reflecting caution that has been exhibited since Trump’s election, referred questions about the proposed cuts to the public affairs office of its parent agency, the U.S. Department of Commerce, in Washington, D.C.

Department of Commerce officials did not return requests for comment.

Although those who would be subject to the cuts are saying little, others in the climate science community are speaking out with a degree of alarm about the implications of such cuts.

A widely circulated posting Saturday for Forbes by Marshall Shepherd, a leading international expert in weather and climate, and 2013 president of the American Meteorological Society, explored the far-reaching ways in which NOAA affects everyday life.

“NOAA is the lead agency for the nation’s weather forecasts, weather satellites, fisheries, ocean services and climate monitoring,” Shepherd wrote. “If you rely on TV weather forecasts, use a weather app, eat fish, enjoy boating or claim your status as an Earthling, these cuts potentially have implications for you.”

Shepherd, who is also director of the University of Georgia’s Atmospheric Sciences Program, said it was “beyond the scope” of his intentions to “get into the politics.”

He sticks instead to the simple facts of what a 22 percent slashing of the satellite division, or a 5 percent cut to the National Marine Services Service or 5 percent reduction to the National Weather Service — which are also both under NOAA — could mean.

While stating that scientists stand ready to work with elected officials, Shepherd calls weather and climate information “a national and homeland security asset.” He cautions that “any weakening of our technological, scientific and human capabilities related to weather and climate places American lives and property at risk.”

‘Undeclared war’

Critics of the Trump administration budget plans for climate science include David Titley, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, who was NOAA’s chief operating officer under the Obama administration.

In an email, Titley said he had not actually seen the Office of Management and Budget “passback” documents to NOAA, but had been told, in some cases verbatim, about the language they contain and he believes those reports to be credible.

The Trump administration is not expected to release its 2018 budget outline until early next week.

“Assuming this is true and this really is the actual OMB passback, there’s still a long ways to go in the budgeting process between passback and ultimate appropriation,” Titley said. “I often refer to passbacks as analogous to the end of Act I in the three-act play. Much more will happen. Some bad, some good, most unknown and even unknowable at this point.”

But with that said, Titley added that the Washington Post report “represents continuity” with what was heard in campaign rhetoric, and from hearings for Trump’s cabinet-level officials.

“There is a declared war on regulation, and an undeclared war on both climate science in particular and education and knowledge in general,” Titley said.

“There is also a particular shortsightedness in eliminating future satellites and (research) ships. The budget seems to be based on raiding the cookie jar for near-term gains, and let someone else pick up the pieces of broken agencies, of which NOAA will be one.”

Titley pointed out that the $990 million savings on climate science were enough to keep the Pentagon afloat for 12 hours. Trump, meanwhile, has also pledged to add $54 billion in defense spending.

“As a retired Naval officer, I personally think this (the planned NOAA budget slashing) is a bad deal for our country,” said Titley, who left the U.S. Navy as a rear admiral.

Shortsighted, dangerous

Closer to home, the Trump budget plans were also panned by Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist with expertise in climate science at Boulder’s National Center for Atmospheric Research.

“This is potentially devastating to NOAA because it comes on the heels of previous cuts,” Trenberth said. “The cuts proposed for OAR (Ocean and Atmospheric Research), which is the research arm of NOAA but also includes all of the ocean observations, is shortsighted and dangerous.”

Trenberth said that even before these proposed cuts, NOAA has already lost “good people.”

“The benefit-to-cost ratio of funds that go to NOAA is huge,” he said. “The approach of cutting ‘climate’ based on ideology related to opposition to any hint of climate change is extremely short-sighted, as the whole of the Earth system is connected. Indeed, the extremes of weather, in terms of drought and wildfire and floods, arise because of climate change.

“Already NOAA has lost good people who have retired or moved on elsewhere.”

Charlie Brennan: 303-473-1327, brennanc@dailycamera.com or twitter.com/chasbrennan