Weather data shapes the national economy and security
In the long arc of humanity's effort to read the sky, the United States finds itself at a crossroads: the storms are growing costlier, the losses more frequent, and the agency charged with watching the horizon is straining under the weight of its own complexity. Experts gathered before Congress in early March to make the case that NOAA — the nation's weather sentinel — needs clearer purpose, stronger structure, and deeper partnerships if it is to meet the scale of what the climate is now asking of it. Since 1980, extreme weather has claimed more than eight thousand American lives and erased two and a half trillion dollars from the national ledger, with a record twenty-eight billion-dollar disasters striking in 2023 alone. The question before lawmakers is an old one dressed in urgent new clothes: will we invest in foresight before the next storm arrives, or wait to count the cost after?
- The United States absorbed a record 28 billion-dollar weather disasters in 2023, part of a $2.5 trillion toll since 1980 that shows no sign of slowing — the pressure on forecasting infrastructure has never been greater.
- NOAA, the agency at the center of this crisis, is being asked to do more with less clarity — no written strategy, no dedicated modeling team, and a budget too unpredictable to support long-term planning.
- Experts warned Congress that piling new mandates onto NOAA without funding them is quietly eroding the agency's ability to do its core job: giving farmers, emergency managers, and communities the warnings they need in time to act.
- A bipartisan consensus is forming around the idea that private sector partnerships and structural reform — not just more money — are the path to making the U.S. a global leader in meteorological science.
- The hearing landed not as a partisan fight but as a shared reckoning: the current system is straining, lives are at stake, and the window for deliberate action is narrowing with every storm season.
On a Wednesday in early March, a room full of experts sat before Congress and made a case that was difficult to argue with: the nation's weather forecasting agency is under-resourced, under-organized, and increasingly outpaced by the storms it is meant to predict.
The numbers framing the hearing were sobering. Last year, the United States endured twenty-eight separate weather disasters each costing at least a billion dollars — a record annual toll. Since 1980, extreme weather has killed more than eight thousand Americans and cost the economy two and a half trillion dollars, with a quarter of that damage concentrated in just the last seven years. The trajectory, experts said plainly, is moving in the wrong direction.
At the center of the problem sits NOAA, the agency whose forecasts shape decisions for farmers, manufacturers, emergency managers, and ordinary families weighing whether to evacuate before a hurricane. Republican subcommittee chairman Max Miller framed the stakes clearly: weather data is not a curiosity — it is infrastructure for the national economy and security. When forecasts fall short, the consequences move through supply chains, insurance markets, and communities with nowhere to turn.
Scott Weaver of CLIMET Consulting told the committee that the U.S. has a genuine opportunity to lead the world in meteorological science, but only through deliberate choices. He and other witnesses outlined a reform agenda: a clear written strategy for forecast improvement, a structural review of the agency's own operations, a dedicated modeling team insulated from competing demands, and deeper partnerships with private companies that bring computing power and expertise NOAA currently lacks. Kevin Petty of Aeris added that Congress could help most by giving NOAA a stable, predictable budget — and by resisting the habit of assigning new mandates without the funding to carry them out.
The human dimension of the work was voiced by ranking Democrat Deborah Ross, who noted that while storms cannot be stopped, their damage can be reduced — but only when accurate warnings reach people in time and in a form they can act on. What emerged from the hearing was less a partisan divide than a shared recognition: the system is straining, the cost of inaction is measured in lives and dollars, and the moment for deliberate reform is now.
On a Wednesday in early March, a room full of experts sat before Congress and made a straightforward case: the nation's weather forecasting agency needs more support, better structure, and clearer direction—because the cost of getting it wrong has become staggering.
Last year alone, the United States absorbed twenty-eight separate weather disasters that each cost at least a billion dollars to recover from. That was a record. Since 1980, extreme weather has killed more than eight thousand Americans and drained the economy of two and a half trillion dollars. A quarter of that damage has happened in just the last seven years. The trajectory is not bending in the right direction.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, sits at the center of this problem. The agency is responsible for the weather models and forecasts that farmers, manufacturers, emergency managers, and ordinary people depend on to make decisions—from what to plant in spring to whether to evacuate before a hurricane. Max Miller, the Republican chairman of the House subcommittee hearing the testimony, framed it plainly: weather data is not a curiosity. It shapes the national economy and security. When forecasts fail, the consequences ripple through supply chains, insurance markets, and communities that have nowhere to go.
The United States faces a particular challenge that other nations do not. Its weather is more varied, more frequent, and more intense than anywhere else on Earth. That complexity makes prediction harder. But it also means the stakes of getting better at prediction are higher. Scott Weaver, CEO of CLIMET Consulting, told the committee that the country has a genuine opportunity to lead the world in meteorological science—but only if Congress and NOAA itself make deliberate choices about how to invest and organize that work.
Weaver and other experts outlined what needs to change. NOAA should develop a clear, written strategy for improving forecasts. It should examine its own structure to see where it can operate more efficiently. It should build a dedicated team focused solely on modeling, insulated from the churn of other responsibilities. And it should forge deeper partnerships with private companies that have expertise and computing power NOAA lacks. Kevin Petty, CEO of Aeris, a science and technology firm, emphasized that Congress could help by resisting the urge to pile new mandates onto NOAA without funding them, and by giving the agency the stability of a predictable annual budget so it can actually plan.
The human dimension of this work came through in the testimony of Deborah Ross, the ranking Democrat on the committee. She noted that while severe storms cannot be stopped, their damage can be reduced—but only if people receive timely, accurate warnings and know what to do with that information. The integration of good forecasts with clear communication is not a luxury. It is how lives get saved and property gets protected.
What emerges from the hearing is not a partisan disagreement but a shared recognition that the current system is straining under the weight of what it is being asked to do. The question now is whether Congress will act on what the experts have said, and whether NOAA will use that support to remake itself into something more nimble, more focused, and more connected to the private sector tools that could help it work better. The cost of inaction is measured in dollars and lives.
Notable Quotes
Weather data doesn't just help determine the day's clothing. It enhances our national economy and security by assisting long term decision-making.— Max Miller, House Committee chairman
The dangers and damage associated with severe storms cannot be stopped entirely, but they can be mitigated, including by providing the impacted communities with appropriate warnings.— Deborah Ross, ranking committee member
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Congress need to hear from experts about NOAA funding? Isn't weather forecasting just a technical problem?
It's technical, yes, but the money tells the real story. Twenty-eight billion-dollar disasters in a single year. That's not just a weather problem—it's an economic and security problem that touches farmers, manufacturers, insurance companies, emergency managers. Congress needs to understand that better forecasts aren't a nice-to-have. They're infrastructure.
But the U.S. already has weather forecasts. What's broken?
Not broken, exactly. Strained. The U.S. has more varied and intense weather than any other country, which makes prediction harder. And NOAA is trying to do too much with unclear priorities. The experts are saying: give them a real strategy, let them focus, give them stable funding, and let them work with private companies that have computing power they don't have.
So it's about money and organization, not just science?
Both. You can have brilliant scientists with no budget, or a budget scattered across conflicting mandates. The testimony was really about alignment—getting Congress to fund it, getting NOAA to organize itself, and getting the private sector in the room.
What happens if Congress doesn't act?
The trend continues. More disasters, higher costs, more deaths. The U.S. falls behind other nations in meteorological capability. And communities keep getting hit without the warning time they need.
Is there a sense of urgency in the room?
Yes. Both Republicans and Democrats said the same thing: this matters, and it's getting worse. The question is whether that agreement translates into actual funding and structural change, or whether it stays in the hearing room.