The floods in Texas show why we need to fully fund NOAA labs
It is critical to reflect on government role's in the short term and build a minute-by-minute chronology of the disaster. But it is equally important to highlight the long-term investments America needs for climate and weather resilience. This means talking about the NOAA labs and other research centers dedicated to basic science. These institutions are essential to innovation in precipitation forecasting and warnings that save lives, yet they are on the chopping block in the president's latest Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal.
President Trump's budget proposal called for closing all NOAA labs and cooperative institutes with universities. It also calls for closing its Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, which funds and coordinates with the labs and cooperative institutes. Congress is debating funding levels for NOAA research now as it begins the appropriations process.
A final budget aligned with the president's proposal would devastate NOAA research, including precipitation research, rendering the agency unable to update and innovate the weather and climate models that support the military, businesses, individuals and community institutions like Camp Mystic in Texas.
Consider the significance of NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory in Norman, Oklahoma. The lab, working with the University of Oklahoma and the Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies, developed the Flooded Locations and Simulated Hydrographs Project (FLASH), which improves the accuracy, timing and specificity of flash-flood warnings. FLASH doubled accuracy for the National Weather Service, improved spatial resolution by 500 percent, provided up to six hours of forecast lead time and improved forecasters' ability to identify rare, severe flash floods.
Consider also the role of labs and cooperative institutes in developing NOAA's newest hurricane model, the Hurricane Analysis and Forecast System. The model attests to NOAA's commitment to continually improving its forecasts for potentially catastrophic natural disasters.
In 2024 alone, there were five tropical cyclones causing losses exceeding $1 billion in the U.S., and NOAA predicts an above-normal 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, with three to five major hurricanes. Hurricane forecasting is especially difficult in today's era of 'rapid intensification,' which refers to an increase in the maximum sustained winds of a tropical cyclone of at least 30 knots in a 24-hour period. The magnitude of rapid intensification in the central and eastern Atlantic Ocean has been increasing over the past 30 years.
The Hurricane Analysis and Forecast System has made critical improvements in predicting the path and intensity of hurricanes. The model, operational since June 2023, has saved lives, property and infrastructure. In 2024, it successfully predicted the rapid intensifications of hurricanes Helene and Milton. At its peak, Milton reached Category 5 intensity and became one of the strongest hurricanes on record in the Atlantic basin. Helene landed in Florida as a Category 4 storm and became the deadliest hurricane in the contiguous U.S. since Katrina.
The Hurricane Analysis and Forecast System's success was no accident. Its design came to fruition after careful investment. It took five years of research and development from three NOAA centers of excellence: the National Weather Service Environmental Modeling Center, the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory, and the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies.
Trump and his allies in Congress seem to think that Americans can enjoy NOAA's finished products, such as high-quality hurricane forecasts, without spending a dime on basic research.
Eighty years of federally sponsored scientific research tell us otherwise. 'Basic research leads to new knowledge,' wrote American inventor and engineer Vannevar Bush in a landmark report on science to President Harry S. Truman. 'It provides scientific capital. It creates the fund from which the practical applications of knowledge must be drawn. New products and new processes do not appear full-grown. They are founded on new principles and new conceptions, which in turn are painstakingly developed by research in the purest realms of science.'
We cannot uproot the tree of science and expect it to still bear fruit.
Congress should fully fund NOAA research and all other parts of this essential agency, or risk endangering American lives, property and infrastructure.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
A Nuclear Reactor on the Moon? Come Again?
The acting administrator of NASA has issued a directive to fast-track efforts to put a nuclear reactor on the moon. 'To properly advance this critical technology to be able to support a future lunar economy, high power energy generation on Mars, and to strengthen our national security in space, it is imperative the agency move quickly,' Sean Duffy, the secretary of transportation whom President Trump appointed last month as temporary leader of the space agency, wrote in the directive, which was sent out on Thursday. Politico was first to report on the directive. In it, Mr. Duffy cites plans by China and Russia to put a reactor on the moon by the mid-2030s as part of a partnership to build a base there. If they were first, China and Russia 'could potentially declare a keep-out zone' that would inhibit what the United States could do there, Mr. Duffy said. The directive calls for the appointment of a NASA official to oversee the effort within 30 days and for a request seeking proposals from commercial companies to be issued within 60 days. The reactor will be required to generate at least 100 kilowatts of electrical power — enough for about 80 households in the United States — and to be ready to launch in late 2029. One lunar day lasts four weeks on Earth — two weeks of continual sunshine followed by two weeks of cold darkness. That harsh cycle makes it difficult for a spacecraft or a moon base to survive with just solar panels and batteries. Current exploration efforts, both by NASA and by the Chinese-Russian partnership, are focusing on the south polar region, where the sun is never high over the horizon and the bottoms of some craters lie in permanent shadows. Over the years, NASA has financed nuclear reactor research, including the awarding of three $5 million contracts in 2022 to companies developing initial designs. Those designs were smaller, producing 40 kilowatts and weighing under six metric tons. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Haunting Underwater Voice Remains Mystery 25 Years Later (Listen)
The mysteries of the world's oceans are as vast as the seas themselves, spreading across more than 70% of the earth's surface, and still to this day, remaining largely unexplored. And one unknown occurrence has remained unanswered for 25 years. Back in 1991, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration captured an underwater sound off the Pacific Ocean, near the equator, eerily resembling that of a woman. As such, they named the phenomenon 'Julia.' And still, they've been scratching their heads as to what may have caused the anomalous noise. Hear it below. Of course, online, conspiracy theorists have their ideas about what the sound may be. Like on Reddit, where some users commented and cautioned: 'So T-Rex didn't go extinct. He moved into the ocean to escape the heat from the apocalypse and is now a fish. Got it.' 'This is terrifying.... It's why you'll never find my ass out on a cruise ship. No thank you.' 'What could be causing that? Could it be something similar to the big blip, or like an under water eruption?' 'RELEASE THE KRAKEN!'In reality, the experts at NOAA do have a pretty distinct idea of what the mysterious sound may be. They believe it was the sound of an iceberg grounding on the seafloor. NOAA continued: 'This sound was recorded on March 1, 1999 on the eastern equatorial Pacific autonomous hydrophone array. The most likely source of the sound formerly known as 'Julia' is a large iceberg that has run aground off Antarctica. Due to the uncertainty of the arrival azimuth, the point of origin could be between Bransfield Straits and Cape Adare with an origin time of 1999 JD60 21:05GMT.' Or, just maybe, there's more secrets in the ocean's depths that we've yet to Underwater Voice Remains Mystery 25 Years Later (Listen) first appeared on Surfer on Aug 4, 2025 Solve the daily Crossword
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Acting NASA chief Sean Duffy to announce plans for building nuclear reactor on the moon
It's a power move. The Trump administration aims to accelerate the construction of a nuclear reactor on the moon, Transportation Secretary and acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy wrote in a memo distributed internally on Monday. The space agency has previously explored the possibility of installing an electricity-generating nuclear reactor on the lunar surface capable of powering a sustained human presence, but Duffy intends to fast-track the project and more than double the reactor's power output, according to documents obtained by The Post. 3 Transportation Secretary and acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy announced plans to build a nuclear reactor on the moon. AP Photo/George Walker IV Advertisement 'To properly advance this critical technology to be able to support a future lunar economy, high power energy generation on Mars, and to strengthen our national security in space, it is imperative the agency move quickly,' Duffy wrote in the memo. 'It is about winning the second space race,' a NASA senior official told Politico, which first reported on Duffy's plans. Duffy's directive will instruct NASA to seek out proposals for a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor that would be ready for launch by 2030. Advertisement In 2022, NASA's 'Fission Surface Power Project' awarded design contracts for a 40-kilowatt nuclear reactor, which the agency said is capable of powering 33 households. If another country, such as China or Russia, were to build a reactor on the moon first, it could 'declare a keep-out zone which would significantly inhibit the United States,' Duffy's order noted. The directive calls for NASA to appoint a leader for the reactor project and to get private industry input within 60 days. 3 The planned reactor would be complete by 2030. IndustryAndTravel – Advertisement NASA will look for private spaceflight companies able to get the reactor to the moon by 2030, when China intends to launch a manned moon mission. President Trump named Duffy, 53, the acting head of NASA last month after he withdrew the nomination of billionaire Jared Isaacman, an ally of ex-DOGE chief Elon Musk. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! The surprise move came in response to a 'review' of Isaacman's history, Trump said at the time. Advertisement Isaacman has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates and causes as recently as October 2024, when he gave more than $41,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Federal Election Commission records show. 3 A NASA senior official reportedly said the plan is about 'winning the second space race.' Alberto Ghizzi Panizza/ Duffy outlined NASA's ambitious objectives — to circle the moon, land and eventually build a base on the surface — last month in an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity. 'We're going to go back to the moon during Donald Trump's presidency,' he told Hannity. 'Next year … start of the year, we are going to go back to the moon. We're not going to land. We're going to go around the moon. And then about a year later, we're going to land back on the moon,' Duffy explained. 'And then after that, we're going to set up a base camp. 'We're going to stay on the moon, and what we learn on the moon is what's going to take us to Mars.' A spokesperson for NASA did not respond to The Post's request for comment.
