It just so happens that weather is a phenomenon which affects all people and requires large, distributed, passive infrastructure to effectively manage. It's a classic case where the public option is bound to be more efficient in terms of absolute resource allocation.
On what basis do I assert that it's "bound" to be more efficient? Simple: weather affects the production, transportation, and logistics of virtually all goods. The costs of weather are therefore distributed equally across society regardless of government policy. Government is very good at delivering this specific type of centralized basic infrastructure in a cost-effective way (see also: roads), so if we're all paying for it together regardless this is a no-brainer policy.
Most of the privates are just repackaging their feeds and data. So if you kill NOAA they will have to start almost from scratch.
I also think this chain of comments is a bit off the rails of my original point (maybe my fault). It honestly doesn't matter if there is pain to be felt by removing government services, we spend entirely too much money and any solution to that will hurt.
If we are only willing to remove spending that hurts little to no one we might as well throw in the towel already, we'll never cut spending with that as a gate.
They're slower, harder to query, the documentation is worse, and they have less data available because the others buy data from private weather stations and re bundle it in addition to pre processing and repackaging the Federal data into better formats on your behalf
I say this as a NOAA lover; the government just isn't good at building APIs.
In this case we simply don't know what the market needs or market value of these services are because no one is incentivized to compete with the subsidized government program.
Every American has an interest in seeing the weather for no cost. It's vital to business and recreation, not to mention safety. It absolutely makes sense for us to all pay a tiny amount.