Pretty interesting article. Would have never thought of something like this. OP is this a global issue? South Korea and UK have implemented 5G, do you know if they had to overcome this problem?
Pretty interesting article. Would have never thought of something like this. OP is this a global issue? South Korea and UK have implemented 5G, do you know if they had to overcome this problem?
honestly? i dunno, since technology's not really what i focus on. it does seem to be a global concern for meteorologists in the guardian article i posted: but at least personally i don't know of...
OP is this a global issue? South Korea and UK have implemented 5G, do you know if they had to overcome this problem?
honestly? i dunno, since technology's not really what i focus on. it does seem to be a global concern for meteorologists in the guardian article i posted:
“The way 5G is being introduced could seriously compromise our ability to forecast major storms,” said Tony McNally of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading. “In the end it could make the difference between life and death. We are very concerned about this.”
The crisis facing the world’s meteorologists stems from the fact that the radio frequencies the new 5G networks will use could contaminate critical Earth observations made by weather satellites.
but at least personally i don't know of any reporting which goes into how it's impacted places that already use it on some level.
The United Kingdom is using three main bands for 5G: 700MHz, 3.4-3.8GHz, 24.25-27.5GHz. That third band is adjacent to the 23.8GHz frequency the weather forecasters use for detecting water vapour,...
I don't buy that this will affect hurricane predictions on the scale of days. That can't possibly be true. 5G signal drop-off is pretty rapid and will be constrained to large metropolitan areas,...
I don't buy that this will affect hurricane predictions on the scale of days. That can't possibly be true. 5G signal drop-off is pretty rapid and will be constrained to large metropolitan areas, not some pervasive global signal interference. There'd be negligible interference over the oceans and hurricane paths can be forecasted better than local rainfall patterns.
Even for areas that have 5G, I bet it's feasible to do some interference masking and subtract out non-weather effects to some extent. This sounds like unsubstantiated alarmism to me. Maybe I'm missing something, but to me the writer seems to be exaggerating.
I still don't really understand why anyone's bothering with 5G when at least in the US we still ain't even hit the specs of 4G. We still got room to grow here.
I still don't really understand why anyone's bothering with 5G when at least in the US we still ain't even hit the specs of 4G. We still got room to grow here.
So, single shot radar scans would have hot spots but moving Doppler scans of a storm would just be a bit less sensitive near the 5g transmitters. 5G would be a huge infrastructure undertaking and...
So, single shot radar scans would have hot spots but moving Doppler scans of a storm would just be a bit less sensitive near the 5g transmitters.
5G would be a huge infrastructure undertaking and create many jobs. We may finally get fiber in more places or we could just use antenna to antenna hops to a fiber hub.
The bandwidth is going to be great and capable of many users.
As for rain, we can fallback to different frequencies and older technology. Do you want better internet or incredibly detailed rain maps?
Rain maps! We need this information to protect lives and property. Also, there's only one frequency that water vapour emits at, and we can't shift that. However, we can shift our own broadcasting...
Do you want better internet or incredibly detailed rain maps?
Rain maps! We need this information to protect lives and property.
Also, there's only one frequency that water vapour emits at, and we can't shift that. However, we can shift our own broadcasting frequencies.
Water is visible at multiple frequencies. Using 10-12 GHz, water is easy to see. It depends on the droplet size so it looks like a bell curve around those frequencies. It is also visible at 2.4Ghz...
Water is visible at multiple frequencies. Using 10-12 GHz, water is easy to see. It depends on the droplet size so it looks like a bell curve around those frequencies. It is also visible at 2.4Ghz which your microwave is tuned to for heating.
24.8 is a fairly new frequency for rain detection equipment. The higher the frequency, the more accurate the map.
So, we should have more accurate rain maps. Internet is just internet. There are lots of ways to deliver internet. But detecting rain and other precipitation can only happen in limited ways, and...
The higher the frequency, the more accurate the map.
So, we should have more accurate rain maps.
Internet is just internet. There are lots of ways to deliver internet. But detecting rain and other precipitation can only happen in limited ways, and can have important real-world consequences.
At least in the US, only large cities are likely to get 5G due to the frequencies used. Given how entrenched our ISPs are, I doubt this will bring fiber to more areas. Definitely, but data plans...
We may finally get fiber in more places or we could just use antenna to antenna hops to a fiber hub.
At least in the US, only large cities are likely to get 5G due to the frequencies used. Given how entrenched our ISPs are, I doubt this will bring fiber to more areas.
The bandwidth is going to be great and capable of many users.
Definitely, but data plans are still absurdly expensive.
for more reporting on this issue, see also this Guardian article
Pretty interesting article. Would have never thought of something like this. OP is this a global issue? South Korea and UK have implemented 5G, do you know if they had to overcome this problem?
honestly? i dunno, since technology's not really what i focus on. it does seem to be a global concern for meteorologists in the guardian article i posted:
but at least personally i don't know of any reporting which goes into how it's impacted places that already use it on some level.
The United Kingdom is using three main bands for 5G: 700MHz, 3.4-3.8GHz, 24.25-27.5GHz. That third band is adjacent to the 23.8GHz frequency the weather forecasters use for detecting water vapour, and UK meteorologists are concerned.
As for South Korea: "SK Telecom has acquired spectrum in the 3.5 GHz and 28 GHz frequencies in anticipation of deploying 5G."
Here in Australia, we're using the 3.6GHz window for 5G services. And there's concern about frequencies in the 5.6GHz range.
“This is a global problem,” says Jordan Gerth, a meteorologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Google is a wonderful thing!
Axios has some more info about this: 5G spectrum and the potential weather forecasting apocalypse
I don't buy that this will affect hurricane predictions on the scale of days. That can't possibly be true. 5G signal drop-off is pretty rapid and will be constrained to large metropolitan areas, not some pervasive global signal interference. There'd be negligible interference over the oceans and hurricane paths can be forecasted better than local rainfall patterns.
Even for areas that have 5G, I bet it's feasible to do some interference masking and subtract out non-weather effects to some extent. This sounds like unsubstantiated alarmism to me. Maybe I'm missing something, but to me the writer seems to be exaggerating.
Man I have yet to see one positive article about 5G. I honestly kinda want to know the upsides just to get an honest opinion of it.
Sounds identical to the bullshit people were spewing about cell phones causing cancer when they first came out.
I see.
I still don't really understand why anyone's bothering with 5G when at least in the US we still ain't even hit the specs of 4G. We still got room to grow here.
So, single shot radar scans would have hot spots but moving Doppler scans of a storm would just be a bit less sensitive near the 5g transmitters.
5G would be a huge infrastructure undertaking and create many jobs. We may finally get fiber in more places or we could just use antenna to antenna hops to a fiber hub.
The bandwidth is going to be great and capable of many users.
As for rain, we can fallback to different frequencies and older technology. Do you want better internet or incredibly detailed rain maps?
Incredibly detailed rain maps can save a lot more lives/ property damage than the internet can, so I'll go with that.
Rain maps! We need this information to protect lives and property.
Also, there's only one frequency that water vapour emits at, and we can't shift that. However, we can shift our own broadcasting frequencies.
Water is visible at multiple frequencies. Using 10-12 GHz, water is easy to see. It depends on the droplet size so it looks like a bell curve around those frequencies. It is also visible at 2.4Ghz which your microwave is tuned to for heating.
24.8 is a fairly new frequency for rain detection equipment. The higher the frequency, the more accurate the map.
So, we should have more accurate rain maps.
Internet is just internet. There are lots of ways to deliver internet. But detecting rain and other precipitation can only happen in limited ways, and can have important real-world consequences.
At least in the US, only large cities are likely to get 5G due to the frequencies used. Given how entrenched our ISPs are, I doubt this will bring fiber to more areas.
Definitely, but data plans are still absurdly expensive.