Technical 5G Wireless May Lead to Inaccurate Weather Forecasts

whynot

Addicted
Jul 13, 2019
77
481
133
Interesting.

Upcoming 5G wireless networks that will provide faster cell phone service may lead to inaccurate weather forecasts, according to a Rutgers study on a controversial issue that has created anxiety among meteorologists.

“Our study – the first of its kind that quantifies the effect of 5G on weather prediction error – suggests that there is an impact on the accuracy of weather forecasts,” said senior author Narayan B. Mandayam, a Distinguished Professor at the Wireless Information Network Laboratory (WINLAB), who also chairs the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering in the School of Engineering at Rutgers University–New Brunswick.

The peer-reviewed study was published this month at the 2020 IEEE 5G World Forum, sponsored by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Fifth-generation cellular wireless technology (5G) stems from new, smarter ways to use the higher (mmWave) frequencies for mobile communications. This technology will revolutionize internet communication and telecommunication. It has faster connection times, increases the number of devices that can connect to a network and will be more widely available over the next two to three years, according to IEEE.

The Rutgers study used computer modeling to examine the impact of 5G “leakage” – unintended radiation from a transmitter into an adjacent frequency band or channel – on forecasting the deadly 2008 Super Tuesday Tornado Outbreak in the South and Midwest.

The signals from the 5G frequency bands potentially could leak into the band used by weather sensors on satellites that measure the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and affect weather forecasting and predictions. Meteorologists rely on satellites for the data needed to forecast weather.

Based on modeling, 5G leakage power of -15 to -20 decibel Watts (a decibel Watt is a unit of power that describes the strength of radio waves) affected the accuracy of forecasting of precipitation (by up to 0.9 millimeters) during the tornado outbreak and temperatures near ground level (by up to 2.34 degrees Fahrenheit).

“It can be argued that the magnitude of error found in our study is insignificant or significant, depending on whether you represent the 5G community or the meteorological community, respectively,” Mandayam said. “One of our takeaways is that if we want leakage to be at levels preferred by the 5G community, we need to work on more detailed models as well as antenna technology, dynamic reallocation of spectrum resources and improved weather forecasting algorithms that can take into account 5G leakage.”


https://www.rutgers.edu/news/5g-wireless-may-lead-inaccurate-weather-forecasts
 

Sandy

Dark Sith Lord of the Pool Room
Moderator
Ski Pass
Jan 1, 1998
70,357
28,808
1,515
Yokohama, Japan, Melb. Expat.
This article doesn't tell you what it needs to tell you, and in fact, it's a little misleading.
- For example, it says "5G", and yet it doesn't say the frequency in questions (The concern is actually 23.8GHz, which is the one of the frequencies used by satellites for passive measurement of Precipitable Water Vapor [PWV] )
- It says that "a decibel Watt is a unit of power that describes the strength of radio waves". This is not specifically correct: Decibel Watt (dBW) is a unit for the measurement of the strength of a signal expressed in decibels relative to one Watt. Decibels are a RELATIVE measurement, not an absolute measurement. (Hence -15 to -20 decibel Watts can be used to describe the "leakage" relative to the main intended field strength)

- The graphic from the article implies that 5G interferes with the clouds.
_Weather5G_Leakage_Graphic.jpg


However, the "leakage" noise might mask the 23.8GHz absorption from the water vapor picked up by the satellites.

The worry is at the 5G K-Band(n258) at 24.25GHz – 27.50GHz, at the lower end, because 24.25GHz is close to 23.8GHz.
But 5G doesn't use n258 right now. It's possible it could be problem when it does. Most current 5G frequency bands are below 3.6GHz.

It's more of an issue in the USA, where the FCC auction set a noise limit on the US 5G networks of –20 dBW, which is much noisier than the thresholds under consideration by almost every other country for their systems. The European Commission, for example, has settled on –42 dBW for 5G base stations, and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is recommending –55 dBW.
However, the main 5G vendors (Ericsson, Samsung, Nokia, Huawei, and a couple of others) are likely to design to the -42dBW, to rationalise the production of radios.
 

Jasper Schwarz

One of Us
Ski Pass
Jun 18, 2017
2,619
9,289
363
Northern Beaches, Sydney,

Sandy

Dark Sith Lord of the Pool Room
Moderator
Ski Pass
Jan 1, 1998
70,357
28,808
1,515
Yokohama, Japan, Melb. Expat.
For someone is very much in favour of 5G cellular network this was actually an interesting read. I would be interested to see if 5G emitted from Wifi networks (which have been around for years) have a similar effect.

As with any new discovery, replication is very important. Will be curios to see the outcome of this
5G has nothing to do with WiFi.
5G is not a THING or a frequency. 5G is the generation of mobile telephony(5th Generation):
- 2G ~ 1990
- 3G ~ 2001
- 4G ~ 2011
- 5G ~ 2019/2020

Currently, the highest 4G frequencies are up to ~3.5GHz. Most current 5G networks use frequencies up to 3.6GHz.
So the conspiracy theories are just absurd.

That's why that article is misleading, because it doesn't even mention the PWV absorption at 23.8GHz.
 

whynot

Addicted
Jul 13, 2019
77
481
133
This article doesn't tell you what it needs to tell you, and in fact, it's a little misleading.


Perhaps the paper itself would be a better read.
http://www.winlab.rutgers.edu/~narayan/PAPERS/5GWF_Conf_Paper_Final.pdf

If NOAA is arguing there is a problem, perhaps there is?

...
Due to the shortage of available spectrum in sub-6 GHz frequency bands for cellular communications, mmWave frequency bands with large spectrum availability are considered in 5G to enable cellular service providers to cope with the increasing demand for higher data rates and ultra low latency services [1]. The major 5G mmWave bands are 26 GHz (n258 band), 28 GHz (n257 band), 39 GHz (n260 band), and 47 GHz [2]. Of specific interest is the 3GPP band n258 band (see Fig. 1), which is adjacent to 23.8 GHz where the passive This work is supported in part by the NSF under Grant Nos. ACI-1541069 and ECCS-1818478. sensors (e.g. Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU)-A sensors [3]) embedded in weather prediction satellites operate to dynamically monitor and measure the atmospheric radiance which is used to predict the density of water vapor in the atmosphere, that is then further used in weather forecasting. The adjacency of the 23.8 GHz frequency, used by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather prediction satellites, to the n258 band used by 5G equipment results in inter channel interference which could negatively impact the precision of the underlying weather forecast models. In fact, the leakage of energy from the 5G bands into the 23.8 GHz band perturbs the radiance (equivalently brightness temperature) of atmospheric thermal emissions that is observed and measured by the passive sensors on the weather satellites, thereby lowering the validity and precision of weather forecast models. Such coexistence and interdependence issues between 5G mmWave networks and weather prediction satellites raise concern and speculation over the potential negative impact of 5G services and radio transmissions on weather forecasting. In fact, the potential use of the n258 band has generated a lot of anxiety and concern in the meteorological data forecasting community including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [4]–[7]. Hence, such 5G leakage needs to be precisely characterized and addressed in order to maintain the accuracy of the satellite based weather forecasts [8]. In fact, recent versions of the 3GPP’s 5G NR specification specifically have a carveout to protect satellite weather services, by reducing the emission levels of neighboring 5G signals between 24.25 and 27.5 GHz [9]. But NOAA is arguing the current emission requirements aren’t enough — it’ll lose that critical data required for precise forecasting unless such 5G emissions are clamped down even further. Understanding and characterizing the effect of such “spectrum coexistence” calls for an interdisciplinary approach to first understand the impact of 5G transmissions on weather data measurements and prediction, and second, design mitigation strategies as needed to enable seamless coexistence between 5G services and weather prediction.
...
 
  • Like
Reactions: crackson

Sandy

Dark Sith Lord of the Pool Room
Moderator
Ski Pass
Jan 1, 1998
70,357
28,808
1,515
Yokohama, Japan, Melb. Expat.
Perhaps the paper itself would be a better read.
http://www.winlab.rutgers.edu/~narayan/PAPERS/5GWF_Conf_Paper_Final.pdf

If NOAA is arguing there is a problem, perhaps there is?
I've already mentioned this, and the problem is in the USA, due to more lax standards:
It's more of an issue in the USA, where the FCC auction set a noise limit on the US 5G networks of –20 decibel watts, which is much noisier than the thresholds under consideration by almost every other nation for their systems. The European Commission, for instance, has settled on –42 decibel watts for 5G base stations, and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is recommending –55 decibel watts.
However, the main 5G vendors (Ericsson, Samsung, Nokia, Huawei, and a couple of others) are likely to design to the -42dBW, to rationalise the production of radios.
And it's only at 23.8GHz (at the 5G K-Band(n258) at 24.25GHz – 27.50GHz), not at other frequencies.
 

Marty McSly

A brick propping up the furniture
Ski Pass
Jul 12, 2011
11,747
1
16,920
863
Hunter Valley Whine Country, NSW
5G has nothing to do with WiFi.
An object oriented programmer would tell you this is a classic example of an overloaded operator.

@Jasper Schwarz has mistaken the abbreviation 5G for the 5 GHz WiFi band, which is often abbreviated to 5G. It causes much hilarity when people use the SSID "5G-COVID-TEST-TOWER" for their 5 GHz WiFi.
 

Jasper Schwarz

One of Us
Ski Pass
Jun 18, 2017
2,619
9,289
363
Northern Beaches, Sydney,
An object oriented programmer would tell you this is a classic example of an overloaded operator.

@Jasper Schwarz has mistaken the abbreviation 5G for the 5 GHz WiFi band, which is often abbreviated to 5G. It causes much hilarity when people use the SSID "5G-COVID-TEST-TOWER" for their 5 GHz WiFi.
Yeah exactly. There you go - learn something new everyday
 

Sandy

Dark Sith Lord of the Pool Room
Moderator
Ski Pass
Jan 1, 1998
70,357
28,808
1,515
Yokohama, Japan, Melb. Expat.
An object oriented programmer would tell you this is a classic example of an overloaded operator.

@Jasper Schwarz has mistaken the abbreviation 5G for the 5 GHz WiFi band, which is often abbreviated to 5G. It causes much hilarity when people use the SSID "5G-COVID-TEST-TOWER" for their 5 GHz WiFi.
Yeah exactly. There you go - learn something new everyday
This is why whenever we talk about "5G", you need to talk about which frequency 5G.

And as I've mentioned before, 5G can make the blood rush to your legs and you can black out..... except for fighter pilots, who train up to about 9G. ;)
 

Richard

Maintenance Dept
Administrator
Mar 14, 1995
15,352
21,476
813
Newcastle
It's more of an issue in the USA, where the FCC auction set a noise limit on the US 5G networks of –20 dBW

Why am I not surprised that the USA set a shitty standard for something that has execution repercussions that are already a known at the time of setting the standard..

just wow, it's like never happened before
 
Remove ads with a
Ski Pass

Log in

or Log in using
Learn how membership works on these forums
Remove ads with a
Ski Pass