I long ago came to the conclusion that meteorologists in the Bay Area spin drunken money in a circle and then have them throw a dart at a weather board. But it seems like the field is getting worse in areas where things were traditionally easier to read. I suspect climate change plays apart, but IANAM.
Weather
For discussion of weather, meteorology, and closely adjacent fields.
I hate that feeling when I check the weather forecast and there is no storms. The knowledge that meteorology is often imprecise hives me hope
most people don't understand that 60% chance of rain means theres a chance some rain will fall in some of the area indicated.
This is because 80% chance in 75% of an area =
.8 * .75 = .6
...60% chance of rain.
If in the USA, it is because of 5G. The government failed to regulate the frequency overlap and cutoff requirements like the more civilized world. The 5G band butts up against the hydrogen line. The FCC was warned that a failure to regulate this issue would set back meteorology to the state it was in the 1970's. They failed to regulate it. Now the 5G band pollutes the hydrogen line in the USA which kills the resolution and detection of water in the atmosphere. All of the models predicting weather have garbage in and garbage out. In other words they run on medieval era thoughts prayers witch burning and alchemy like the rest of the Republican jihad.
I have not heard that - is there a source you’d recommend to read up on it?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G
The spectrum used by various 5G proposals, especially the n258 band centered at 26 GHz, will be near that of passive remote sensing such as by weather and Earth observation satellites, particularly for water vapor monitoring at 23.8 GHz.[131] Interference is expected to occur due to such proximity and its effect could be significant without effective controls. An increase in interference already occurred with some other prior proximate band usages.[132][133] Interference to satellite operations impairs numerical weather prediction performance with substantially deleterious economic and public safety impacts in areas such as commercial aviation.[134][135]
The concerns prompted U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine in February 2019 to urge the FCC to delay some spectrum auction proposals, which was rejected.[136] The chairs of the House Appropriations Committee and House Science Committee wrote separate letters to FCC chairman Ajit Pai asking for further review and consultation with NOAA, NASA, and DoD, and warning of harmful impacts to national security.[137] Acting NOAA director Neil Jacobs testified before the House Committee in May 2019 that 5G out-of-band emissions could produce a 30% reduction in weather forecast accuracy and that the resulting degradation in ECMWF model performance would have resulted in failure to predict the track and thus the impact of Superstorm Sandy in 2012. The United States Navy in March 2019 wrote a memorandum warning of deterioration and made technical suggestions to control band bleed-over limits, for testing and fielding, and for coordination of the wireless industry and regulators with weather forecasting organizations.[138]
At the 2019 quadrennial World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC), atmospheric scientists advocated for a strong buffer of −55 dBW, European regulators agreed on a recommendation of −42 dBW, and US regulators (the FCC) recommended a restriction of −20 dBW, which would permit signals 150 times stronger than the European proposal. The ITU decided on an intermediate −33 dBW until September 1, 2027, and after that a standard of −39 dBW.[139] This is closer to the European recommendation but even the delayed higher standard is much weaker than that requested by atmospheric scientists, triggering warnings from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) that the ITU standard, at 10 times less stringent than its recommendation, brings the "potential to significantly degrade the accuracy of data collected".[140] A representative of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) also warned of interference,[141] and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), sternly warned, saying that society risks "history repeat[ing] itself" by ignoring atmospheric scientists' warnings (referencing global warming, monitoring of which could be imperiled).[142] In December 2019, a bipartisan request was sent from the US House Science Committee to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate why there is such a discrepancy between recommendations of US civilian and military science agencies and the regulator, the FCC.[143] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G
"What's needed to keep 5G from compromising weather forecasts"
- https://gcn.com/articles/2020/09/29/weather-satellites-vs-5g.aspx
- https://web.archive.org/web/20211204075803/https://gcn.com/articles/2020/09/29/weather-satellites-vs-5g.aspx
"The Wizard Behind the Curtain? - The Important, Diverse, and Often Hidden Role of Spectrum Allocation for Current and Future Environmental Satellites and Water, Weather, and Climate"
"A Myriad of Proposed Radio Spectrum Changes – Collectively Can They Impact Operational Meteorology?"
- https://ams.confex.com/ams/2019Annual/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/352154
- https://web.archive.org/web/20190505043300/https://ams.confex.com/ams/2019Annual/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/352154
"Global 5G wireless networks threaten weather forecasts"
- Nature DOI 10.1038/d41586-019-01305-4
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31040411
- https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:140396172
"5G Wireless Networks Could Interfere with Weather Forecasts, Meteorologists Warn"
- https://weather.com/news/news/2019-04-30-5g-networks-interfere-with-weather-forecasts
- https://web.archive.org/web/20190505043303/https://weather.com/news/news/2019-04-30-5g-networks-interfere-with-weather-forecasts
"Critical weather data threatened by FCC 'spectrum' proposal, Commerce Dept. and NASA say"
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/03/08/critical-weather-data-threatened-by-fcc-spectrum-proposal-say-department-commerce-nasa/
- https://web.archive.org/web/20190509072101/https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/03/13/fcc-auction-off-wireless-spectrum-that-could-interfere-with-vital-weather-data-rejecting-requests-us-house-science-agencies/
"FCC to auction off wireless spectrum that could interfere with vital weather data, rejecting requests from U.S. House and science agencies"
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/03/13/fcc-auction-off-wireless-spectrum-that-could-interfere-with-vital-weather-data-rejecting-requests-us-house-science-agencies/
- https://web.archive.org/web/20190509072101/https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/03/13/fcc-auction-off-wireless-spectrum-that-could-interfere-with-vital-weather-data-rejecting-requests-us-house-science-agencies/
"Some worry 5G may pose huge problems for weather forecasting"
- https://buffalonews.com/2019/05/27/some-worry-5g-may-pose-huge-problems-for-weather-forecasting/
- https://web.archive.org/web/20190530014438/https://buffalonews.com/2019/05/27/some-worry-5g-may-pose-huge-problems-for-weather-forecasting/
"Global 5G wireless deal threatens weather forecasts"
- Nature DOI 10.1038/d41586-019-03609-x
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31772363
- https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:208302844
"WMO expresses concern about radio frequency decision"
"Global 5G deal poses significant threat to weather forecast accuracy, experts warn"
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/11/22/global-g-deal-poses-significant-threat-weather-forecast-accuracy-experts-warn/
- https://web.archive.org/web/20191127201837/https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/11/22/global-g-deal-poses-significant-threat-weather-forecast-accuracy-experts-warn/
Very interesting!
It explained that the NOAA “uses the 23.6-24 GHz spectrum band for microwave sensor-based remote sensing of atmospheric levels of water vapor, which is the single most impactful data stream for accurately forecasting weather. This data is used by NOAA’s National Weather Service, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of Defense (DOD), in addition to the broader international weather community.”
Without this data, the letter said, forecasting accuracy “would be reduced to the accuracy of forecasts produced in the 1970s.”
Which seems about right. I did not know that.
Ignore the wackjobs, please.
I mean, it seems pretty straightforward. Per the Washington Post, NASA, the DoD, and several committee chairs asked the Trump FCC not to do it, and they did it anyway. Which tracks.