Hurricane Predictions and 5G...Concerning

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by GordMay

After Trump changed the track of hurricane Dorian, with a sharpie, the House approved a budget, of 12 crayons, for the border wall.

Mexican crayons?

[Sailing Ohm]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

35 kts isn't even a strong gale.

In the past the hurricane hunters wouldn't have even been called out for a storm like this.

45 kts is a tropical storm.

NOAA was purged 8 years ago of anyone not toeing the Global warming narrative.

They are all Liberal Democrats, and highly partisan now.

I recently got into an argument with a group of them, and was thrown out because they were frothing at the mouth insisting "Trump needs impeached immediately over Sharpiegate".

I didn't see the big deal, and didn't get upset enough for them.

That's it, I wont be allowed back.

...WTF... All I wanted was a talk about hurricanes in a sailboat forum.
Seriously why does everything have to turn into some political rant? Hurricanes do not give a **** if your a republican a Democrat or what. Science is science and data is data so if you have a problem with that then that’s another issue.
From a scientific point knowing variables like interference is very important. So please stop wasting everyone’s time and energy.

[GreenWave]

This is rubbish. I say quite the opposite in that the number, severity and direction of the storms has been VERY accurate this year.



What weather forecasting has to do with 5G I don't get. Sources please, and it needs to be something better than a FB opinion.

[GreenWave]

Originally Posted by rhpike

Having a sailboat in Kemah, TX (just South of Houston), I follow the hurricane season quite closely. With respect to location of the eye when it hits the coast, I believe that all the 2020 Gulf Coast hurricane forecasts (3-5 day) were quite accurate with the exception of Sally. Sally was originally expected to hit near the New Orleans area, but stalled just offshore until it finally landed near Gulf Shores, AL. I'm not a weather forecaster, but read that it is very difficult to predict where a hurricane will land when its forward motion is near zero. My 2 cents.

Exactly, just like it is hard to maintain a set course when your sailboat has little to no forward speed. Which is why I get pissed when boats drop below 2 knots a in the Kemah channel... my boat isn't happy at that slow speed.

[Sailing Ohm]

Originally Posted by GreenWave

This is rubbish. I say quite the opposite in that the number, severity and direction of the storms has been VERY accurate this year.



What weather forecasting has to do with 5G I don't get. Sources please, and it needs to be something better than a FB opinion.

In the time it took you to write that you could’ve googled It yourself or noticed a link in the original post

[GreenWave]

Originally Posted by Sailing Ohm

In the time it took you to write that you could’ve googled It yourself or noticed a link in the original post

OK, regardless of the article, let me clarify. 5G signals affecting tropical storm forecasting and tracking is rubbish. Like someone else suggested, maybe it impacts hyperlocal observations but not a 300 mile tracking grid.

[Dsanduril]

For all the people on this thread questioning the 5G aspect, Gord has already posted some material, but here's a link.

The short of it, weather forecasting satellites in space measure a very weak signal at 23.8GHz that is emitted by water vapor in the atmosphere. If 5G radios are transmitting in the 24GHz band it is likely that some of their spurious emissions will interfere with that weak signal at 23.8GHz.

That there can/will be interference isn't even really questioned by either side, it is the level of interference and the ramifications of same that are the question.

Since this is a satellite measurement of an atmospheric phenomenon there is no cable, or fiber, or other containment option. If the 5G radios emit more power at that 23.8GHz frequency than the atmospheric water vapor then the 5G emissions will swamp the output of the water vapor and result in inaccurate readings by the weather satellite(s). The satellites can't change because we're talking about a physical characteristic of water vapor in the atmosphere. The satellites are just measuring it, there is no choice as to what frequency is used/measured.

The conflict is very real, as are possible solutions. But both sides are so busy posturing that there is no room for substantive discussion over implementation of those solutions.

[Sailing Ohm]

Didn’t think until just now but it could also effect drought and fire warnings inland... if I read some people correctly here the current 5G systems that use the 24-26 ghz are very short range systems. Now I did read some articles About 5G satellites but maybe that’s in the future maybe not.

[SailtheWind]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

35 kts isn't even a strong gale.

In the past the hurricane hunters wouldn't have even been called out for a storm like this.

45 kts is a tropical storm.

NOAA was purged 8 years ago of anyone not toeing the Global warming narrative.

They are all Liberal Democrats, and highly partisan now.

I recently got into an argument with a group of them, and was thrown out because they were frothing at the mouth insisting "Trump needs impeached immediately over Sharpiegate".

I didn't see the big deal, and didn't get upset enough for them.

That's it, I wont be allowed back.

Why does a weather discussion has to become political???
Chill man

[Sailing Ohm]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

For all the people on this thread questioning the 5G aspect, Gord has already posted some material, but here's a link.

The short of it, satellites in space measure a very weak signal at 23.8GHz that is emitted by water vapor in the atmosphere. If 5G radios are transmitting in the 24GHz band it is likely that some of their spurious emissions will interfere with that weak signal at 23.8GHz.

That there can/will be interference isn't even really questioned by either side, it is the level of interference and the ramifications of same that are the question.

Since this is a satellite measurement of an atmospheric phenomenon there is no cable, or fiber, or other containment option. If the 5G radios emit more power at that 23.8GHz frequency than the atmospheric water vapor then the 5G emissions will swamp the output of the water vapor and result in inaccurate readings by the weather satellite(s). The satellites can't change because we're talking about a physical characteristic of water vapor in the atmosphere. The satellites are just measuring it, there is no choice as to what frequency is used/measured.

The conflict is very real, as are possible solutions. But both sides are so busy posturing that there is no room for substantive discussion over implementation of those solutions.

I also don’t think the average person is aware of the possible ramifications. It certainly is a complicated question that will surely Have a solution as you’ve said.
In my heart I have to believe that NOAA is really just trying to help. I don’t think people get into meteorology for the money.
I’ve never known or heard of an evil meteorologist outside of a movie but for sure I’ve heard stories of evil CEOs

[GreenWave]

Originally Posted by Sailing Ohm

Didn’t think until just now but it could also effect drought and fire warnings inland... if I read some people correctly here the current 5G systems that use the 24-26 ghz are very short range systems. Now I did read some articles About 5G satellites but maybe that’s in the future maybe not.

I will acknowledge the potential for some interference, again, on the close in scale. I would be hopeful that satellites, especially future ones, could apply some AI to "filter" out the 5G noise.

[billgewater]

Originally Posted by hlev00

The misleading piece is that it is only the high band 5g that uses the frequencies discussed as interfering with water vapor detection. There are, so far, very few of these cells so I don't imagine they are interfering with this years data. If there has been any actual reduction in forecast fidelity, it would seem to have to be coming from somewhere else.


It is hard to imagine that the 5g high band would ever be deployed widely enough to have a material impact, but that's just a gut feeling.

Probably nonsense but I had assumed that much meteorological data came from commercial aircraft. Now I understand that most of these planes are sitting on the ground at dry desert sites for the Covid duration. Not 5 G , but just "Gee". No wonder the met. folks are getting the wrong data.
Anyone responding to this needs a holiday.

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by Sailing Ohm

...
In my heart I have to believe that NOAA is really just trying to help. I don’t think people get into meteorology for the money.
I’ve never known or heard of an evil meteorologist outside of a movie but for sure I’ve heard stories of evil CEOs

Probably so on both counts. I work with NOAA a fair amount, and their facet that is comparable to the evil CEO is the entrenched bureaucracy that resists change, any change, on general principles "because that's how we've always done it."

That's painting both sides with a very broad brush, which isn't remotely fair, and leads to the polarization that breaks down reasonable discussion.

[barnakiel]

But is the 5G signal not:


1) emitted overland, and
2) being a high frequency signal, then is it not limited in range?


Also -

3) satellite sensors are always strongly directional.


So how come a strongly directional sensor somewhere over the ocean gets disturbed by a very remote signal of known limited range?


Thank you.


barnakiel

[sailjumanji]

Originally Posted by gonesail

nobody said anything about tracking errors!!

I said there were some errors in tracking. What I took offense to and called BS on, was your statement:

"in addition to naming every low pressure system in the Atlantic and calling it a hurricane."

THis is simply not true. It's not an opinion, its fact. Not every low pressure system was named and called a hurricane.

Ok, your opinion might be that NHS was inaccurate this year. Fine, state that. But going so far as to say they called every low pressure system a hurricane, well, why do you have to go so far as to make a statement that is blatantly false.