by Eleanor Ball
5G wireless seems like the wave of the future. It excites consumers with the possibility of 100x faster connectivity than 4G, and it excites companies with its ability to allow for innovation such as self-driving cars. However, scientists are warning that a heedless rise in 5G could lead to catastrophic issues with weather forecasting. This debate came to a head at a recent summit in Egypt, where meteorologists, government regulators, and wireless industry representatives met to negotiate the future of 5G wireless network growth. Researchers are highly concerned with the results of this summit.
But why are the fields of meteorology and wireless technology so at odds?
Weather satellites and 5G networks both transmit data using radio frequencies. Unfortunately, some 5G transmission frequencies--particularly those near 24 gigahertz (GHz)--come perilously close to those used by satellites to collect critical weather and climate data. This means that 5G transmissions at those frequencies might be interpreted by weather satellites as transmissions coming from disturbances in the atmosphere. Take, for example, the most important frequency under discussion, 23.8 GHz. Atmospheric water vapour naturally emits a signal at this frequency, which weather satellites pick up on and then utilize to measure humidity. Those data affect weather forecasts because atmospheric water vapour is an important determinant of weather, such as hurricane formation or the likelihood and intensity of precipitation. However, if a 5G station is transmitting a frequency near 23.8 GHz, a weather satellite might pick it up and interpret it as water vapour. For example, NOAA’s acting administrator said in May that expanded 5G transmissions could compromise 77% of the water vapour data NOAA collects at 23.8 GHz. Satellites around the world would then feed degraded data into forecasts, hurting their quality to degrees ranging from minor to severe.
To solve this issue, scientists have proposed regulations lowering the amount of noise permitted to leak from 5G transmissions. That way, these transmissions would travel more quietly through space and interfere less with satellite data. This “noise buffer” is the only way to make the interference problem manageable, meteorologists argue. Before and during the summit, participants argued about how big the noise buffer should be. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) advocated for the biggest buffer, -55 decibel watts (dBW). European regulators were willing to go down to -42 dBW. Regulators from the United States were the least demanding of all, favoring just -20 dBW. This may not sound like a big difference to those not proficient in physics. However, the American recommendation would have allowed more than 150 times more noise than the European recommendation, not to mention the WMO recommendation.
In the end, the standard that emerged from the ITU meeting is closest to the European recommendation; however, as a compromise, it will be implemented in two stages. Until 2027, the noise buffer will only be -33 dBW. After that, it will be -39 dBW. Supporters of the deal argue it allows for the industry to have eight years of relatively loose (but still safe) regulation to get 5G wireless off the ground. Then, when the industry is flourishing, they can be subjected to tougher regulation. Researchers say these standards are nowhere near what is needed to secure the integrity of weather forecasts. They point to a study by NASA and NOAA that says U.S. weather forecasting ability, for example, would be set back four decades if satellites were beset by interference from 5G stations. ITU representatives don’t buy it.
U.S. Federal Communications Commission chairman Ajit Pai asserts that NOAA doesn’t understand how 5G technology will work. Its “beam-forming” technology already minimizes stray noise, and its use will be concentrated in densely populated urban areas. A counsellor with the International Telecommunications Union, the international body that regulates global telecommunications, agrees with Pai. He argues that the regulations that emerged from the summit were “adequate.” Scientists are holding their ground, however.
While the most common results of degraded forecasts are likely to be mispredicting fog and showers, these errors may not cause that much damage. It is the rarer but significantly more serious potential effects, such as issues in severe weather forecasting, that have researchers the most worried. Collecting climate data is also a highly concerning issue. While weather is concerned with the short-term, climate is concerned with the long-term. It is already difficult getting people to believe in climate change, and even harder to get those in power to do anything effective about it. With the data that verifies the truth of climate change potentially degraded and compromised, that task may become harder than ever. This may require even more activism and education than ever before.
The future of forecasting is uncertain. The severity and number of corrupted forecasts remains to be seen. For now, there are a few things onlookers can do to help the situation as best they can. Petitioning the ICU and their federal Congresspeople to increase the noise buffer makes their voices heard and lets those in power know people care about this issue. As disasters like hurricanes and severe thunderstorms become harder to accurately predict, giving aid to organizations like FEMA in the form of money, time, blood, and necessities needed by disaster survivors is of great help as well. Lastly, people simply looking out for their neighbors and remembering never to take severe weather warnings lightly is critical to mitigating the effects of degraded forecasts.
Eleanor Ball is a GW Scope staff writer and junior humanities editor for the George Washington Undergraduate Review. She is currently researching 17th century Flemish art and the relationships between period innovations in science and aesthetics. A freshman studying international affairs and public health, she is also on the board of GW Shakespeare and a member of GlobeMed and the Politics & Values program.
Comments