A fixed band on the Valencia radar: what we know and what we don't

The radar that has spent hours drawing a straight line over Valencia

Over the Mediterranean, off the coast of Calpe, a narrow, elongated band has appeared in recent days, pointing inland toward the Valencian Community and, further inland, toward the Requena-Utiel area. In the captures, the shape holds hour after hour. It does not move. It does not break up. The weather forecast says it should dissipate; the real image insists it is still there. That mismatch, more than the rain, is what has half of Spain watching the AEMET (Spain's weather agency) and meteoblue radars.

The trace also coincides with the basin of the Poyo ravine, a spot that in Valencia is not viewed calmly. And on that coincidence a debate has been built that ranges from home routers to boats anchored between Algeria and Alicante. Almost everything except the boring explanation.

The Cullera radar and the 5,4 GHz band

The most repeated technical hypothesis points to radiofrequency interference. According to one of the explanations circulating in the debate, the Cullera radar, located relatively low, would operate in the 5,4 GHz band, the same one used by WiFi 5 and 6 routers and Wimax networks. If filters are not installed, that outside activity leaks into the signal and the software interprets it as precipitation echo: the equipment sees water where there is only a transmission.

It would not be a new or unique phenomenon: in the thread it is recalled that another radar, the one in the Basque Country, dragged a similar problem for years until it was fixed. The recurring complaint is that here no one has installed that filter yet.

Can a router interfere with a radar 150 kilometres away?

Here consensus breaks down. One side maintains that it is impossible for a home network to reach a radar out at sea, more than a hundred kilometres from the coast: a router's coverage does not come close. The counterargument does not refer to home routers, but to higher-power transmitters or, directly, to equipment installed deliberately to degrade the signal.

On paper, a radar has its transmitter and receiver in the same place, and anyone who wants to blind it knows where to aim. The discussion then drifts into administrative territory: if the interference is known, why isn't it corrected? Some recall that the last sanction for interfering with AEMET equipment dates back about four years.

The "spear" that seems to come from the sea

Another camp abandons the electromagnetic explanation and looks for the origin in the water. If the radar view is zoomed out, the shape disappears; if it is focused south, an emission appears whose source could be between Algeria and Alicante. The question circulating is what vessel generates that signal. Maritime traffic tracking has become, unintentionally, a tool for weather analysis.

From interference to geoengineering

From there, the matter jumps scale. Part of the debate connects the radar lines with deliberate climate modification: aircraft contrails, particle dispersion, atmospheric heating systems. Historical episodes are cited to lend weight to the argument, such as Operation Popeye, the US programme that between 1967 and 1972 sought to prolong the monsoon season over Laos during the Vietnam War and was declassified in 1974.

It is worth separating the levels. The existence of documented environmental modification techniques does not automatically turn a radar band into an attack. And none of those hypotheses has verifiable evidence for this specific episode.

The background no one lets go

Beneath the technical discussion there is another, older and harsher one, about dam management and warnings during torrential rain episodes in the Poyo basin. Some of the messages maintain that gate openings without prior warning worsened the damage and demand accountability. These are serious accusations, made without a judicial ruling, and that is why they remain where they are: in the realm of complaint.

One participant also claims that a complaint was registered with the European Parliament in May 2015 about these radar interferences. More than a decade later, the pattern repeats with the same insistence. If the problem has been known for years and the solution is a filter, the question is no longer what appears on the screen. It is why we keep watching it.