5 ms·
The clickbait headline belies the content of the article: researchers still don’t know exactly what triggers lightning. Personally I find the leading hypothesi
by criticaltinker 5y ago
The clickbait headline belies the content of the article: researchers still don’t know exactly what triggers lightning.
Personally I find the leading hypothesis a bit absurd or at least unbelievable. The idea that colliding ice crystals shed electrons and form ionized air in masses great enough to trigger the most energetic phenomenon on the plant seems … like a Newtonian hammer looking for a nail.
It’s well known that the sun emits a powerful electric field which causes the “northern lights” to appear at the poles of the planet. And it’s well known that solar activity is correlated with large scale weather patterns and atmospheric thermodynamics.
How is the Sun not a viable explanation for the origin of lightning? Cosmic rays initiating an electron cascade is interesting, but I would expect the sun to play a bigger role than that.
- keyle 5y agoThey did say that it was the leading hypothesis that this puts aside.
- caf 5y agoThe auroras aren't caused by the Sun's electric field impinging on the Earth, they're caused by actual charged particles from the solar wind entering the atmosphere and ionising air molecules.
- Aerroon 5y agoLightning isn't that energetic. A 16 MW wind turbine can capture the energy of a lightning bolt from thin air in about 1 minute. The average lightning bolt that strikes the ground contains about 1 billion joules of energy. That's 1 GJ of energy. The Siemens Gamesa’s SG 14-222 DD wind turbine has a capacity of 14 MW. In 71 seconds that wind turbine would capture the energy of a lightning bolt. There is an enormous amount of energy in the air moving around us. I can very well believe how that movement can charge up lighting.
- hypertele-Xii 5y agoWith an average duration of 0.2 seconds, a bolt of lightning therefore has like 355 times the energy of your wind turbine for the same length of time. Sounds fairly energetic to me.
- throwaway2344lh 5y ago> Sounds fairly energetic to me. Sounds fairly powerful to me.
- bawolff 5y agoIf you assume that it takes a while to build up for a sudden discharge, that doesn't sound like that much to me.
- Terr_ 5y agoAlso we don't know how much atmosphere-volume per second is needed for 1 "normal" lightning strike. (Assuming some sort of volume-based cause.) In contrast, the amount of air passing through the blades of a turbine per second is probably much easier to calculate, and I'd wager less.
- TeeMassive 5y agoYou're mixing energy and power.
- lrem 5y agoHave you ever seen a thunderstorm averaging five lightnings per second? I haven't. But I have seen plenty with a couple lightnings per minute - right in the ballpark of the power of a small wind farm beneath.
- Digit-Al 5y agoBack in 2017 there was a superstorm over the UK and France. Here in London the lightning was basically continuous. It was really bizarre because it looked like someone had put stadium lights on so the whole sky was lit up continuously. Apparently there was something in the region of 120,000 lightning strikes over 12 hours, which is 10,000 per hour. That was, of course, spread over a large region, but still... https://metro.co.uk/2017/07/19/londons-epic-thunder-and-lightning-storm-in-pictures-6789782/ https://metro.co.uk/2017/07/19/londons-epic-thunder-and-ligh... https://strangesounds.org/2017/05/120000-lightning-strikes-england-france-superstorm-video.html https://strangesounds.org/2017/05/120000-lightning-strikes-e...
- lrem 5y agoHow does sun send its electric energy to a 70m wide region of the cloud? Aurora borealis is 80-1000km across.