To all... Evidence of global warming is being linked to rising levels of pollution. A greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide and other by-products of modern man will dramatically change our world in the next 20 to 40 years. In my view a bolt of lightning that occurred two hundred years ago would make chemical changes to the atmosphere different than a bolt of lightning that occurs now. Because the chemical composition has changed, the resulting by-product would change also. Nitrogen that falls to earth during a thunderstorm is a positive result to a farmer by providing a natural fertilizer. An example of a negative result would be "Acid rain" that has destroyed entire forests. My question is what role does lighting play in this? And if it is changing the chemistry of the air we breath and the water we drink, would this process be accelerating?.... I welcome your thoughts on this topic.
QUOTE (Mike001+Jan 7 2007, 04:50 AM)
In my view a bolt of lightning that occurred two hundred years ago would make chemical changes to the atmosphere different than a bolt of lightning that occurs now.
Why it should to do this difference?
Why it should to do this difference?
To clarify what I am saying I will use a combustion engine to represent the Earths atmosphere. The spark from the spark plug can be now viewed as the lightning that occurs in the atmosphere. The levels of greenhouse gases are now twice as high as ever recorded over 600,000 years. (If you believe Al Gore's source in the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth"). (These levels were analyzed from ice core samples in Antarctica). When lightning occurs, its energy tears apart molecules forming as an example Ozone, Carbon Monoxide, and Nitrogen Dioxide. In my example of an engine above, the atmosphere of two hundred years ago had lightning creating the gases I listed naturally, without too much interference by man. But now fast forward to the present day atmosphere and the chemical composition has changed dramatically since the Industrial Revolution. When lightning occurs now in the present day's atmosphere, its energy rips apart molecules and the resulting gases formed by this process are going to be different than what was occurring two hundred years ago. Take Carbon Dioxide as an example. When lightning rips this molecule apart Carbon Monoxide is formed as a result. Nitrogen Dioxide causes smog and acid rain. The Ozone one might think is a beneficial gas from this process, but it is Tropospheric Ozone considered to be a bad form of Ozone that among other things eats away at your flesh. If you have a copy machine where you work and want to see if it is creating ozone gas, put some rubber bands near it and then place some in an area away from the copy machine. If its producing ozone the rubber bands near the copy machine will get brittle and crack and the others will still be normal..... It seems to me that the greenhouse effect that scientists are using to predict global warming in the next 20 to 40 years rely on solar radiation being trapped in the atmosphere due to the presence of Hydrocarbons. I would guess that the computer simulations do not factor in lightning as having any measurable effect....In any given hour there are thousands of lightning strikes occurring all over the planet releasing a tremendous amount of energy and making chemical changes to the atmosphere, if its not being factored in computer simulations its probably due to the fact that these chemical changes would be difficult to measure.
After doing a little research on the Earth's atmosphere I can add some more information to this topic. First of all I gave the example of an engine with the earths atmosphere being sparked by lightning. This process could also be viewed as the Earths atmosphere being a large light bulb with the spark of lightning creating a glow of light today that would be different than the glow produced by lightning two hundred years ago. ( Example, the light given off by a sodium bulb compared to a fluorescent bulb using phosphorus). If a space probe had been in space for the last two hundred years taking photos of the Earth , this changing of the light spectrum of lightning may well have shown photographic proof of my theory...... An interesting fact about lightning is its a plasma. 99% of the visible Universe is in the form of plasma. Here on Earth we are used to the other more familiar states of matter, ( solids, liquids, gas ). Lightning is ( as far as I am aware of) the only naturally occurring terrestrial plasma that man has had direct contact with. It is thought that there is a plasma that circulates at the Earth's core that creates the Earth's magnetosphere. The other plasma that is in contact with the Earth is the ionosphere, where charged particles from the solar wind interact..... I will add more to this topic later.
The Earth's ecosystem is complex. It is held together by many subsystems that are in turn linked to other subsystems. Making a change in any of these subsystems can over time alter the entire ecosystem. Here is an example of a change in our climate that many of you may not be not aware of..... There were clouds that formed above the polar ice packs in 1885 two years after the Krakatoa volcanic eruption. These clouds formed in the mesosphere as high as 85 km above the Earth. The mesosphere is extremely cold -125c and extremely dry (one hundred million times drier than the Sahara desert). And yet here clouds with ice crystals formed where none had ever been seen before. These clouds are named Noctilucent clouds or NLCs. Gary Thomas, a Professor at the University of Colorado, studies NLCs. He notes that NLCs are a fairly recent development. He notes that the 1885 sightings came during the Industrial Revolution when greenhouse gases were on the rise. You might think that after a few years these clouds would have thinned and gradually disappeared.... They haven't! In fact they have grown larger. When these clouds first formed they could only be seen from locations like Scandinavia or Russia etc. now these clouds have grown larger and can be seen where professor Thomas is located in Colorado. He explains, Krakatoa seeded the mesosphere with dust particles that had water molecules attached that were drawn up during the warm summer months. But this does not account for the growing formation of Noctilucent clouds today. The new dust particles he believes may be coming from space itself, meteoroids-tiny bits of debris from asteroids and comets are the perfect size for seeding new clouds. But why are these clouds forming now and not prior to the Industrial Revolution? The answer lies in the extreme dry air of the mesosphere. For ice crystals to form when it is this dry you need extremely cold temperatures. This is how greenhouse gas ties in. While greenhouse gas create a condition that keeps the surface of Earth warmer, it at the same time is making the mesosphere COLDER!....So now you can see how one change in the Earths ecosystem can have an effect on another. This of course has not been scientifically proved but NASA is sending a satellite to study the mesosphere. Its name is AIM (Aeronomy of Ice in the Mesosphere) due to launch 3/29/2007. A good website is http://aim.hamptonu.edu/
As described, as temperatures near the Earth's surface rise, the mesosphere has become colder, allowing ice crystals to form on dust that normally would not. Clouds are forming as a result. If current conditions continue, one could draw from this that these clouds will will continue to grow larger and thicker and quite possibly one day completely encircle the globe. Clouds that exist at heights of 80 km that do not dissipate seems like a frightening real possibility. I for one do not consider this a far fetched scenario. This a quote from Matt Haber a deputy director at the EPA on 4/23/06, "The science of air pollution is rapidly advancing and evolving", "We don't even know what we don't know at this point". And what the experts don't know would fill a library. There is research currently that is focusing in on the processes that dictate our weather, but much of this is driven by Government and Industry to improve such things as hurricane prediction, improving communication, safer flight paths for aircraft etc. But I have my doubts that there is as much driven by a need to improve our environment. What is happening is the Earth is being used as a giant lab experiment. The results of this experiment are still unclear.
From the ( Inter Government Panel on Climate Change), published reports that state water vapor will remain in the troposphere ( layer of atmosphere closest to Earth) for about 9 days. In the stratosphere (next layer higher) water vapor from aircraft for months or years. Other aircraft emissions can remain in the atmosphere ranging from days to centuries with some climate effects felt on even longer time scales. Remember what is meant by the "Butterfly Effect" from chaos theory..... Where a butterfly flapping his wings today can set in motion a chain of events that lead to a hurricane forming one hundred years from now. Such is the same with Man's actions (or lack of action) concerning global warming. Limiting greenhouse gas production will certainly help reverse what Man has done. But studying and understanding the physics of global warming is just as important.... In the panel's report to the United Nations, rising levels of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) were studied and the amount that is produced by lightning was singled out as of yet being unknown. So in other words they can calculate or give rough estimates when it involves NOx produced by industry, automobile emissions, etc. But when it concerns lightning they have no way of accurately measuring it. A satellite may one day detect NOx along with other new data. A GOES series satellite is planned to carry a LMS ( Lightning Mapping Sensor). It will be designed to give near real time data on lightning due to its geostationary orbit. The amount of NOx produced by lightning is one of its many goals.
I saw a science show on television about a year ago. It dealt with lightning that has been witnessed coming out of the top of large thunderstorms and shooting upwards into the ionosphere. This lightning has been confirmed by photographs from Earth and space. There named and classified as (Blue Jets, Sprites, and Elves). While watching the show, a Vietnam Veteran described how he witnessed one from his position in a rice paddy, the show also described how pilots who had witnessed them were reluctant to report them for fear of being deemed mentally unfit to fly. An interesting reference I read recently on the web caught my interest. In the information given about these recently discovered forms of lightning, the year's 1885-1886 were given as when these were first noted in scientific journals as being witnessed. This coincides almost exactly to the Noctilucent clouds first being witnessed over the polar ice packs following the Krakatoa volcanic eruption. Although I haven't read anywhere that supports this, I feel it is a logical conclusion to state that these recently discovered forms of lightning could also be a result of rising greenhouse gases during the Industrial Revolution. If greenhouse gases are a contributing factor for the formation of these mesopheric level clouds why not attribute rising greenhouse gas levels to these new forms of lightning? As indicated earlier, the atmosphere could be viewed as a giant light bulb. We (Man) have changed the gas within the bulb so its characteristics have changed as a result. The bulb today is burning hotter and brighter as a result.
Found a project that is being designed by the Danish Space Agency. The device is called the ASIM (Atmosphere-Space Interactions Monitor) to be deployed on the ISS (International Space Station). Its main purpose is to study high altitude lightning in the form of (Sprites, Elves, and Blue Jets). This quote is from the Danish Space Agency website from an article about the "Sprite Monitor" dated 12/18/2006..... "Do giant flashes of lightning strikes upwards from thunderclouds merely pose an extraordinary spectacular view? Or do they actually alter the chemical composition of the atmosphere, playing a role in ozone depletion and climate on earth? This is the key question that may be answered by specially designed cameras, which the ESA proposes to place on board the International Space Station."
If you can accept that the atmosphere has changed over the last two hundred years, you would have to at least agree its possible that these atmospheric changes have allowed the formation of high altitude mesospheric clouds and high energy lightning ( Sprites, Elves etc.). If you do some research on both these phenomena, you will find both were first recorded in the years 1885-1886, (following the Krakatoa eruption). If there has been no previous sightings in recorded history, is is due simply because conditions in the atmosphere did not allow them to occur prior to the Industrial Revolution. Greenhouse gases could be the cause, and mesospheric and high altitude lightning a result. If you carry this way of thinking a little further it would be reasonable to assume that if the levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, these clouds will grow in size and the lightning will grow in intensity. My position is that this is exactly what is happening. As far as the mesospheric clouds are concerned, the evidence is clear. These clouds that at one time could only be viewed near the poles; have grown in size and are being witnessed much further away from the poles. The data concerning high altitude lightning, (also referred to as TLE, Transient Luminous Events), is less conclusive. The main evidence that I would give, concerns actual visual sightings of these exotic forms of lightning. The first visual sightings were recorded in the years 1885-1886. Photographic evidence was not obtained until the late 1980's and there has been intense research ever since. The main reason I feel these forms of lightning are becoming more intense is due to the fact that pilots didn't start reporting this lightning until the 1950-1960's. With all the aircraft deployed during WWII you would think there would have been sightings. This lack of visual observation from aircraft until well after WWII could be due to lower altitude flight paths but the fact that Sprites can be viewed from the ground viewing a thunderstorm from a distance, it means witnessing sprites would still be possible even at lower altitudes.
This web page shows an experiment that illustrates the action of a plasma when it exists within our atmosphere.plasmoid. This experiment shows on a small scale what I believe is happening on a larger scale to the earths atmosphere. When you see the clear air of nitrogen and oxygen converted to the poisonous yellow nitrous oxide, it drives home the chemical changes to the atmosphere that occur with each bolt of lightning (a plasma) that form within our atmosphere. What is not known at the present time by scientists that are researching global warming, is how much nitrous oxide, ozone, and other gases are forming as a result of lightning. If 3-D images from space can determine this, a more accurate computer model of climate change would be the result. Once this data is analyzed, (which might take several years) I believe it will show that lightning in the Earth's atmosphere is on the rise. I believe it will show that each year the Earth's temperature rises, there is a corresponding rise in the number of lightning strikes and the electrical force of the lightning over time will gain in intensity.
Yesterday on CNN.com, a report states that it is estimated the Earth's temperature will rise 2 to 6 degrees Celsius this century. It is my belief that with hotter temperatures, more frequent and intense storms will develop. The number of lightning strikes worldwide will increase, as a result changes to the atmosphere contributing to global warming will accelerate. It is also my belief that high altitude lightning is a phenomena that has only recently came into existence due to global warming. I believe that as this high altitude lightning gains in intensity, it could one day make sustained lightning strikes to the ionosphere. This process could effectively exterminate all life on the planet. Tremendous amounts of stored energy in the form of coal and oil (that took millions of years to create) are being released by Man in a relatively short period of time. This has created conditions that will impact the planet far worse than the polar ice caps melting.
In the greenhouse effect there is a process known as positive feedback. This process describes how rising surface temperatures cause more water vapor to be drawn up into the atmosphere, which blocks radiation from escaping the atmosphere, which in turn keeps surface temperature warmer, which in turn creates more water vapor, and so on and on and on... If this model is correct, then a positive feedback results with lightning also. As rising surface temperatures cause more evaporation, which leads to more thunderstorms, which results in more lightning, which in turn generates more heat and greenhouse gas. This heat and the greenhouse gas produced in this process, in turn will cause the surface to remain warmer and so on and so on..... It is hoped that climate research may find ways to reverse this process... Another positive feedback that may be occurring involves the various electric and magnetic fields that flow within and around the Earth. In the global atmospheric electrical circuit, current flows from the positively charged ionosphere to the negatively charged Earth. Between the Earth and the ionosphere exist what are called Schumann Resonances or SR. These cause the neutral atmosphere to act as a resonate waveguide at a range of frequencies. These resonances are excited by the electromagnetic emission from lightning strokes. At extremely low frequencies the radiation can propagate around the globe a few times before dissipating as they are trapped in the ionosphere surface waveguide. If the atmosphere has become more conductive to electricity as a result of global warming, then more current will flow from the ionosphere to the earth as a result. It is my belief that as more current flows in this circuit, this in turn could be strengthening the field strength of the Earth's magnetosphere. If true this would cause more charged particles to be trapped within the magnetosphere. This in turn would make the atmosphere more conductive which in turn would allow more current to flow and so on and on.... With more frequent lightning occurring as a result, the SR waveguide will intensify and the current flowing through the lightning bolts will also intensify. The signs of this happening I believe is in the form of high altitude lightning that until recently most scientists would have said is not possible. Given the fact that these exotic forms of lightning were not observed until fairly recently would give support to this view. I thank Simon King, University of Reading, UK. for some information contained in this post.
QUOTE (Mike001+Jan 21 2007, 03:19 PM)
...As rising surface temperatures cause more evaporation, which leads to more thunderstorms, which results in more lightning, which in turn generates more heat and greenhouse gas...
The "heat of lightning" cannot serve as the source of global warming, because of it's energy is many orders of magnitude lower, then the energy of the sun radiation.
How did you come into such freaky BS?
The "heat of lightning" cannot serve as the source of global warming, because of it's energy is many orders of magnitude lower, then the energy of the sun radiation.
How did you come into such freaky BS?
To Zephir. First of all I do not consider global warming to be BS. I believe because the chemistry of the atmosphere has changed, this in turn has changed the electrical flow from the ionosphere to the Earth. If my descriptions contained within my posts are inaccurate, I apologize. To answer your response, the atmosphere between the surface of the Earth and the ionosphere has become more conductive to the flow of charged particles. This has created a condition that creates more lightning. So any heat that is produced by this process may seem small compared to solar radiation but it IS heating the atmosphere, and the amount of heat it contributes to global warming is increasing. It is important to remember this process involves charged particles that exist as a plasma in the ionosphere and not solar radiation that heats the earth which in turn radiates heat back towards outer space. Radiation in the form of light travels at light speed, charged particles are carried from the surface of the sun travel at a much slower speed (solar wind). These particles collect around the Earth's magnetosphere, which if it did not exist, these particles would strike the earth directly. So as you can see what I am describing are charged particles that originate from the sun, and not light rays. Remember also that lightning is a plasma. Also keep in mind that as a lightning bolt super heats the atmosphere it creates greenhouse gases, IE nitrous oxide. so it isn't just more energy flowing as a plasma from the ionosphere to the Earth heating the atmosphere, its also the resulting chemical change in the atmosphere which creates more greenhouse gas. So in conclusion I am not saying lightning serves as a "source" to global warming but it is contributing to it. P.S> I rather liked your description of "freaky". I would hope more people get freaked out by what is happening to our environment, do some reading on the subject and then decide for themselves what appropriate action they can take to heal the Earth. If you are interested, and start researching the physics of lightning, you might come to some of the same conclusions yourself. Thanks for responding,.... Mike001
QUOTE (Mike001+Jan 21 2007, 05:20 PM)
First of all I do not consider global warming to be BS...
First of all, I'm not saying, the global warming is BS, but that the sentence "...more lightning, which in turn generates more heat..." is BS.
At second, I expected exactly such response from you, so my expectation of your naive demagogy was confirmed to be correct. I hope, you don't believe, the further discussion with you would be meaningful for me under such circumstances.
First of all, I'm not saying, the global warming is BS, but that the sentence "...more lightning, which in turn generates more heat..." is BS.
At second, I expected exactly such response from you, so my expectation of your naive demagogy was confirmed to be correct. I hope, you don't believe, the further discussion with you would be meaningful for me under such circumstances.
From the Lightning and Atmospheric Electricity Research at GHCC (Global Hydrology and Climate CenterLightning Research. Quoting from its description of "Thunder" "Sound is generated along the length of the lightning channel as the atmosphere is heated to the order of 20,000 degrees C (3 times the temperature of the surface of the sun)".....H'mm It would seem that lightning does in fact heat the atmosphere. It would seem some will resort to name calling when the scientific facts do not support their position. In case any one is interested I posted this topic here because its heading title contains the words "New Theories". When I first posted this topic, I was only considering lower altitude lightning and its effects on the weather. So in other words with limited knowledge of the physics of lightning I posted this topic and started to do research, and report back any discoveries or conclusions. So when you read my postings I try to always start a sentence with the words "I believe" when I'm stating my own opinion rather than generally accepted scientific fact. Once you start to research the topic of lightning you will soon learn that what scientists know for sure about lightning is small compared to what they don't know. And that to me makes this topic wide open for discussion. If this makes me a demagogue in some peoples view I am sorry. I am not running for political office or use peoples prejudices as a way of seeking power as I found under the definition of demagogy. All I am trying to do is ask a basic question and then seek its answer....Mike001
QUOTE (Mike001+Jan 21 2007, 08:37 PM)
...all I am trying to do is ask a basic question and then seek its answer...
This is disputable as well. You're proposing some answer, instead. Concerning the heat effects of lightning, try to consider, the average heat flux of sun radiation is some 1,4 kWh/m2.
Try to estimate the average heat, released by the lightnings at the same area. I once heard a lightning bolt has about $35 in electricity in it.
This is disputable as well. You're proposing some answer, instead. Concerning the heat effects of lightning, try to consider, the average heat flux of sun radiation is some 1,4 kWh/m2.
Try to estimate the average heat, released by the lightnings at the same area. I once heard a lightning bolt has about $35 in electricity in it.
As I have previously explained, added heat to the atmosphere from a lightning stroke is only one factor to consider, another is the creation of more greenhouse gas. When you create more greenhouse gas, you set in motion conditions that causes the climate to warm up. Are we clear on this? Or do you dispute this as well? What is not known by scientists at the present time is how much greenhouse gas is being produced by lightning. Estimates vary. But if there is more lightning occurring due to global warming then more greenhouse gas is being produced as well. If you would take the time to read my post and go to the links I provided, or do some research on your own, you might understand the facts better. Look for information on the global atmospheric electrical circuit, this should help. Also find some information about the strength of lightning on the planet Jupiter, you will probably find information that will say lightning on Jupiter is 100-150 times more powerful than the lightning on Earth. Ask yourself the question; If we continue to add more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere at an accelerating rate and lightning continues to grow not only in frequency but intensity, how long will it be until our atmosphere is more like Jupiter's, than what it is today? Read up on it and then respond, by the way what is so bad about proposing an answer to a question? When you have proposed some theory (aether wave theory) I haven't criticized your beliefs, why then do you chose to attack mine? Mike001...
QUOTE (Mike001+Jan 22 2007, 03:21 AM)
When you have proposed some theory (aether wave theory) I haven't criticized your beliefs, why then do you chose to attack mine?...
LOL, you can feel free to criticize my theory, whenever you can found some nonsense in it. In fact, you're welcomed to do so.
Concerning the lightning intensity, I don't know about any experimental data, supporting of your theory. Furthermore, even if some lightning frequency increases during the last years, it can be result of global warming, not the true reason. We can expect, as the global warming will continue, the whether will become unstable and stormy. Therefore, the lightning intensity/frequency can serve as the indicator of GW, not the reason.
Did you see the movie The Day After Tomorrow (2004)?
LOL, you can feel free to criticize my theory, whenever you can found some nonsense in it. In fact, you're welcomed to do so.
Concerning the lightning intensity, I don't know about any experimental data, supporting of your theory. Furthermore, even if some lightning frequency increases during the last years, it can be result of global warming, not the true reason. We can expect, as the global warming will continue, the whether will become unstable and stormy. Therefore, the lightning intensity/frequency can serve as the indicator of GW, not the reason.
Did you see the movie The Day After Tomorrow (2004)?
I agree with your last post. The increase of lightning is a "result" of global warming. My only point is to say that this extra lightning creates the positive feedback effect previously noted. (Yes I did see the movie). As far as experimental data, Professor Earle R. Williams of M.I.T. has shown how measurements of the global atmospheric electrical circuit can be used as a measurement or indicator of global warming. Basically a single measuring station can record surface potential gradient data and this in turn correlates to rising surface temperatures. From what I have read, a 250,000V potential exists in the ionosphere, and there is approximately 1,000 amps that flows from the positive ionosphere to the negatively charged Earth. This circuit has shown that as the Earth's temperature has risen, there has been an increase in the current flow. This current flows in fair weather as well as through lightning. A record of the surface potential gradient was recorded at the Kew observatory, London using the Kelvin water-dropper electrometer since its installation in 1843, and continuous readings were recorded in the years 1877-1979. Data from this has shown a steady rate of increased current flow as the earths temperature has risen. Basically what all this boils down to is the layer of atmosphere separating the ionosphere and the Earth's surface which acts more or less like an insulator or a resistor in this circuit, has become more conductive allowing more current to flow in this circuit.
QUOTE (Mike001+Jan 22 2007, 07:50 AM)
...My only point is to say that this extra lightning creates the positive feedback effect previously noted...
From the data published here such feedback is probable, but rather insignificant (in few percent range) for NOX gasses induced by lightning with compare of other greenhouse gases concentration.
My personal feeling is, the concentration curves of greenhouse gases are an indicator of global warming and the important source of the positive feedback, of course - but for the better understanding of the true reason we should consider the influence of atmospheric nuclear tests and Chernobyl accident due the increased level of radiation in higher layers of atmosphere. After all, the fossil fuel burning increases the natural radioactivity background too due the presence of radioisotopes in flying ashes. Such ionization increases the nucleation speed of water droplets significantly and it can decrease the overall transparency of atmosphere.
It is possible, these effects have induced the more advanced damages in the life environment, then we can even imagine.
From the data published here such feedback is probable, but rather insignificant (in few percent range) for NOX gasses induced by lightning with compare of other greenhouse gases concentration.
My personal feeling is, the concentration curves of greenhouse gases are an indicator of global warming and the important source of the positive feedback, of course - but for the better understanding of the true reason we should consider the influence of atmospheric nuclear tests and Chernobyl accident due the increased level of radiation in higher layers of atmosphere. After all, the fossil fuel burning increases the natural radioactivity background too due the presence of radioisotopes in flying ashes. Such ionization increases the nucleation speed of water droplets significantly and it can decrease the overall transparency of atmosphere.
It is possible, these effects have induced the more advanced damages in the life environment, then we can even imagine.
Another unknown is how much radioactive material from above ground H-bomb tests, in addition to tests that both the US and USSR conducted by exploding them in the upper atmosphere to understand EMP, have remained in the upper atmosphere. As far as positive feedback, space based images may be able to determine the amount of greenhouse gas that lightning is creating as well as the strength of the lightning. Once this has been determined further testing could determine what rate of increase is occurring.
I thought lightning being 100 to 150 time more powerful on the planet Jupiter was mind boggling. Imagine how I felt when I read that the Cassini space probe has detected lightning one million times stronger on the planet Saturn! A few news reports that are related to my post, at spaceref.com -The first,Sprites gives a good report on high altitude lightning and how research is limited by balloons, and the need for space based observation. The second, Lightning on Saturn gives information on space based research of the planet Saturn. I have raised the possibility that with global warming, lightning may one day exterminate all life on Earth. I'm sure this was met with skepticism. Anyone who takes the time to read these two articles may think otherwise. If the atmosphere continues to warm and changes in ways no one, not even the experts can predict. What then is in the Earths future? One way to look to our future might be to look at the other planets in our solar system and see if lessons can be learned. Mars for example lost its magnetic shield when its core solidified. Solar wind has made it a barren planet, dry and dusty. On other planets, thick clouds cover the planet not allowing visual observation of the surface. The planets Saturn and Jupiter may be giving clues to what our planets atmosphere may resemble if global warming is not reversed. A well known theory states lightning brought life to this planet, a sad irony would be if it one day it ends it!
The "Relativistic Runaway Breakdown Theory" is a theory of how cosmic rays "seed" or cause lightning to form in the atmosphere. This article describes the energy that lightning creates observed on Earth. Earth creates powerful gamma-ray flashes What would these gamma-ray flashes do to life on this planet if they were a thousand times more powerful?
Two articles of note concerning the role of lightning Surprise! Lightning Has Big Effect On Atmospheric Chemistry and Satellites See Lightning Strikes In Ozone's Origin . A common source of funding for space based observation is NASA. In President Bush's State of The Union Address he was finally been forced politically to start to put more emphasis on environmental issues. More future funding to NASA and climate research will hopefully be the result.
QUOTE (Mike001+Jan 28 2007, 07:09 AM)
..two articles of note concerning the role of lightning..
By the same way, like at the case of carbon dioxide, the lightning hypothesis supplies no clue, whether the increased intensity of lightning is the true reason of global warming, or just the manifestation of it. At the case of carbon dioxide the situation appears more clear at least: the humans are producing the carbon dioxide. Whereas the true reason can still be quite different.
But what produces the increased lightning by your hypothesis? An by which mechanism the lightning accelerates the global warming?
By the same way, like at the case of carbon dioxide, the lightning hypothesis supplies no clue, whether the increased intensity of lightning is the true reason of global warming, or just the manifestation of it. At the case of carbon dioxide the situation appears more clear at least: the humans are producing the carbon dioxide. Whereas the true reason can still be quite different.
But what produces the increased lightning by your hypothesis? An by which mechanism the lightning accelerates the global warming?
To Zephir.....I know you are not in agreement with me, but here I go....From what I have read, (and again if you go back and read the entire post and go to the links provided), I have seen many articles where lightning is singled out by researchers as an unknown factor concerning climate change. And that is why there is such intense research funded by N.A.S.A. and E.S.A. Many Universities have received grants for research from these two space agencies. The IPCC (Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change) which issues reports to the United Nations has stated the need to get accurate measurements of the amount of greenhouse gas that is produced by lightning, otherwise accurate predictions cannot be achieved. There are several space based observation projects currently underway to gather data on this and other weather related phenomena. Carbon dioxide is in everyones mind set as the #1 concern for global warming, or more accurately "climate change". What is missed are the other greenhouse gases that are also in the mix such as nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and then there is ozone. Not the ozone that is way up in the upper atmosphere that forms a thin layer that shields us from UV rays, But tropospheric ozone that forms close to the surface of the Earth that creates huge air quality (health) problems. So it should be very clear that Man, (industry, burning fossil fuels, pollution, etc.) has changed the CHEMICAL composition of the atmosphere, therefore it is logical to make the assumption that the weather produced in the atmosphere will be changed as a result. This is a complex ecosystem we live in and it is hard sometimes to distinguish cause from effect. From the question you ask concerning CO2, I agree. Any additional lightning that happens as a result would be the effect and not the cause. However if there is more lightning, then more greenhouse gas is produced such as NOx. One of the recent links states, Lightning is responsible for producing MORE (NOx) in the upper layers of the atmosphere than NOx created by Man. (this is why there is such intense research). The main reason I started this post was to find out what chemical changes result from lightning occurring today in modern times, versus those two hundred years ago, (before the Industrial Revolution). Ask yourself the question; If lightning was a trivial factor concerning climate change, why then is there such intense research? Believe me, I didn't realize how big of a factor it was until I started to read up on the subject. As far as your question to what produces the increased lightning; well that has two parts. One being an increase in the number, or frequency of lightning strikes and the second would be the increased strength, or intensity of the lightning. Well I believe we touched on this with the fact that the Earth is according to all climate researchers, in a state of rising temperatures. If these rising temperatures produce more storms, then there would be a corresponding rise in the yearly number of lightning strikes that would occur. (On average for any given year where temperatures were rising). I don't have any data on this and I doubt NASA does either, but I believe its a fair assumption. Are we in agreement? So as far as intensity, there isn't any hard data yet either. What I have offered as evidence is the recently discovered forms of high altitude lightning. It is my belief that TLE's (sprites, blue jets etc.) are a RESULT of climate change. They are occurring now because the atmosphere has changed that allows them to form where they didn't form two hundred years ago. How do I know this as fact? Well I don't. But ask yourself this question; Is it just a coincidence that high altitude lightning AND mesospheric clouds were BOTH witnessed for the first time in recorded history in the years 1865-1866? Both phenomena were witnessed, (and recorded in science journals) approximately two years following the Krakatoa volcanic eruption. Would it be fair to say that the gas and debris that Krakatoa spewed out may have caused these two atmospheric phenomena to occur? I can't prove it but I am stating it as a strong possibility. So there is one possible example of increased intensity of lightning, the other would be as I discussed previously was the (global atmospheric electrical circuit). Which to summarize briefly shows as the atmosphere has changed, it has become more conductive to allow more current to flow from the 250,000 volt positively charged ionosphere to the Earth. So there you have it, with more current flowing in the atmospheric circuit, one would expect to witness more energetic lightning as a result. Sprites, elves, and blue jets would be an indication or proof of this. Can I prove all this to the satisfaction of everyone? Well the obvious answer is no, mainly because most people have a preconceived notion concerning the climate. Lastly, concerning how I believe lightning may be accelerating global warming or "climate change", lets go back to our previous discussion concerning positive feedback. Forget about any heat that a bolt of lightning directly produces and focus instead on the VOLUME of greenhouse gas created instead. This gas will in turn ADD to global warming, AND if there is an increase in lightning, lets say over any given year, then this will in turn produce MORE greenhouse gas than a year with LESS lightning. So thats my point, if lightning is increasing in frequency and intensity then it is creating more greenhouse gas and in turn is accelerating global warming..... That is what many climate experts may believe also but don't have the data yet to say for sure one way or another. I'm sorry this response got so long. I apologize. Just trying to give a full explanation.....Mike001
im a ten yr old kid and ;o i just searched the movie, the day after tomorrow on google and i found this fourm, i have the movie too, u people r interesting and smart
QUOTE (Mike001+Jan 7 2007, 01:50 AM)
To all... Evidence of global warming is being linked to rising levels of pollution. A greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide and other by-products of modern man will dramatically change our world in the next 20 to 40 years.
nooo im too young! 20 to 40 yrs !!
nooo im too young! 20 to 40 yrs !!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.