Solar wind 'triggers lightning on Earth'

[Corona]

Scientists have found that when gusts of high-speed solar particles enter our atmosphere, the number of lightning bolts increases.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27406358

and the paper:

The lightning rate increase is corroborated by an increase in the total number of thunder days observed by UK Met stations, again persisting for around 40 d after the arrival of a high speed solar wind stream.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/5/055004/article

Could it work somewhat like this?

Sun ->Solar Wind (Coronal Holes/CMEs)->Van Allen Belts (charged particles are being stored)->Earth (charge trickles down via sprites to thunderstorm clouds to Ground)

[MrAmsterdam]

http://www.iop.org/news/14/may/page_63245.html


Scientists have discovered new evidence to suggest that lightning on Earth is triggered not only by cosmic rays from space, but also by energetic particles from the Sun

High-speed solar winds increase lightning strikes on Earth
University of Reading researchers found a link between increased thunderstorm activity on Earth and streams of high-energy particles accelerated by the solar wind, offering compelling evidence that particles from space help trigger lightning bolts.

---

Although the exact mechanism that causes these changes remains unknown, the researchers propose that the electrical properties of the air are somehow altered as the incoming charged particles from the solar wind collide with the atmosphere.

---

“Cosmic rays, tiny particles from across the Universe accelerated to close to the speed of light by exploding stars, have been thought to play a part in thundery weather down on Earth, but our work provides new evidence that similar, if lower energy, particles created by our own Sun also affect lightning.

“As the Sun rotates every 27 days these high-speed streams of particles wash past our planet with predictable regularity. Such information could prove useful when producing long-range weather forecasts.”

Professor Giles Harrison, head of Reading’s Department of Meteorology and co-author of the ERL article, said: “In increasing our understanding of weather on Earth we are learning more about its important links with space weather. Bringing the topics of Earth Weather and Space Weather ever closer requires more collaborations between atmospheric and space scientists, in which the University of Reading is already leading the way.”

---

The solar wind consists of a constant stream of energetic particles—mainly electrons and protons—that are propelled from the Sun’s atmosphere at around a million miles per hour. The streams of particles can vary in density, temperature and speed and sweep past Earth every 27 days or so, in line with the time it takes the Sun to make one complete rotation relative to the Earth.

The Earth’s magnetic field provides a sturdy defence against the solar wind, deflecting the energetic particles around the planet; however, if a fast solar stream catches up with a slow solar stream, it generates an enhancement in both the material and the associated magnetic field.

There are two elements that cached my eye.

1 The researchers do not mention electric fields, which could explain the acceleration of these charged particles, nor do they mention - plasma- .

Second

Piers Corbyn of Weatheraction.com is already applying outside causes of the weather and climate. Maybe Professor Giles Harrison should have a chat with him.

[Morphix]

It continues to be all about evidence. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 205758.htm

[seasmith]

Would that make earth's magnetospheric architectures as capacitor, and lightning as their discharge ?
And solar emission as inductor ?

[quantauniverse]

C J Scott's paper shows a measurement of the galactic cosmic ray flux produced by supernovas, and it is substantially related to the rate of lightning strikes on earth. This is because cosmic scale electric and magnetic fields accelerate and steer cosmic rays throughout the universe. All past reported findings are refuted about there not being a connection between the sun and earth's lightning or electricity. The upgraded ATD lightning detection system found that the more active the sun is, there are more sunspots and stronger magnetic fields to produce more lightning on earth. This is exactly what I believed all along, as a member of EU, and which was discredited by gravity scientists who disbelieve in an electric sun model. Please see the galaxy flux connection with lightning rates in my story
http://holographicgalaxy.blogspot.com/2 ... solar.html

[moses]

Are we certain that the measured cosmic rays are from the galactic cosmic ray flux, and if so that that cosmic ray flux is produced by supernovas. I would have thought that Birkeland currents and double layers would be a more likely source, and a connection between these features and the Sun would be the likely reason the Sun's activity increased with the cosmic rays.
Cheers,
Mo

[Michael V]

Solar wind 'triggers lightning on Earth'

And in related news, scientists have surprisingly discovered that standing in a river makes your feet wet.

Are we certain that the measured cosmic rays are from the galactic cosmic ray flux, and if so that that cosmic ray flux is produced by supernovas. I would have thought that Birkeland currents and double layers would be a more likely source, and a connection between these features and the Sun would be the likely reason the Sun's activity increased with the cosmic rays.

Cosmic ray energies have been measured at up to 3x1020 eV. This is equivalent to the kinetic energy of 2.7 million uranium atoms travelling at c. Of course, the crucial part of such statements is "have been measured". Now it could also be claimed that any particle travelling at close to c has a relativistic mass many times its rest mass; according to special relativity. But, for those of us that choose not to perform the cognitive equivalent of a wilful self lobotomy...

First of all UHECR are not measured directly, but by inference via the shower of secondaries, and thus by theory. So, if the theory is wrong, the measurements are wrong.
And now it seems that solar delivered particles can by some precisely unknown mechanism give rise to atmospheric lightning.

Sun ->Solar Wind (Coronal Holes/CMEs)->Van Allen Belts (charged particles are being stored)->Earth (charge trickles down via sprites to thunderstorm clouds to Ground)

Seems like a reasonable scenario, although lightning is not a stream of charged particles being fired at the ground or at the Ground. With that said, it is certainly triggered by some sort of charge instability event and the Sun is an obvious source.

Knowing that high energy atmospheric events at least can be associated with the Sun, it does make theories of water droplet friction generated lightning seem a little banal and antiquated. It also implies that cosmic ray "measurements" are all but pointless inside the heliosphere, let alone within Earth's atmosphere. Furthermore, it brings into doubt the cosmic origins of cosmic rays.


Michael

[seasmith]

Michael V wrote:

And now it seems that solar delivered particles can by some precisely unknown mechanism give rise to atmospheric lightning.

One would have hoped that you'd been by now cured of that pin-ball wizardry.
It may appear as "particles", when threshold energy events are counted by our state-of-the-art electronic 'photon detectors and multipliers', but they could just as well be artifacts of our electronic detection methods.
It is fine and useful to Calculate solar emissions in photonics particles and ions, but in the end it is Charge being transmitted,
and how finely can one particulate that.

Back to the implications of the article, do we really need balls bearing charge to induce an electric potential into a capacitor, or to dis-charge it by lightning?

Now if the earth is sucking in vast quantities hydrogen gas at the magnetic poles and spewing it out at the equator, then i take back everything just said.

[Maol]

Michael V wrote:

And now it seems that solar delivered particles can by some precisely unknown mechanism give rise to atmospheric lightning.

One would have hoped that you'd been by now cured of that pin-ball wizardry.
It may appear as "particles", when threshold energy events are counted by our state-of-the-art electronic 'photon detectors and multipliers', but they could just as well be artifacts of our electronic detection methods.
It is fine and useful to Calculate solar emissions in photonics particles and ions, but in the end it is Charge being transmitted,
and how finely can one particulate that.

Back to the implications of the article, do we really need balls bearing charge to induce an electric potential into a capacitor, or to dis-charge it by lightning?

Now if the earth is sucking in vast quantities hydrogen gas at the magnetic poles and spewing it out at the equator, then i take back everything just said.

Well, half right ain't bad.

Influence of a Carrington-like event on the atmospheric chemistry, temperature and dynamics:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4 ... 045010.pdf

Appears to be sucking it in at the equator too.

[seasmith]

~
Maol, Thank you, the first paragraph makes the obvious point:

When entering the Earth’s magnetic field, these energetic protons are mostly deflected. However, protons with sufficiently high kinetic energy can penetrate the atmosphere and cause massive ionization including production of HOx (H + OH + HO2) and NOx (NO + NO2) at the polar cap areas (Patterson et al 2001, Jackman et al 2009). These energetic particles guided by the magnetic field into the polar regions collide with the Earth’s atmosphere transferring their kinetic energy into potential energy through the process of ionization, for example X2 + p → X+2 + p + e∗, producing fast secondary electrons (X = N, O and the star symbolizes high kinetic energy).

Protons, like electrons, are units of charge. Male•female/plus•minus organellae of charge, if you prefer. Their normal state of equilibrium is to be coupled together as atoms and molecules. Those are ponderable particles [of gas. liquids, solids, etc].

Most any matter can be fissioned ie dis-associated back into it's characteristic constituent "ions" of charge, given a sufficient input of external energy; but no one has ever, tmk,
taken an atom of hydrogen- broken it in to an electron and proton, then taken that same electron and proton and put them back together as that hydrogen atom.

No, there are always non-material energy transfers involved. Heat, EM radiation, displacement current/field, 'cosmic rays' and the like.
So i don't think vast quantities of hydrogen gas are being sucked in at the poles.

Wouldn't that be a rather exlosive situation, in the event ??

[Michael V]

seasmith,

One would have hoped that you'd been by now cured of that pin-ball wizardry.

And you my finely intellected friend are still saying much, or little, as the mood takes you, without conveying any explicit information.

...but in the end it is Charge being transmitted, and how finely can one particulate that.

It may appear as "particles", when threshold energy events are counted by our state-of-the-art electronic 'photon detectors and multipliers', but they could just as well be artifacts of our electronic detection methods.

Are you then willing to offer an alternative explanation. From saying "but in the end it is Charge being transmitted," (with charge spelt with a capital C), and then, "and how finely can one particulate that", I guess you are attempting to imply something. Presumably an alternative view point, other than particle motion, facilitated by, and with interactions mediated by, a vacuum substance.

Protons, like electrons, are units of charge. Male•female/plus•minus organellae of charge, if you prefer. Their normal state of equilibrium is to be coupled together as atoms and molecules. Those are ponderable particles [of gas. liquids, solids, etc].

Electrons and protons are also units of mass. Even though these entities exhibit discreteness and ponderableness, the term "particles" still requires an italic highlight in your view.

If a particle is not a particle, what is it, do you think?. And how might I be cured?.


Michael

[Maol]

seasmith, you need to read again the paragraph you quoted above and pay particular attention to “production of HOx (H + OH + HO2) and NOx (NO + NO2)”. (Notice H2O)

My bet is this is how Planet Earth is hydrated. If the solar wind didn't replace the H and O it carries away as it blows past this orb Earth would be as dry as Mars.

The solar wind and CME's contain nearly all the elements and a fair amount of those up to and a little beyond Iron. I suspect the phenomenon of atmospheric CO2 increase occuring after climate warming has something to do with solar activity resulting in fluctuation and increase of C (and other) isotope ratios in the SW and formation of CO2 as ions of C and O mingle in this magneto driven process.

Seasmith, have you forgotten this thread (in which you schooled me about how to better search this forum )..?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =3&t=14843

Scroll down for a chart showing detected isotope ratios in the solar wind.

[seasmith]

Maol » Wed May 21, 2014 6:59 pm

seasmith, you need to read again the paragraph you quoted above and pay particular attention to “production of HOx (H + OH + HO2) and NOx (NO + NO2)”. (Notice H2O)

Yes, doesn't it say the variety of "isotopes" are detected (spectrographicly) in the solar wind, and the actual elements are "produced" upon reaching Earth's magnetosphere ?
Regardless, reports of massive hydrogen gas explosions at the poles have never made it to the nightly news dribble.

[seasmith]

~
Michael, you are too kind.

seasmith wrote:
...but in the end it is Charge being transmitted, and how finely can one particulate that.


seasmith wrote:
It may appear as "particles", when threshold energy events are counted by our state-of-the-art electronic 'photon detectors and multipliers', but they could just as well be artifacts of our electronic detection methods.

Michael V wrote;
Are you then willing to offer an alternative explanation. From saying "but in the end it is Charge being transmitted," (with charge spelt with a capital C), and then, "and how finely can one particulate that", I guess you are attempting to imply something. Presumably an alternative view point, other than particle motion, facilitated by, and with interactions mediated by, a vacuum substance.

The cap C is just for Coulombs, SI derivation of charge in motion.
The above was just a bit of an historical note. The scientific picture of mass (particulate mass) was complicated when atoms, electricity and then proton/electron entities were discovered. Then Newton’s gravity and Faraday’s “electrotonic state” needed to be reconciled.
Maxwell’s “displacement field/current” showed mathematically that charge/potential could exert a sort of tension or torque on ordinary particulate matter, without any apparent change in mass.
A workable equivalence was then worked out for mass and charge in E=MC2 , with C2 being the scaling transform. These days, imho, it just doesn’t much progress the science, to continue referring to any Sub-atomic entity as particulate mass,
other than by mathematical analogy.

So I guess an alternate vp to your “particle motion, facilitated by, and with interactions mediated by, a vacuum substance”, would want to consider an integration of sub-atomic charge entities with that mysterious “vacuum substance”.
One of the intellect’s finest tools, as any taffy can tell you, is language. So consideration of some change in our 19th century nomenclature is merely what the previous post was suggesting.

As to theory, you’ve already been virally exposed to the basic
four-quadrant & center model (still a work in progress) of
Light, Aether, Gravity and MatterMass • with a common transformative mediator of ~charge,
so I won’t bore you again here.

seasmith wrote:
Protons, like electrons, are units of charge. Male•female/plus•minus organellae of charge, if you prefer. Their normal state of equilibrium is to be coupled together as atoms and molecules. Those are ponderable particles [of gas. liquids, solids, etc].

Michael V wrote;
Electrons and protons are also units of mass. [equivalents]-s Even though these entities exhibit discreteness and ponderableness, the term "particles" still requires an italic highlight in your view.


If a particle is not a particle, what is it, do you think?.

To be just a bit more precise, charge entities exhibit a measureable ponderomotive ‘force’, rather than “ponderableness”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27 ... _induction

Michael V wrote:

And how might I be Cured?.

Do they have whiskey in Wales ?



™£¢∞§¶•ªº–œ∑´®†¥¨ˆ = div•curl
(Heaviside simplified)

[Maol]

Perhaps an antidote for whisky is called for in this thread.