Slashdot Mirror
How To Mathematically Predict Lightning Strikes
rossgneumann writes Soon, it's very possible that when you say something like "you have better odds of being struck by lightning," that won't necessarily mean it's all that rare. And there's a good chance that you'll be able to tell that person (roughly) what the odds of that happening are. Research published this week in Nature provides an equation that is reasonably accurate at mathematically predicting lightning strikes.
From the article: "There's not a whole lot of noise in Romps's estimates: CAPE [Convective Available Potential Energy] is something that can be predicted out fairly easily: "All [models] in our ensemble predict that [the United State's] mean CAPE will increase over the 21st century, with a mean increase of 11.2 percent per degree Celsius of global warming," he wrote. "Overall, the [models] predict a ~50 percent increase in the rate of lightning strikes in the United States over the 21st century."
Thanks, Obama.
More electrical energy, free for the harvesting! Commence construction of the giant Leyden jars!
I don't have access to the article, but at what resolution does the equation cease to provide informative predictions? I'm guessing that if you provided the required observations for a 1 m^2 patch of land, it's going to give you a ridiculously small frequency of lightening strikes.
For not predicting when and where the lightning is going to strike. 10 year jail sentence if no one dies. Manslaughter otherwise.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Predicting an increase in severe weather due to global warming (no, it hasn't happened)?
Predicting an increase in hurricanes and hurricane energy DtGW (again, no, it hasn't happened)?
Predicting a decrease in snowfall DtGW (once more, nope)?
Predicting the complete loss of the Arctic ice cap by 2014 DtGW (increasing, recently)?
Or any of the other myriad of weather-influenced increases or losses DtGW? That also, incidentally, haven't come to pass?
There is one almost-certain prediction that you can use: if someone predicts ANYTHING "due to Global Warming" with a target date of 2100, it's almost certainly wrong, wrong, wrong, and should be discarded immediately.
http://www.metrolyrics.com/kno...
*not* Nature
How To Mathematically Predict Frequency of Lightning Strikes Over A Large Area
FTFY. Also, "mathematically"? Well, yes, some rather simple multiplication is involved, but you're also going to have to go out measure precipitation and CAPE.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Lighting is not nearly as random, or unlikely as people seem to think. We live along a lightning prone ridge where copper ore veins come to the surface. I can tell where not to stand, provided you want to live, and where to go if you want to get hit by lightning. One can feel the charges building. It is not random but rather physics.
Lightning can have an increased probability of striking in certain locations, such as your example of ore deposits (due to increased ground conductivity) or tall pointy conductors such as antennas, spires or wet trees (due to stronger electric fields near the points.) However, the occurrence of lightning strikes in a given area of land is still random, just not uniformly so.
Lightning can still strike at a location that does not seem like a candidate for strikes, if the conditions for a discharge are favorable at that location at a given moment. For example, you could be in an open field at a safe distance away from your ore deposits, with your finger pointed upwards, and you might be a better path to ground for the lightning strike than anything else around.
Also, just because something is random does not mean it isn't physics. Physics deals with random processes all the time. There are entire subcategories of physics devoted to them.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
So, as I understand it, lightning is important in the nitrogen cycle, and is an effect of a greater degree of warm moisture in the atmosphere. There is alot of alarmism over climate change in terms of deleterious effects on biology. I am wondering if, in this case, more warm moisture and thus more lighting strikes will be an overall positive thing? Or will the negative effects of fires and electrocutions, etc outweigh any possible benefit?
"with a mean increase of 11.2 percent per degree Celsius of global warming,"
Still managed to sneak your daily Global Warming (TM) article in there, huh?
NEXT UP ON CLIMATECHANGE.SLASHDOT.ORG! BE AFRAID! ZOMG THE SKY IS FALLING!
If I can predict lightning, now I no longer need to rip off plutonium or travel into the future and waste my money on a Mr Fusion to power my DeLorean. I can just use free thunderstorms and save a metric shitload of money!
What's the point. I still need to go into the future to pick up a hoverboard and sports almanac anyway.
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Roy Sullivan would like this news....
The correct way to predict lightning is to use thunder. ~100% accurate.
I am meteorologist and have worked in the field for 30 years. There are a number of assumptions they make by extrapolating a warmer planet with increased CAPE, thus, increased lightning activity.
CAPE only increases if the surface temperature and dewpoint is warmer relative to the temperatures aloft. If you take the planet will warm in the future, there is no consensus in the modeling evidence that suggest that the atmosphere will become more buoyant or unstable, thus that we would see increasing CAPE.
Also, the equation they use as a proxy to predict lightning is overly simplistic and is nothing special. Any atmospheric scientist can create a much better set of equations that will give you a much higher correlation between the atmospheric model variables and observed lightning. CAPE and precipitation alone is far too simplistic.
Overall, the [models] predict a ~50 percent increase in the rate of lightning strikes in the Chat Bursa Sohbet United States over the 21st century."