Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How To Mathematically Predict Lightning Strikes

Posted by timothy on from the out-standing-in-his-field dept.

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."

25 of 41 comments (clear)

  1. More lightning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thanks, Obama.

    1. Re:More lightning? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Actually, with the recent APEC thing, wouldn't this make Obama anti-lightning?

      Clearly he doesn't want any more Thor movies. He must be stopped.

  2. More electrical storms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    More electrical energy, free for the harvesting! Commence construction of the giant Leyden jars!

    1. Re:More electrical storms... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that conservatives will fight any concerted initiative to fight Global Charging.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  3. Resolution of predictions? by reedrudy · · Score: 2

    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.

  4. Italians have already charged the scientists. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
  5. Is that like...? by cirby · · Score: 1, Troll

    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.

    1. Re:Is that like...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's a troll because it has nothing to do with the above article and is merely to get people into a discussion about your favorite anti-topic.

    2. Re:Is that like...? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Predicting an increase in severe weather due to global warming (no, it hasn't happened)?

      Do you ignore the recent extreme temperature records on purpose, or what exactly do you consider "severe weather"?

      http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

      I'm sorry, but anything that claims that global cooling has ever been a widely accepted thing is simply bullshit. Why, they published it in Newsweek! That's a respected scientific journal...oh wait, it isn't. OK, scratch that. It's bullshit after all.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Is that like...? by cirby · · Score: 1, Insightful

      An article about a study predicting increased lightning strikes due to global warming has nothing to do with all of the other (failed) studies predicting increased hazards due to global warming?

      "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,"

      Do tell. How is this different?

      Or is there some sort of rule about how things can be mentioned in stories, but not mentioned in the comments here?

    4. Re:Is that like...? by cirby · · Score: 2

      Do you ignore the recent extreme temperature records on purpose, or what exactly do you consider "severe weather"?

      I consider actual severe weather as predicted, not the supposed "extreme" temperature records (which aren't that far out of normal).

      We were told that hurricanes, for example, would be increasing dramatically in the short term. The incidence of hurricanes - and hurricane severity - has gone down, for much the same reason as the article gives for increased lightning strikes.

      We were told that snow would be a "thing of the past" in many parts of the world (such as the United Kingdom) by now. Nope.

      Tornadoes increasing in frequency and power? For the same reason, AGAIN? Not so much.

      The only straw you have to grasp at is "temperature extremes" - which aren't that extreme, and which are mostly showing up in urban centers, due to the Urban Heat Island effect. They're having some severe issues with measurement. For example, they set a new high temperature record for May (102 F) in Wichita, Kansas - but that "record" was at a thermometer surrounded by asphalt, in the middle of an airport, which has been surrounded by developments since the original record was set in 1933...

      You should note, by the way, that the "scientific" global warming prediction wasn't for high temperature records, but for higher low temperatures at night and at higher latitudes.

    5. Re:Is that like...? by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      We were told that hurricanes, for example, would be increasing dramatically in the short term. The incidence of hurricanes - and hurricane severity - has gone down, for much the same reason as the article gives for increased lightning strikes.

      The number of tropical storms (which includes hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones) hasn't necessarily increased but there is scientific evidence that the severity has increased. Here's one study from 2005.

  6. if so.....better Knock On Wood... by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    http://www.metrolyrics.com/kno...

  7. Published in Science by ianalis · · Score: 4, Informative

    *not* Nature

  8. Headline seems a little misleading by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Headline seems a little misleading by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Headline seems a little misleading

      That's science "journalism" for you.

  9. Not Random by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Not Random by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Physics, by nature, appear to be entirely random however. Only when viewed statistically does it appear not so...

  10. Yes random, but not uniformly by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:Yes random, but not uniformly by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      What you see as random I see deeper causes. It is really not random. There are probability curves, but it's still not random.

  11. I see what you did there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "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!

  12. Great Scott! by captjc · · Score: 1

    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
  13. Re:Question about Climate Change by pastafazou · · Score: 1

    more lightning means more chance of forest fires. More forest fires means more CO2 produced. More CO2 produced means more greenhouse effect. More greenhouse effect means hotter temperatures. Hotter temperatures mean more moisture in the atmosphere. More moisture in the atmosphere means more lightning. Repeat.

  14. Re:Question about Climate Change by riverat1 · · Score: 2

    Yes lightning produces nitrogen oxides which in turn can produce ozone. From a post on the study by Dr. Jeff Masters at .

    Increased lightning will create more ozone pollution and more global warming
    Lightning creates nitrogen oxides, which in turn react to make significant amounts of ozone in the lower atmosphere--a dangerous pollutant that seriously impacts human health and crop growth. Ozone is also a greenhouse gas, so global warming-caused increases in lightning could potentially cause additional global warming of a few percent. How much is uncertain, as estimates of lightning-produced nitrogen oxides vary by up to a factor of four. Lower-atmosphere ozone was responsible for about 12% of human-caused global warming due to greenhouse gases in 2011, according to the 2013 IPCC report. However, increased ozone due to lightning could be offset somewhat by the fact that lightning-created nitrogen oxides trigger chemical reactions that help destroy methane, another potent greenhouse gas.

  15. Re by grineX · · Score: 1

    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."