David L. Hagen (18:12:27) :

[_]Jim
Per your comments on precipitation intensity v lightning …

Thanks David. The paper supports my assertions, a couple of quick excerpts:

This analysis is a composite of the global Tropics and subtropics.

…

Several hundred flashes per minute are observed in the greatest flash rate storms, with one storm in the 3-yr database exceeding 1000 fl/min. These are large mesoscale convective systems (MCSs) with contributions from intense individual convective cells or lines.

See also Nesbitt’s publications.

Even very small changes (1~ 3%) in the cosmic ray flux
in the equatorial regions due to variation in solar wind inputs may affect the thunderstorm charging current and ionospheric potential. . . .
In fact solar wind, solar flares, galactic cosmic rays, ionospheric-magnetospheric dynamo, thunder cloud, geomagnetic disturbances, solar magnetic sector boundary crossings, solar cycle variations, auroral activity etc affect the components of GEC (Lakhina 1993; Tinsley, 2000; Singh et al., 2004). . . .
It is noted that even 1% increase in global surface temperature could result into a 20% increase in ionospheric potential (Price, 1993).

Price, C., 1993. Global surface temperature and the atmospheric electric circuit. Geophys. Res. Lett. 20, 1363-1366.
Singh, D.K., Singh, R.P., Kamra, A.K. 2004. The electrical environment of the Earth’s atmosphere: A review. Space Sci. Rev. 113, 375-408.

Louis Hissink (22:19:41) :
…
If you believe that swirling air coupled with water and particles can generate lightning, and hence electricity, then don’t buy a Dyson Vaccum cleaner –

Have you investigated this using something along the lines of an electrometer (rotary-vane style ‘field-mill’ or other suitable instrument)?
.
.

Could no lightning near the poles suggest that low magnetic field and thus high cosmic rays may result in low/no lightning?

I would look to other meteorological conditions factors first before persuing that aspect at ‘the poles’.

A reminder about the false-linking of correlation and causation should also be applied here.
.
.

David L. Hagen (20:46:44) :

Looking upstream into the chain of causes, there is growing interest in cosmic rays as possible precursors that trigger lighting.

Hmmmm … I’ve always noted down here in Tejas it was associated with heavy precipitation …

So much so (based on my observations), rapid, repeated occurance of lightning seems to be a mighty-good proxy indicating heavy rain in the area.

Perhaps the ‘cosmic rays as possible precursors’ works as a factor moreso when the precip is not-so-heavy and under different precip-producing meteorological conditions than the numerous ‘frog-stranglers’
and gully-washers (as Harold Taft, R.I.P., used to call them) we have here in Tejas.
.
.
.

If you believe that swirling air coupled with water and particles can generate lightning, and hence electricity, then don’t buy a Dyson Vaccum cleaner – for according to standard model of hurricane lightning generation, Dyson vacuum cleaners must be electrical generators.

The plasma model can also explain David L. Hagen’s post above re magnetic field strength vs temperature – all magnetic fields are generated by electric currents, and we know from satellite data that millions of amperes of elecric current pass into and out of the Earth’s polar regions.

Jim

The right-hand figure shows the same temperature data with the magnetic field intensity contours (5000 nT contours in red) from the first (above) figure superimposed. The areas of greatest warming are where the magnetic field is at its greatest intensity in the northern polar region, whereas the area of greatest cooling is where the magnetic field is at its greatest intensity in the southern polar region.

Compare this with:
Where Lightning Strikes NASA

Dec. 5, 2001: Lightning. It avoids the ocean, but likes Florida. It’s attracted to the Himalayas and even more so to central Africa. And lightning almost never strikes the north or south poles. . . .
This new perspective on lightning is possible thanks to two satellite-based detectors: the Optical Transient Detector (OTD) and the Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS). “The OTD and the LIS are two optical sensors that we’ve flown in lower Earth orbit,” says Christian, whose team developed the sensors. “The OTD was launched in 1995 and we got five good years out of it. The LIS was launched on the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission satellite in 1997 and it’s still going strong.”

“Basically, these optical sensors use high-speed cameras to look for changes in the tops of clouds, changes your eyes can’t see,” he explains. By analyzing a narrow wavelength band around 777 nanometers — which is in the near-infrared region of the spectrum — they can spot brief lightning flashes even under daytime conditions.

Global Lightning Map NASA

Could no lightning near the poles suggest that low magnetic field and thus high cosmic rays may result in low/no lightning?

AB: Over the years, many researchers have suggested that runaway electron avalanches may play an important role in thunderstorm physics and lightning initiation. For instance, it has been proposed that runaway electron avalanches seeded by extensive cosmic-ray air showers could result in enough ionization to initiate lightning. This hypothesis, which attempts to address the long-standing mystery of how lightning initiates in the relatively low electric fields observed inside thunderstorms, has gained a great deal of attention, both from the scientific community and from the popular press. Unfortunately, so far, there is little observational evidence and only limited theoretical work to support this idea. In this presentation, the possible roles that runaway electron avalanches and extensive cosmic-ray air showers play in thunderstorm and lightning processes will be discussed, including new theoretical and modeling results and planned UF-FIT experiments to be performed to address these topics.

Amplified radio emission from cosmic ray air showers in thunderstorms S. Buitink et al. Astronomy & Astrophysics 467, 385-394 (2007) DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066006

Context.The detection of radio pulses from cosmic ray air showers is a potentially powerful new detection mechanism for studying spectrum and composition of ultra high energy cosmic rays that needs to be understood in greater detail. The radiation consists in large part of geosynchrotron radiation. The intensity of this radiation depends, among other factors, on the energy of the primary particle and the angle of the shower axis with respect to the geomagnetic field.
Aims.Since the radiation mechanism is based on particle acceleration, the atmospheric electric field can play an important role. Especially inside thunderclouds large electric fields can be present. In this paper we examine the contribution of an electric field to the emission mechanism theoretically and experimentally.
Methods.Two mechanisms of amplification of radio emission are considered: the acceleration radiation of the shower particles and the radiation from the current that is produced by ionization electrons moving in the electric field. For both mechanisms analytical estimates are made of their effects on the radio pulse height. We selected LOPES data recorded during thunderstorms, periods of heavy cloudiness and periods of cloudless weather. We tested whether the correlations with geomagnetic angle and primary energy vary with atmospheric conditions.
Results.We find that during thunderstorms the radio emission can be strongly enhanced. The present data suggests that the observed amplification is caused by acceleration of the shower electrons and positrons. In the near future, extensions of LOPES and the construction of LOFAR will help to identify the mechanism in more detail. No amplified pulses were found during periods of cloudless sky or heavy cloudiness, suggesting that the electric field effect for radio air shower measurements can be safely ignored during non-thunderstorm conditions.

. . .

Not to be picky, but both the papers referenced in that statement are from 2005, didn’t Ryan Maue already point out here that their conclusions on increases in strength and number were not valid?

. . .

Guess I just don’t like seeing recent papers ignored in compiling opening statements to a paper that is really focused on hurricane mechanics and has nothing to do with increased trends or numbers in “recent decades”.
Sets my teeth on edge. <<

It’s the reality of getting your paper published in today’s environment. I’ve read dozens and dozens of papers where they state a pro-AGW position or support unsupported pro-AGW concepts in the first couple of paragraphs. The bulk of those papers and their conclusions never support those statements. It appears that peer reviewers rarely read past the first few paragraphs. This prevents your paper from being rejected because it doesn’t support the current “consensus.”

Jim

Unfortunately, NOAA has fallen down on the job related to this, while NOAA has an excellent (best in the world) NEXRAD Doppler Radar Network, they have no lightning detection network at all. Private companies have filled the gap, and they charge exorbitant sums and have draconian licensing schemes. I cite this from experience.

You will recall early-on that third-part subscription services (e.g. WSI at the time) were the norm for accessing NEXRAD/WSR-88D imagery, and it wasn’t all that long ago! Even now, access to wide-band high-res imagery may have an associated cost (from several different providers, including the government itself.)

Also note that a number of NEXRAD/WSR-88D sites are DOD-owned/funded and not strictly NOAA.
.
.

If the need exists, and someone can do it cheaper, they will. That’s the beauty of capitalism.