Solar wind to lightning strike link discovered

Lightning_hits_tree[1]From the Institute of Physics: High-speed solar winds increase lightning strikes on Earth

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.

lightning[1]
Lightning in clouds image from the International Space Station, captured July 21, 2013 by astronaut Karen Nyberg, shows an early-morning storm lighting up the clouds over Southern California.
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.

Publishing their study today, 15 May 2014, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters, researchers from Reading’s Department of Meteorology found a substantial and significant increase in lightning rates across Europe for up to 40 days after the arrival of high-speed solar winds, which can travel at more than a million miles per hour, into the Earth’s atmosphere.

A summary of the findings can be found in the associated Video Abstract:

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.

The results could prove useful for weather forecasters, since these solar wind streams rotate with the Sun, sweeping past the Earth at regular intervals, accelerating particles into Earth’s atmosphere. As these streams can be tracked by spacecraft, this offers the potential for predicting the severity of hazardous weather events many weeks in advance.

Lead author of the study, Dr Chris Scott, said: “Our main result is that we have found evidence that high-speed solar wind streams can increase lightning rates. This may be an actual increase in lightning or an increase in the magnitude of lightning, lifting it above the detection threshold of measurement instruments.

“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.”

To arrive at their results, the researchers analysed data on the strikes of lightning over the UK between 2000 and 2005, which was obtained from the UK Met Office’s lightning detection system. They restricted their data to any event that occurred within a radius of 500 km from central England.

The record of lightning strikes was compared with data from Nasa’s Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft, which lies between the Sun and the Earth and measures the characteristics of solar winds.

After the arrival of a solar wind at the Earth, the researchers showed there was an average of 422 lightning strikes across the UK in the following 40 days, compared to an average of 321 lightning strikes in the 40 days prior the arrival of the solar wind. The rate of lightning strikes peaked between 12 and 18 days after the arrival of the solar wind.

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.

In these instances, the energetic particles can have sufficient energies to penetrate down into the cloud-forming regions of the Earth’s atmosphere and subsequently affect the weather that we experience.

“We propose that these particles, while not having sufficient energies to reach the ground and be detected there, nevertheless electrify the atmosphere as they collide with it, altering the electrical properties of the air and thus influencing the rate or intensity at which lightning occurs,” said Dr Scott.

The increase in the rate of lightning after the arrival of solar winds was corroborated by a significant increase in the days in which thunder was heard, which were recorded at UK Met Office stations around the UK.

###

From Thursday 15 May, this paper can be downloaded from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/5/055004/article

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

55 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 15, 2014 4:42 am

Progress is progress!

wws
May 15, 2014 4:45 am

You’re sayin’ that the Sun affects our weather here on Earth? Next you’ll say it has an impact on our climate, too. Man, that’s just crazy talk.

May 15, 2014 4:46 am

“University of Reading researchers found a link between increased thunderstorm activity on Earth”
Well, you have to have clouds to have thunderstorms. Does this sentence imply that cloud formation is also affected by solar wind?

May 15, 2014 4:49 am

Mike Lockwood strikes again
Paper free access is here.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/5/055004/pdf/1748-9326_9_5_055004.pdf

May 15, 2014 4:52 am

I’m confused. The solar wind period is said to be 27 days, but they are comparing before and after periods of 40 days. Doesn’t that mean both the “before” and “after” periods contain one additional solar wind peak?

Boyfromtottenham
May 15, 2014 4:57 am

Water is a polar molecule, which is attracted / repelled by electric charges. Could this be part of the explanation?

May 15, 2014 5:01 am

“This may be an actual increase in lightning or an increase in the magnitude of lightning, lifting it above the detection threshold of measurement instruments.”
Based on the principle that there is only so much electrical potential up there and solar wind doesn’t cause more convective activity then either there will be fewer but stronger lightning events (events join) or more but weaker lightning events (easier ionisation pathways). They must have the data for the frequency and distribution of lightning strength to plot against solar wind intensity. Or are they thinking that maybe there will be increased convection to cause more rapid recharging of thunder storms (I’d be surprised).

Somebody
May 15, 2014 5:09 am

But! The science is settled! There is a consensus!
It is well known that cosmic ionizing radiation has no influence whatsoever on atmosphere!
Those that published that article are denialists!
/sarc

May 15, 2014 5:11 am

This statement raises some concern:
. Particles > 500 Mev have sufficient energies to modulate the atmospheric conductivity above and within thunderclouds though they do not have sufficient energy to be detected at ground level. If these particles are subsequently responsible for the observed modulation in lightning rates it would explain why this result is in apparent contradiction to earlier studies which found an anticorrelation between sunspot number and thunder days..
page 11, column 1.
Dr. Svalgaard ?

Twobob
May 15, 2014 5:29 am

So!
When do we use this awesome power?
Being as the Earth is a magneto.

Pamela Gray
May 15, 2014 5:31 am

Call me skeptical. You must rule out any and all null hypothesis causes, IE natural intrinsic drivers. If they exist, you have at best a tie. If you do, you cannot reject the null hypothesis.

Greg
May 15, 2014 5:43 am

In these instances, the energetic particles can have sufficient energies to penetrate down into the cloud-forming regions of the Earth’s atmosphere and subsequently affect the weather that we experience.
“We propose that these particles, while not having sufficient energies to reach the ground and be detected there, nevertheless electrify the atmosphere as they collide with it, altering the electrical properties of the air and thus influencing the rate or intensity at which lightning occurs,” said Dr Scott.
=====
Oh, dear and next some lunatic is going to pop up and suggest solar activity can affect climate.

Geoff Sherrington
May 15, 2014 6:00 am

The paper is interesting as far as it goes, which is to thunder days, but short of rainfall days.
Others might know of a correlatiion betseen rainfall and thunder days but these authors do not go there – yet.
Colleagues in Australia are establishing links between rainfall and Tmax at an increasing number of sites.In shorthand, rain cools Tmax.
If it all links together this way, we will have direct evidence of solar events influencing conventional temperatures, a link that has some far been more speculative than demonstrated.
I do not know if it will link like this.
Do others?

Patrick
May 15, 2014 6:03 am

“We propose that these particles, while not having sufficient energies to reach the ground and be detected there, nevertheless electrify the atmosphere as they collide with it, altering the electrical properties of the air and thus influencing the rate or intensity at which lightning occurs,” said Dr Scott.”
Dr. Scott, we have plenty of visiual evidence to support that “these particles” have an electrical affect on the atmosphere. I don’t need a PhD to know that.

Hyperdriven
May 15, 2014 6:07 am

This also ties in with the theory being put forth that earth’s magnetic field is weakening, possibly in advance of a pole shift/reversal. The lessening of the magnetic field makes earth more vulnerable to solar winds.

Chuck Nolan
May 15, 2014 6:12 am

Why wouldn’t they do their experiment in an area known to have fewer clouds? e.g. US desert or Australia?
What happens to the particles when no cloud formation occurs?

May 15, 2014 6:27 am

Answered my own question:

Around event time t = 0, the tangential solar wind decreases from a background level just below 0−35 km s−1 and then increases to over 60 km s−1, all within a period of around 2 d, with the greatest change at time zero. The grey band, in this and subsequent plots, represents the standard error in the median for all the data points within each time bin of the composite analysis. Outside this time window there are no other changes in V y that greatly exceed the 95 and 99 percentiles of the data (represented by the dot-dashed and dashed lines respectively) though there is a hint of the solar rotation rate with slight enhancements in V y at ± 27 d and ± 54 d.
[Section 4.1]

So the prominent mention of the 27-day solar rotation was just confusion. They are claiming a 120-day solar wind cycle centered at a sharp decrease followed by a very sharp increase in total lasting about 2 days, with preceding and following 60-day periods of much lower output.

Olaf Koenders
May 15, 2014 6:34 am

I recently re-watched a 2007 series of The Universe, where one supposed scientist mentioned that cosmic rays “cause” lightning/thunderstorms.
My brain immediately suffered a BSOD and puked.
Cosmic rays may have a minor influence and solar activity somewhat more, but there’s definitely no “cause” of lightning other than a charge buildup in clouds from particle collision.
But as noted above:

“Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
May 15, 2014 at 4:52 am
I’m confused. The solar wind period is said to be 27 days, but they are comparing before and after periods of 40 days. Doesn’t that mean both the “before” and “after” periods contain one additional solar wind peak?”

That definitely represents some problem with the observations and further difficulties with correlation, if any.

May 15, 2014 6:36 am

The truth will not be suppressed, as more data comes out the details will be shown, then slowly accepted. I have been looking into these effects for 30+ years now.
http://research.aerology.com/aerology-analog-weather-forecasting-method/
http://research.aerology.com/natural-processes/galactic-perspective/
http://research.aerology.com/supporting-research/more-big-picture/
Recently we had a warm period (in the south eastern US) the first week of May, until we had a heliocentric conjunction with Saturn on the 10th, then on the discharge side, post peak we have had a cooler and much wetter weather pattern in the USA, and global peak precipitation rates went up generating lots of severe weather, landslides, and intensifying tropical systems since the 10th.
http://research.aerology.com/severe-weather/derecho-storm-seen-from-space/
Freshly uploaded daily weather maps until 11-04-2015 now available, based on the average of the lunar declinational tidal effects, but with out the algorithms needed to compensate for the outer planet influences. The surges due to outer planet effects can be seen as “errors” in the resultant forecast, or as the easily viewable changes in the background patterns caused by the outer planets, your choice.
When the data available is plotted by the right reference framing the cyclic patterns show up.
http://research.aerology.com/supporting-research/paul-vaughan-links/

chuck
May 15, 2014 6:40 am

“They restricted their data to any event that occurred within a radius of 500 km from central England.”

So this is a global phenomena ?

May 15, 2014 6:41 am

So, Nikola Tesla, testing his new invention unknowing of this just happened to pick the day of the highest day of the solar wind and the high energy particles did over load his capactiors.

May 15, 2014 6:42 am

The rate of lightning strikes peaked between 12 and 18 days after the arrival of the solar wind
Makes the ‘result’ rather dubious. A prompt response would have been more plausible if there is a direct relationship.

Walt The Physicist
May 15, 2014 6:47 am

Wow! This is unbelievable result. Who would ever think that solar wind affects lightning via pre-ionization of air? (sarc.) Hopefully this research team will deliver more than statistical confirmation of the trivial supposition of the effect of solar wind on lightning. And hopefully, they spent much less public funding as compared to the team of the University of Arizona and University of Central Florida which is developing “a new type of laser technology capable of sending high-intensity beams through the atmosphere much farther than what was previously possible.” ( http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/groundbreaking-new-laser-technology-used-control-lightning/#ixzz31n3eGyqh ). This team is spending $7.5M to further develop failed Teramobile idea (www.teramobile.org) [ Nature Photonics 8, 297-301 (2014) Doi:10.1038/nphoton.2014.47] – see Acknowledgements: This work was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR; grants FA9550-10-1-056 and FA9550-12-1-0143) and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA; grant HDTRA 1-14-1-0009). The funding for this research is still flowing and research is on full steam regardless of recently demonstrated flaw of the theoretical foundation [ http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3744 ].

May 15, 2014 6:49 am

“for up to 40 days after the arrival of high-speed solar winds, “
I’ll buy the premise that charged solar wind particles somehow wind their way around the magnetic field lines and ionosphere to affect lightening strikes in Europe….
But that “40 days” crack promptly turned the paper into bottom of bird cage material.
40 milliseconds. Could be.
40 seconds? Interesting. That is at least on the order of a strike recharge.
40 minutes? That is on the order of
40 hours? Very hard to believe
40 days? Rubbish.
40 months? You know, I’d believe something tied to the solar cycle more than I’d believe a 40 day cycle.

May 15, 2014 6:52 am

Errata: to 6:49 am:
40 minutes is on the order of the X-ray observations. http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/Xray.gif

1 2 3