Once upon a time in a thunderstorm

The types of discharges and their structure help scientists better understand the structure of the atmosphere where they occur and of the thunderstorm battery that powers them.

The thunderstorm is only part of a much larger circuit. The thunderstorm is a result of the charge exchange between the Earth and the Sun's plasma environment.

The planet is putting on a fireworks display for us and we rarely see it.

The types of discharges and their structure help scientists better understand the structure of the atmosphere where they occur and of the thunderstorm battery that powers them.

The thunderstorm is only part of a much larger circuit. The thunderstorm is a result of the charge exchange between the Earth and the Sun's plasma environment.

What is Earth's net charge compared to the net neutral solar wind?

What is Earth's net charge compared to the net neutral solar wind?

Are you unfamiliar with Earth's electric field? There is about 300,000V potential between the Earth's surface and ionosphere.
Also, you need to understand the differences between neutral and what is relevant to plasmas, quasi-neutral. They are much different concepts.

What is Earth's net charge compared to the net neutral solar wind?

Are you unfamiliar with Earth's electric field? There is about 300,000V potential between the Earth's surface and ionosphere.
Also, you need to understand the differences between neutral and what is relevant to plasmas, quasi-neutral. They are much different concepts.

so....net neutral solar wind has an overall charge difference before and after interacting with Earth? As far as I know, that's how DC circuits work. You have that data available to support your circuit?

so....net neutral solar wind has an overall charge difference before and after interacting with Earth? As far as I know, that's how DC circuits work. You have that data available to support your circuit?

I know of studies that correlate solar wind and lightning. However, this is nothing to do with any exchange of charge, but to do with SEPs (solar energetic particles), creating ionised paths for the charge already built up by earthly processes. For instance:

Evidence for solar wind modulation of lightning
Scott, C. J. et al.
http://iopscience...5/055004

so....net neutral solar wind has an overall charge difference before and after interacting with Earth? As far as I know, that's how DC circuits work. You have that data available to support your circuit?

I know of studies that correlate solar wind and lightning. However, this is nothing to do with any exchange of charge, but to do with SEPs (solar energetic particles), creating ionised paths for the charge already built up by earthly processes. For instance:

Evidence for solar wind modulation of lightning
Scott, C. J. et al.
http://iopscience...5/055004

If ya wanna really get down to it, it's more about resistance than charge...

Lightning comes from the friction of updrafts and downdrafts inside the cumulonimbus clouds. It works pretty much like a Van de Graaf generator.

It will be interesting to see how these middle and upper atmosphere effects correspond with actual lightning strikes, among other things.

Lightning comes from the friction of updrafts and downdrafts inside the cumulonimbus clouds. It works pretty much like a Van de Graaf generator.

'Fraid not snookems, doesn't create nearly the energy density to create lightning with the observed frequency. It's not even close.
From NOAA;
"The conditions needed to produce lightning have been known for some time. However, exactly how lightning forms has never been verified so there is room for debate."
https://www.weath...ightning

This description ,however, fits the bill. I would challenged anyone to find a flaw in the science or reasoning. It's relatively simple plasma physics, coronal discharge.
https://www.thund...ectrode/
And the super-cell thunderstorm, tornadoes are also an electric discharge.
https://www.thund...rmopile/

And the tornado;

https://www.thund...c-model/

^^^^^^^ Forgive me if I don't take anything seriously that is written on a website run by people who believe Velikovsky has scientific merit! If there is no fault in this analysis, then where are the peer reviewed papers?
Certainly, no peer reviewer would have let this go:

The same phenomena are found on any planetary body that carries an internal current that forms an electromagnetic field.........................in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, and ***Venus***.

Huh? Venus has no intrinsic magnetic field. It is induced, just as at a comet, and Mars, by the interaction of the solar wind with the atmosphere.

^^^^^^^ Forgive me if I don't take anything seriously that is written on a website run by people who believe Velikovsky has scientific merit! If there is no fault in this analysis, then where are the peer reviewed papers?
Certainly, no peer reviewer would have let this go:

The same phenomena are found on any planetary body that carries an internal current that forms an electromagnetic field.........................in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, and ***Venus***.

Huh? Venus has no intrinsic magnetic field. It is induced, just as at a comet, and Mars, by the interaction of the solar wind with the atmosphere.

jonesdumb....

Whooooshhh.....

It doesn't matter, the induced field doesn't do anything whatsoever to disprove. It supports the concepts via different conditions. There are still changing electromagnetic fields, similar concepts under different conditions but accomplishing the same results.

'Lightning on Venus Strikingly Similar to Earth's'

https://www.space...rth.html

On Mars, the effects are exactly the same under again, different conditions.

https://www.newsc...ery-day/

Simplicity at it's best. The same physics to describe everything. Who needs a TOE?

'Lightning on Venus Strikingly Similar to Earth's'

https://www.space...rth.html

Which is kind of a kick in the bollocks to Mr. Hall, isn't it? Where are the currents at Venus? According to Hall's piece, "The circuit is completed — a worldwide current from Earth to the sky, and storms that return it from sky to ground." Which is bollocks, by the way. However, Venus has no current from ground to sky (and neither does Earth). If there is a current (and I need to research it), then it will be as at a comet - induced by the IMF piling up against the atmosphere of the planet. It will be getting nowhere near the planet itself. So, whatever is going on down in the lower atmosphere is not going to be anything to do with the pile up region. The current there, if it exists (probably) will likely close in the tail, just as at comets. No lightning at comets, though!

Oh, and jonesdumb, these are concepts/explanations for even grandmothers to understand, no sci-fi pseudoscience DM, GW, or BH papers needed.

On Mars, the effects are exactly the same under again, different conditions.

https://www.newsc...ery-day/

Simplicity at it's best. The same physics to describe everything. Who needs a TOE?

And what have dust devils on Mars got to do with anything?

Oh, and jonesdumb, these are concepts/explanations for even grandmothers to understand, no sci-fi pseudoscience DM, GW, or BH papers needed.

Nope, wouldn't get past the editor of a decent journal, let alone peer review, which is why they only exist on Velikovskian woo sites. Where the average IQ of the denizens is vanishingly small, and they'll believe pretty much anything. If it's so simple and obvious, where is it published?

No lightning at comets, though!

Cold cathode discharge, different conditions same result.
http://www.holosc...beliefs/

No lightning at comets, though!

Cold cathode discharge, different conditions same result.
http://www.holosc...beliefs/

Lol. Which has been totally debunked by a complete lack of evidence from various missions that would see such nonsense. And didn't. Not that it is possible, anyway. Something else you got conned about.

Nope, wouldn't get past the editor of a decent journal, let alone peer review,

That's not what it was written for, similar to this article above. Not every written word needs to be presented in peer-reviewed due to the fact that the concepts are so well understood. But, it explains in terms in a way moron could understand. Sorry that you can't, but that's you're problem.

Nope, wouldn't get past the editor of a decent journal, let alone peer review,

That's not what it was written for, similar to this article above. Not every written word needs to be presented in peer-reviewed due to the fact that the concepts are so well understood. But, it explains in terms in a way moron could understand. Sorry that you can't, but that's you're problem.

As I've said, it's bollocks. That is why it is on a woo site. If it were true (which it can't be, due to scientific impossibility) then it would overturn established science. That is why it is on a woo site. Anyone with any brains, and a decent understanding of the relevant fields, will see it for the nonsense that it is. So, it'll never get near peer review, because that is not what these woomeisters want. They just want believers, followers, cult status, hero worship. They can't do science for shit, but they don't care.
Plus they've got books and DVDs to sell.

Just a bunch of hand wavy proclamations, nothing else. Basic EE concepts explain that which even NOAA claims is beyond explanation. But here is jonesdumb exclaiming this is impossible regardless of the fact that all the conditions are met and that is exactly what is observed.

Just a bunch of hand wavy proclamations, nothing else. Basic EE concepts explain that which even NOAA claims is beyond explanation. But here is jonesdumb exclaiming this is impossible regardless of the fact that all the conditions are met and that is exactly what is observed.

So where is it written up? Have none of these ignorant EEs got the cojones to subject their idiotic Velikovskian woo to scientific scrutiny? Wonder why not? How come they'd rather just post their idiotic woo at crank sites, where nobody with an IQ above that of a brain damaged trilobite is going to see it? I'll tell you why - they are all Velikovskian loons, who are crap at science. That's why.

Nope, wouldn't get past the editor of a decent journal, let alone peer review,

That's not what it was written for, similar to this article above. Not every written word needs to be presented in peer-reviewed due to the fact that the concepts are so well understood. But, it explains in terms in a way moron could understand. Sorry that you can't, but that's you're problem.

Which would explain why morons gravitate (electrically?) to it...

If anybody thinks the author of cantthink's articles on lightning woo isn't a couple of cans short of a six pack, then here is his blog:
https://thedailyplasma.blog/

So, my take would be that not only is he scientifically illiterate, but that there is also a good case for sectioning the loon.

The usual ad hominem attacks, that is all jonesdumb has. Not a word on the concepts because they are way over his head.

Which would explain why morons gravitate (electrically?) to it...

Which is why artists gravitate to impressionism and relatism and other such nonsense.

The usual ad hominem attacks, that is all jonesdumb has. Not a word on the concepts because they are way over his head.

I don't need ad homs, I just need sane people to read that crap. Nothing I need to say. Lol. F***ing Mandelbrot set!! Dear me, I was laughing out loud reading that stuff. I don't suppose this loon has ever taken a geology degree, has he? Planetary sciences? Nope, another bloody engineer!

Funny that they placed the moon in the picture at 50km...
more support for the flat-earthers.

I don't need ad homs,

But that is all you got. Oh, and to change the subject. The article is about lightning and how it's created. Coronal discharge fits perfectly, you got nothing to show otherwise.

Which would explain why morons gravitate (electrically?) to it...

Which is why artists gravitate to impressionism and relatism and other such nonsense.

The sooner you realize we live in a fluid, constantly changing universe, the sooner you'll understand reality.
Oh... and it's relatiVism. Do try and know your terms prior to using them...

The thunderstorm is a result of the charge exchange between the Earth and the Sun's plasma environment.

cantdrive85

No, it isn't. Or at least that clearly isn't the main causal factor.
Here is what the science says;

http://www.weathe...orms.htm

"What causes thunderstorms?
Thunderstorms form when an air mass becomes so unstable that it overturns (convects) violently. "Unstable" means that the air in the lowest layers is unusually warm and humid, or that the upper layers are unusually cool, or oftentimes, both.

Pockets of rising near-surface air in an unstable air mass expand and cool, and as some of the water vapor present condenses into a cloud it releases heat, which then makes the air parcel even warmer, forcing it to rise still higher in the atmosphere.

If the lower level air is sufficiently warm and humid, and the higher altitude air is sufficiently cool, this process continues until a tall convective cloud forms "

The sooner you realize we live in a fluid, constantly changing universe, the sooner you'll understand reality.
Oh... and it's relatiVism. Do try and know your terms prior to using them...

That is so existential, artist. BTW, was posting on my phone, errors are quite easy to make.
So you don't want to discuss the coronal discharge as the progenitor of lightning? Prefer to stick with grammar?

No, it isn't. Or at least that clearly isn't the main causal factor.
Here is what the science says;

That's not what "science" says, that's what consensus stooges say. And those same stooges can't explain how lightning is caused so there is plenty of opportunity to add to the explanation.
BTW, all the churning in the atmosphere is due to the electrodynamic properties of the matter involved.

No, it isn't. Or at least that clearly isn't the main causal factor.
Here is what the science says;

That's not what "science" says, that's what consensus stooges say.

No, it is what the atmospheric scientists say. And they know a lot more about it than you do.
Here is the relevant science;

https://en.wikipe...sciences

And those same stooges can't explain how lightning is caused

Science is still researching various aspects of lighting but has already pinned down the main cause;

https://en.wikipe...ightning

No, it is what the atmospheric scientists say. And they know a lot more about it than you do.
Here is the relevant science;

And every weather and climate forecast is a test of that hypothesis, needless to say there is much room for improvement of knowledge. The links I provided goes a long way in resolving many discrepancies in the standard view. How the Earth is connected to the Sun's plasma environment is of primary significance.

The links I provided goes a long way in resolving many discrepancies in the standard view.

No, they don't. It is just a bunch of Velikovskian word salad on a woo site. You only need to read this bloke's blog to realise that he is not playing with a full deck. His claims about the same thing happening at Venus make this trivially false. Please, do point out where this lunatic has ever published any work within the scientific literature. Why would anybody listen to him? He's obviously a bit gone in the head. Bigfoot? Dear me. Science really isn't his forte, is it?

There you go ad hominem and changing the subject again. Coronal discharge and lightning are the discussion.

There you go ad hominem and changing the subject again. Coronal discharge and lightning are the discussion.

No discussion to be had. This nonsense doesn't exist within the scientific literature. End of story. The fact that the bloke is also an obvious loon doesn't help him any. On the plus side, however, it is highly unlikely that any journal editors or peer reviewers will have heard of him. Therefore there is nothing stopping him behaving like a **real** scientist, and having his work reviewed. I think we all know that won't happen, and the reasons why.

No, it is what the atmospheric scientists say. And they know a lot more about it than you do.
Here is the relevant science;

And every weather and climate forecast is a test of that hypothesis,

cantdrive85

No, it clearly does not test the accepted scientific theory on the cause of lightning. Weather/climate forecasts don't predict the causes of lightning. Part of a weather forecast might predict a lightning storm, not what causes lightning in the storm if its prediction of a lightning storm is correct. The reliability of a weather forecast for a lightning storm is not the reliability of the accepted theory of what causes lightning in lightning storms.

Since your baseless hypothesis of the sun's plasma causing lightning has also failed to reliably weather forecast lightning storms, using your same flawed 'logic', that should mean your hypothesis must be also wrong. But it is actually wrong only because it is contradicted by evidence and baseless.

That is so existential, artist.

What's wrong with pointing out the real nature of universe we live in?

BTW, was posting on my phone, errors are quite easy to make.

Ahhh... That old ruse...

So you don't want to discuss the coronal discharge as the progenitor of lightning? Prefer to stick with grammar?

Wasn't on the table until you just brought it up. But, let's do -
Since I asked for it earlier, you first. Explain the mechanic of it...

There you go ad hominem and changing the subject again. Coronal discharge and lightning are the discussion.

And actually...
Lightning here on Earth is the discussion, here. Coronal discharge was your own insertion...

Corona discharge has nothing to do with lightning. Look it up, @Whyde.

These guys constantly come up with completely irrelevant stuff to try to bamboozle.

Corona discharge has nothing to do with lightning. Look it up, @Whyde.

These guys constantly come up with completely irrelevant stuff to try to bamboozle.

I know, DS.
That's why I asked for an explanation...

It's amusing, all the "old" minds have decided it's wrong, but not one will give a reason as to why. Just the typical hand wavy declarations that their knowledge is superior and they know it's impossible but will not explain why it's impossible because they really don't have a clue. I linked to the explanation artist, since we're limited to a thousand characters;
Here; https://www.thund...ectrode/
Here; https://www.thund...rmopile/
And here; https://www.thund...c-model/
The concepts described are fairly simple, if the mechanism is not valid then explain why. And don't say something moronic like the are no wires or something remarkably stupid like that, the proposal is we are discussing plasmas and the "wires" are available in the plasma.

It's amusing, all the "old" minds have decided it's wrong,

so, that is what you call all the scientists and experts that know more than me and you that disagree with your baseless opinions that are contrary to what the scientific evidence says. Age has nothing to do with it; young and old alike disagree with you.

Better to have no opinion than one based on ignorance.

No opinion due to insufficient knowledge or understanding is a perfectly legitimate position while opinion based on ignorance is not.

The first thing any good scientist does when he makes a theory is to see how it could be wrong.
But, It is just as unscientific to dismiss a theory before scrutiny as it is to accept a theory before scrutiny.
You dismiss without scrutiny the tested scientific theory of what causes lightning.

But, It is just as unscientific to dismiss a theory before scrutiny as it is to accept a theory before scrutiny.

Point me to where the proposed coronal discharge has been scrutinized. The currently accepted model (which has no explanation as how lightning is initiated) has been tested for decades, this is why it can be shown to be wrong. If the standard theory of lightning genesis is so robust why this statement from a NOAA webpage?
"The conditions needed to produce lightning have been known for some time. However, exactly how lightning forms has never been verified so there is room for debate."
Even according to NOAA it is legitimate to postulate a cause for lightning genesis, that is what is being done. The postulated mechanisms above not only demonstrate how lightning is created, but also describes specific phenomena related to thunderstorms including the morphology of the cloud structures as well as tornadoes, precipitation, as well upper atmospheric effects.

All of you are declaring this to be wrong, without any scrutiny whatsoever, all of you are decidedly unscientific in your approach.

The first thing any good scientist does when he makes a theory is to see how it could be wrong.

Point to any reasonable concept that falsifies the coronal discharge hypothesis.
It should also be known, these very same principles that are postulated to be the cause of thunderstorms are the same principles the cause all weather, interaction of charged particles and regions on all relevant scales is what drives the movement of the atmosphere and the mixing thereof, along with Earth's rotation and interaction of EM fields within the Sun's electric plasma environment.

All of you are declaring this to be wrong, without any scrutiny whatsoever, all of you are decidedly unscientific in your approach

We are being 'unscientific'? This loon, who believes in Bigfoot, and thinks that mountains are formed by some sort of electrical woo, writes a bunch of garbage on a crank website, and you expect it to be treated scientifically? Grow up. If there was any merit to this woo, he would have the cojones to do what any decent scientist would do, and invite criticism and assessment from experts, by submitting it to a relevant, respectable journal. Unless and until he does that, we have every right to dismiss it out of hand. He already screwed up with the Venus analogy. The rest of it sounds like crap, as well. Get back to us when he grows a pair, and has had his nonsense properly scrutinised. It won't gain anything by being discussed here, or on a woo site. It essentially doesn't exist.

This loon, who believes in Bigfoot, and thinks that mountains are formed by some sort of electrical woo, writes a bunch of garbage on a crank website, and you expect it to be treated scientifically?

Again, all you got is ad hominem attacks. Not a single comment of the proposal, clearly it is beyond your ability to comprehend. This is the basis for your claim "it essentially doesn't exist", it's easier to ignore than give a reason it is wrong. It should be easy enough to explain why it is wrong. Above you said;
"According to Hall's piece, "The circuit is completed — a worldwide current from Earth to the sky, and storms that return it from sky to ground." Which is bollocks, by the way."
"Thunderstorms alone send 1 amp (A) of current skyward. But the circuit courses through the atmosphere even on fair-weather days when a slight current of 2 picoamps (or 0.0000000000002 A) flows from every square meter of ground upward."
https://scied.uca...ctricity

The return current is the electric wind, precipitation, and electric discharges such as lightning and tornadoes.

To suggest the Sun-Earth electrical connection isn't of primary importance ignores decades of observation and research which has shown this to be folly.

^^^^^^I'll repeat; if there were any merit to this woo, why is it only existing on crank Velikovskian sites? He didn't even understand the situation at Venus and Jupiter. Let him publish, otherwise it's just another crank writing crank ideas on crank websites. You want real scientists to deal with crap like that? Sorry, that isn't how it works. Grow a pair, and publish it where experts in the field can happily tear it to shreds. We all know that that won't happen.

Point me to where the proposed coronal discharge has been scrutinized.

The scientific accepted cause of naturally occurring lightning is NOT that is as a result of coronal discharge, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.
By definition, coronal discharge is the electrical discharge that results from the ionization of fluid/gas surrounding a solid CONDUCTOR, typically but not necessarily made of metal. What the hell has that got to do with the accepted scientific theory of what causes lightning in storms? Last time I checked, nobody is saying there are lumps of solid metal in storms causing lightning.

So, you not only dismiss the accepted scientific theory of what causes lightning in storms without scrutinized it, you dismiss it without even having the slightest idea what that theory says! How the hell can you rationalize your opinion that a scientific theory is wrong when you don't even have the slightest clue what that theory says!?

The return current is the electric wind, precipitation, and electric discharges such as lightning and tornadoes.

One might consider that more of an Earth-Space circuit...

https://en.wikipe...ischarge

"...A corona discharge is an electrical discharge brought on by the ionization of a fluid such as air surrounding a CONDUCTOR that is electrically charged. ..." (my emphasis)

Although sometimes some people, even some experts, misuse the term to refer to an electrical discharge brought on by the ionization of a fluid such as air surrounding an INSULATOR that is electrically charged, that just isn't the correct term for it (as clearly implied by the above link). Thus true corona discharge has nothing to do with lightning in naturally occurring storms and shouldn't be confused with the accepted scientific theory of what causes lightning in storms.

To suggest the Sun-Earth electrical connection isn't of primary importance ignores decades of observation and research which has shown this to be folly.

So... in your view - what comprises a solar "coronal discharge"?
And what would be the "conductor" in that solar discharge?

"...A corona discharge is an electrical discharge brought on by the ionization of a fluid such as air surrounding a CONDUCTOR that is electrically charged. ..." (my emphasis)

The CONDUCTOR that is electrically charged is the cloud of plasma (ionized gas) that arises in the presence of the high electric field of the storm. (your emphasis)
The Earth's atmosphere works as a self-repairing capacitor, the circuits described above are nested in the larger circuits.
http://www.thunde...itor.htm
The electric circuit analogy is valid due to the fact the Earth is a charged object orbiting within the Sun's dynamic electromagnetic plasma environment. It's why AGWism is bupkis, the Sun-Earth connection is drastically misinterpreted.

"...A corona discharge is an electrical discharge brought on by the ionization of a fluid such as air surrounding a CONDUCTOR that is electrically charged. ..." (my emphasis)

The CONDUCTOR that is electrically charged is the cloud of plasma (ionized gas) that arises in the presence of the high electric field of the storm. (your emphasis)
The Earth's atmosphere works as a self-repairing capacitor,

relevance? -I still see no mention there of, like you unwittingly implied due to you failing to understand science terminology, corona discharge from solid conductors such as lumps of metal in storms causing lightning. You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Your link mentions sprites but not other much more common types of lightning and there is no suggestion there of the common causes of other types of lightning.

Istill see no mention there of, like you unwittingly implied due to you failing to understand science terminology, corona discharge from solid conductors such as lumps of metal in storms causing lightning.

The definition you posted, which you added emphasis, said a conductor was required, the "solid" conductor is you own definition which has no basis. The cloud of plasma within the high electric field fits the bill as the conductor.

Your link mentions sprites but not other much more common types of lightning and there is no suggestion there of the common causes of other types of lightning.

All of the electric discharges in the diagram at the top of this page are manifestations of the same processes with different conditions present. The only difference between a lightning flash and a red sprite is where it occurs in the atmosphere, there need not be any added epicycles of complexity to a fairly simple process.

@CD85:
If weather is determined/caused by the Sun, why don't we have tornadoes equally dispersed across the globe? Why aren't there tornadoes in winter? Does the Sun stop doing it's magic when it gets cold?

The definition you posted, which you added emphasis, said a conductor was required, the "solid" conductor is you own definition which has no basis. The cloud of plasma within the high electric field fits the bill as the conductor.

No it clearly doesn't. Not for the definition of a electric discharge. A corona discharge is an electrical discharge brought on by the ionization of fluid/gas SURROUNDING a conductor that is electrically charged.
To say that the ionization of fluid/gas that surrounds that conductor can be by definition of corona discharge called the conductor itself is just nonsense for it would beg the question were do you by definition define the boundaries between the ionized fluid/gas that surrounds that ionized fluid/gas? -it ALL conducts! So iwhy not say is ALL the conductor!? Only if the conductor isn't the ionized fluid/gas itself can the definition make any sense.

Not for the definition of a electric discharge.

misedit; That should have been "..corona discharge".

A corona discharge is an electrical discharge brought on by the ionization of fluid/gas SURROUNDING a conductor that is electrically charged.

Correct, there is a cloud of plasma (the conductor) which is surrounded by air. The air is not a good conductor, so energy builds up in the cloud of plasma until the avalanche breakdown ensues. The air is then ionized by the discharge.

for it would beg the question were do you by definition define the boundaries between the ionized fluid/gas that surrounds that ionized fluid/gas?

Sheaths and/or double layers naturally form around plasmas, especially when those plasmas are immersed in a gas or plasma with different properties. We have known this since the 1920's thanks to Langmuir, it's why he got a Nobel prize.

@cantthink69 has successfully diverted the conversation by making a ridiculous claim using terminology that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Standard operating procedure for this troll.

How's that magnetic monopole Nobel going da schnied?

@CD85:
why no tornadoes during blizzards? I have seen and heard lightning/thunder during a blizzard, but never a tornado..

Why aren't there tornadoes in winter? Does the Sun stop doing it's magic when it gets cold?

There aren't?
https://weather.c...angerous

why no tornadoes during blizzards?

Certain factors are still required.

Is there plasma in clouds?
http://www.olemis...des.html

According to that diagram there must be, "pools of separated charges" within the cloud equates to an ionized gas or plasma. I'm not sure why this is difficult. If there is a plasma and electric discharges are taking place why wouldn't those physics be relevant to the processes? Electric discharges and plasmas as used by people are described with known electrical engineering concepts, why should these electric discharges and plasmas be different?

Certain factors are still required.

Oh well, that's settled then - tell Mr. Hall to pack his bags for Stockholm! Assuming he ever writes this gibberish up somewhere where scientists might actually see it.

Errr, there's no mention of plasma on that page, @cantthink69.

Maybe you didn't notice.

Actually while doing some research based on that page (the one from Ole Miss) I found some pretty interesting stuff. No plasma though (except around active lightning bolts for a few milliseconds).

Check this out, and pay particular attention to Wilson currents: https://www.nssl....g_77.pdf

A corona discharge is an electrical discharge brought on by the ionization of fluid/gas SURROUNDING a conductor that is electrically charged.

Correct, there is a cloud of plasma (the conductor) which is surrounded by air.

Not ionized air if you define the plasma (the conductor) to be ionized air thus it is nonsense to call that "corona discharge". This just confirms you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. you cannot just validly call anything "corona discharge"; don't make crap up.

Errr, there's no mention of plasma on that page, @cantthink69.

Maybe you didn't notice.

I did notice that they were missing the proper terminology. Did you notice the diagram at the top of the page? Did you notice the little plus/minus signs at the various area within the cloud? Those areas are of ionized gas, i.e. plasma. No leaps in terminology there, just the well understood fact that an ionized gas is in fact a plasma.
And in case you missed the first few posts in the thread, even NOAA acknowledges there is a missing aspect in the creation of lightning. The electric circuit Hall proposes is remarkably similar to the standard model "circuits". The main difference being the electronic circuits Hall is describing are valid whereas the standard theory is missing vital parts of their circuit, so they are invalid.

Not ionized air if you define the plasma (the conductor) to be ionized air thus it is nonsense to call that "corona discharge"

You are clearly having difficulty with this rather simple concept. First, the atmosphere is generally not plasma, it is air which behaves like an insulator.
Second, within that air, regions become ionized such as within these clouds. Hence, those ionized regions (plasma) are still immersed in air, i.e. you have a conductor (plasma) surrounded by an insulator (air). The plasma will then store energy until it reaches the breakdown values, then the discharge occurs. It's really a much simpler concept than you guys are grasping, which raises the question. Who puts on your pants in the morning?

There aren't?
https://weather.c...angerous

Get lots of blizzards in the bible belt, do we?? You do realize that was about winter, in the south, where blizzards don't really happen...

Do you remember the question as it was posed? That you asked and I quoted?
You asked;

Why aren't there tornadoes in winter? Does the Sun stop doing it's magic when it gets cold?

To which I linked the related article about tornadoes in winter. Now you seem to choose to ignore the context given and build up a non-existent strawman for which you can then tear down. Typical!

Errr, there's no mention of plasma on that page, @cantthink69.

Maybe you didn't notice.

I did notice that they were missing the proper terminology. .

Your 'terminology' isn't the 'proper' one but just made up crap.

You are clearly having difficulty with this rather simple concept.

I have no difficulty with your simple made-up nonsense; it's simply nonsense. What is so difficult about understanding that?

So, calling an ionized gas a plasma is "made-up nonsense"? Calling plasma a conductor is "made-up nonsense"? Saying the air is an insulator is "made-up nonsense"? Clearly your own willful ignorance is causing you to think these concepts are "made-up nonsense", these are nothing but factual statements. An ionized gas is a plasma, and the physics to describe it should be of the relevant branch of physics. Describing these processes via thermodynamics is why there is a mystery/failure to describe the creation of lightning. Hall's electronic circuit description does what the accepted view fails to do, explain the processes simply and concisely using known concepts.

Do you remember the question as it was posed? That you asked and I quoted?
You asked;

Why aren't there tornadoes in winter? Does the Sun stop doing it's magic when it gets cold?

To which I linked the related article about tornadoes in winter. Now you seem to choose to ignore the context given and build up a non-existent strawman for which you can then tear down. Typical!

No, it is called you cherry picking. I know that technically it is winter, but I don't consider 65F to be the average temperature for winter. You knew full well, since I was discussing blizzards in the same comment that a more northern climate was what was being referenced. Either way, if you wanna cherry pick, why aren't there commonly tornadoes in 'winter' in California, Arizona, Hawaii? The sun circuit must be very preferential if they don't get their fair share of space weather.

Those areas are of ionized gas, i.e. plasma

No, they aren't. You'll find that they are water droplets and ice crystals. If it were a plasma, how did it form within the overwhelmingly neutral atmosphere?

No, it is called you cherry picking.

No, I answered the question you posed, and included your quote for context. You are not so cleverly trying to build something up so you can attempt to tear it down.

Did you notice the little plus/minus signs at the various area within the cloud? Those areas are of ionized gas, i.e. plasma.

No, they're not plasma. If there were plasma in thunderstorms it would be mentioned in papers on thunderstorm meteorology, and having read quite a few of them while doing my research on Wilson currents I saw no mention of plasma inside thunderheads.

You're lying again, @cantthink69.

Those areas are of ionized gas, i.e. plasma

No, they aren't. You'll find that they are water droplets and ice crystals.

So according to jonesdumb, there are no electric charges (inspite of known observations) or water vapor in clouds. The atmosphere has no gas, it's just liquids and solids...

No, it is called you cherry picking.

No, I answered the question you posed, and included your quote for context. You are not so cleverly trying to build something up so you can attempt to tear it down.

Since you ignored the rest of that line of questioning and cherry picked the question in the middle, answer the questions on either side of it as well. And FYI, on average the southern US is not 'cold' during winter. an average winter temp in the 50's+ is not cold.

@CD85:
If weather is determined/caused by the Sun, why don't we have tornadoes equally dispersed across the globe? Why aren't there tornadoes in winter? Does the Sun stop doing it's magic when it gets cold?

No, they're not plasma. If there were plasma in thunderstorms it would be mentioned in papers on thunderstorm meteorology

That is some kind of moronic statement there, if a "scientist" didn't write it up it doesn't exist. LOL!
You all seem to be claiming this is all known, yet as the NOAA link above states there is something missing in the description of the cause of lightning. This is what is missing, the understanding that we're dealing with more than thermodynamics and the appropriate plasma physics be involved.

"Plasma in thunderheads" is a nice just-so story, @cantthink69.

If you're just going to lie I'll leave you to the tender mercies of @691Boat and @jones. It's not worth arguing with a liar once the lie has been pointed out; all they do is make excuses. And we all know about excuses: they're like assholes, everybody has one and they all stink.

That is some kind of moronic statement there, if a "scientist" didn't write it up it doesn't exist. LOL!

This coming from someone who doesn't even know what a collisionless plasma is! And thinks Earth used to orbit Saturn! And that Venus was doing handbrake turns around the solar system a week last Tuesday! Forget it lads, the bloke is thick as pigsh*t. Yes?

And jonesdumb changes the subject again. Tell me again how this electrically charged gas is not ionized again.

So, calling an ionized gas a plasma is "made-up nonsense"?

That isn't what I said and you know it.

So, calling an ionized gas a plasma is "made-up nonsense"?

That isn't what I said and you know it.

That is exactly what I said. I also said that plasma is a conductor, which is equally valid.

So, calling an ionized gas a plasma is "made-up nonsense"?
Calling plasma a conductor is "made-up nonsense"?
Saying the air is an insulator is "made-up nonsense"?

"an ionized gas consisting of positive ions and free electrons in proportions resulting in more or less no overall electric charge, typically at low pressures (as in the upper atmosphere and ...)."
Why would "no overall electric charge" conduct?
Why would "air" be an insulator?
Isn't "conduction" the transfer of electrons? And which direction are they actually travelling?
Sure seems like "air" would be the electron source and "plasma" the drain...

Why would "no overall electric charge" conduct?

Really? You need to ask that question? Due to the positive ions and free electrons. It is a fundamental aspect of plasma, 101 stuff.

Why would "air" be an insulator?

LOL, really again?
"Air (like in the atmosphere) is actually an excellent electrical insulator."
http://energyeduc...nsulator

Sure seems like "air" would be the electron source and "plasma" the drain...

You should stick with art, scientific concepts seem too difficult for you and your assumptions are more than likely backwards.

Why would "no overall electric charge" conduct?

Really? ... Due to the positive ions and free electrons. It is a fundamental aspect of plasma, 101 stuff.

With all those "free" electrons runnin' around, why aren't they attracted to all those ionized protons right in front of 'em?

Why would "air" be an insulator?

LOL, really again?
"Air (like in the atmosphere) is actually an excellent electrical insulator."
http://energyeduc...nsulator

And add a little water and it becomes an excellent conductor. Hmmmm...
Why do you suppose they insulate wires instead of just leaving them open to the air?
Ever seen a power line arc to the ground line on a transmission line tower?
It ain't the "air", it's the proximity...
And... once air DOES conduct, notice how it is superheated?
And all the air molecules stripped of their electrons it leaves behind?
Lightning discharge CREATES ions...

With all those "free" electrons runnin' around, why aren't they attracted to all those ionized protons

You're letting that artistic mind get in the way again. You remember a couple posts back I included a diagram of a cloud with all the plus signs in one region and all the minus signs in another? It's called charge separation.

And add a little water and it becomes an excellent conductor.

Bingo! That's why these clouds are cold, weakly ionized plasmas.

Why do you suppose they insulate wires instead of just leaving them open to the air?
It ain't the "air", it's the proximity...

From wikistupidia;
"Since most of the insulation is provided by air, overhead power lines are generally the lowest-cost method of power transmission for large quantities of electrical energy."

Lightning discharge CREATES ions...

How do you suppose the discharge occurs without charge separation? As you ALWAYS do, you've got your horse behind the cart. Wag the dog?

Lightning discharge CREATES ions...

And yes, the electric/plasma discharge does create more electric charges.

Lightning discharge CREATES ions...

And yes, the electric/plasma discharge does create more electric charges.

Which is obviously why a single lightning bolt never stops, right? I mean, they are fed from space, the plasma from the bolt generates more charge separation than was already in the plasma clouds above our heads, and it is an amazing process. That one lightning bolt that has been hanging around my neighborhood the last couple years has really become tiresome.

You're really reaching now. Who is the troll?

I am just putting together all the little tidbits you like to throw out there:
-Our clouds are plasma, an ionized gas.
-Our weather is affected and driven by solar plasma, which is the electrical power source for the planet.
-The "magnetic portal" that opens between the Earth and Sun happens every 8 minutes and is the obvious method that the Earth is powered.
-Earth is clearly a ground compared to the sun, since we are downstream in the "electric circuit"
-Lightning is an electrical discharge, which is clearly a plasma event.
-The only definition needed for plasma is "ionized somethingr"
-Electrical discharge generates more ions.
-More ions means more charge separation.
-More charge separation means larger capacitance, meaning a bigger discharge available.

-Since the Sun provides electricity to Earth through our atmosphere, which is actually a plasma, there is a near infinite power supply. Why would lightning ever stop?

Points one and two are on the mark, however point three...
Those "magnetic portals" (more appropriately Birkeland currents) are ONE OF the energy transfer mechanisms available in the Sun-Earth connection. There are multiple mechanisms such as particle energy from the solar wind, solar storms from flares and such, irradiance, electrical energy, and so on.
Point 4;
The Earth is a charged object orbiting within a dynamic plasma environment.
Point 5;
Yep
Point 6;
Ionized gas=plasma, this is a simple undeniable fact.
Point 7;
As old as you are I know you have seen a lightning bolt, maybe even at night? The darkness you don't see before the bolt, there aren't too many ions and electrons there, so it's not glowing. Then when your eyes are blinded by the flash, there are a lot of ions and electrons as seen by the bright light. It's the avalanche breakdown, then there is recombination. Just like accepted science understands, why don't you?

You remember a couple posts back I included a diagram of a cloud with all the plus signs in one region and all the minus signs in another? It's called charge separation.

I call it charge differential, but no matter. Different exchanges are constantly occurring at lower voltages. It takes many numbers of these exchanges to show large enough differentials on a larger scale to create lightning.

Bingo! That's why these clouds are cold, weakly ionized plasmas.

Not. It's matter with lots of electrons available to strip.

"Since most of the insulation is provided by air, overhead power lines are generally the lowest-cost method of power transmission for large quantities of electrical energy."

If it insulates so well, why are power lines 30 ft apart and not 3?
Any discharge CREATES ions (By stripping electrons from the "air".)

How do you suppose the discharge occurs without charge separation?

I don't. It just ain't as clean a process as you think.

Point 8;
More ions means more ions.
Point 9;
Yep, the difference between a gentle wind, positive lightning, a tornado, or lightning to space.
Point10;
"Cloud-to-ground lightning bolts are a common phenomenon—about 100 strike Earth's surface every single second—yet their power is extraordinary. Each bolt can contain up to one billion volts of electricity."
It doesn't stop...

Portal keys and their electrifying portals

Reading down to the end, I needn't have bothered, I could have just opened another electrifying portal, you must be losing your grip, or some ones given all the portal keys away! It must be some form of electric quantum lock, of the Electric Quantum World or EQW another to add to add to the growing electrifying wooist's list

That is some kind of moronic statement there, if a "scientist" didn't write it up it doesn't exist. LOL!

jonesdave> This coming from someone who doesn't even know what a collisionless plasma is! And thinks Earth used to orbit Saturn! And that Venus was doing handbrake turns around the solar system a week last Tuesday! Forget it lads, the bloke is thick as pigsh*t. Yes?

Looks like you've got your hands full as it is, as the saying goes "you ain't seen nothing yet"!

Different exchanges are constantly occurring at lower voltages. It takes many numbers of these exchanges to show large enough differentials on a larger scale to create lightning.

Is that what you call "artistic license"?
The dielectric breakdown of air is 3,000,000V, that's a lot of whatever you said.

why are power lines 30 ft apart and not 3?

Probably efficiency and safety.

It just ain't as clean a process as you think.

You obviously don't have a clue as to what I think, but just exactly how dirty is it?

Sorry, that should read 3,000,000V/m...