Jump to content

Talk:Lightning/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Nitrogen

This article does not have a part about lightning and the nitrogen cycle. Where can I find such information? Or just add some information in the article.

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Just google "lighting and hydrogen" and you will find stuff like this. Richerman (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Qwertyxp2000 should do his own research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by White909090lightning (talk • contribs) 12:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Not accurate

The article talks about the religion of the Bantu tribes. There are hundreds of Bantu languages and ideas need not be the same for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by White909090lightning (talk • contribs) 12:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Colors used to denote polarity in undermentioned illustration are not conventional.

/media/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Leaderlightnig.gif/220px-Leaderlightnig.gif

The negative leader from the cloud is presently red, conversely the positive leader from the ground is blue. Automotive transport convention and almost universally RED signifies POSITIVE, and BLACK or BLUE signifies NEGATIVE. The negative color choice seems to be fairly flexible but the red for positive is almost set in stone (in my experience.)

I have not checked yet if there is an article on wire color coding. A short note for anyone who may start one. In 3 phase electricity one convention is to use RED, WHITE, and BLUE for live (above ground) phases and BLACK for the NEUTRAL. Considering the USA standard for 2 phase supply 115VAC - NEUTRAL - 115VAC (where the 2 115VAC lines have 230VAC potential between them) use RED for 115VAC, WHITE for NEUTRAL, and BLACK for the other 115VAC line, and considering the use RED and BLACK in DC systems, persons working on unknown systems should be aware of these possible pitfalls. Ecstatist (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Bolt from the Blue

Currently the page both describes a 'bolt from the blue' as a name for clear-air lightning [which I believe to be correct], in the main text, and as a name for anvil-to-ground lightning in the anvil-to-ground photo-caption [which does not make sense to me]. I'm not going to make the edit unless there's actually two trends to the usage, but I think it's likely to be a joke or error of some kind. 65.95.145.103 (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Actually, it is both. "A bolt from the blue", a metaphor for something coming out of nowhere, originally comes from a lightning strike from a blue sky. However, in the science community, it is also used to describe anvil-to-ground lightning. The reason for this is that anvil-to-ground lightning is a lightning bolt which develops "over" the thunderstorm cloud (in the blue), and travels generally straight down through the cloud and then strikes the ground, creating an anvil through the cloud. "Cloud to Ground" lightning isn't Anvil lightning. That strike comes from the cloud itself, not above it. You may be confusing the two. If you'd like to make an edit, you can word it so that it educates the reader that the term is "also used to describe".... I am not part of the science community, so you better check my facts, however, I remember studying this subject in college, and that's exactly how I remember it.-Pocketthis (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No action was taken, so I made an edit to improve, and clarify the anvil strike caption.-thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Strobe effect of GIFs may cause reactions in epileptics?

The cartoon gif, and maybe other gifs, may cause some photosensative epileptics to be affected. Yosjwuwkjd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Can the images be rearranged and separated? MOS:ANIMATION prescribes a hard limit on this: "animations must not produce more than three flashes in any one-second period. Content that flashes more than that limit is known to cause seizures.[1]" —C.Fred (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Guideline 2.3 Seizures: Do not design content in a way that is known to cause seizures". Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. W3C. 11 December 2008. Retrieved 28 May 2015.
I've requested assistance at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility. —C.Fred (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that subjectively I can only detect two flashes, effectively in frames 2 and 6 (see File:Lightnings sequence 2.jpg), so it probably doesn't breach Success Criterion 2.3.1. However, if others see more flashes, then there may still be a problem, particularly as the animation loops in 1.5 seconds and the flashes that I see are only 600 ms apart.
So, I've uploaded a modified version, File:Lightnings sequence 2 animation-wcag.gif, that has some dark frames inserted to stretch out the animation. I'm pretty sure that meets SC 2.3.1, but other opinions on its usefulness would be welcome. --RexxS (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Return Stroke DUBIOUS or even FANCIFUL

The suggestion that lightning travels "up one leg and down the other" is so rare an occurrence that it does not even rate in medical documentation. It requires proximity to a ground stroke and a huge potential between legs (e.g. one on a metal dock, the other in a body of water). By comparison, head-back-legs, head-torso-legs, and arm-torso-legs are more than 90% of injury patterns in human cases. In fact, some have suggested that allowing leg-leg flow through the groin and pelvis is preferable to lying flat on the ground. Journal of Emergency Medicine, multiple issues / Neurorehabilitation Dfoofnik (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Why lightning?

I came here to find out why lightning occurs or in other words why is there a potential difference? Didn´t see an answer to that question. Would be nice if the answer to that common question was in the intro. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

  • "Lightning is a sudden electrostatic discharge that occurs during an electrical storm. This discharge occurs between electrically charged regions of a cloud (called intra-cloud lightning or IC), between that a cloud and another cloud (CC lightning), or between a cloud and the ground (CG lightning). The charged regions in the atmosphere temporarily equalize themselves through this discharge referred to as a strike if it hits an object on the ground, and a flash, if it occurs within a cloud. Lightning causes light in the form of plasma, and sound in the form of thunder. Lightning may be seen and not heard when it occurs at a distance too great for the sound to carry as far as the light from the strike or flash".

That is the opening now, and I think it answers your question as to what lightning is. As far as "potential difference" is concerned, I found this with some research: "A typical lightning bolt bridges a potential difference (voltage) of several hundred million volts". If you'd like to incorporate that info into the opening, I don't see any reason why not, however, there are other chapters it would work in as well, such as Types or General Considerations. Pocketthis (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't answer the question why there are charged regions or why there is a potential difference.   Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Added new section to explain this. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The poles are at a temperature where water or molecule are extremely magnetic due to the temperature Tgk11 (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lightning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lightning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead image

I have reverted some recent changes by Ecstatic Electrical to this article and others. There is some discussion regarding those edits at my talk page, but it's getting too long for just my talk page. Regarding just this article, I have reverted the change in lead image because the current one is a featured image, among the best Wikipedia has to offer, whereas the other was mostly dark (about three quarters could have been cropped without removing any lightning), miscoloured (I doubt the road in the foreground belongs that red), and watermarked, of much poorer quality. This article has plenty of images; no reason was given why that one should be given pride of place. Huon (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I’m fine if you don’t use that exact image. However, the current image shows four lightening bolts hitting all at once. It is highly unusual for this to happen. Usually only one or two bolts will strike the same area at the same time. So yes, while the current image is more “impressive”, the image should be based on what’s realistically common, not based on what looks good. —Ecstatic Electrical, 01:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Lightning flashes with multiple ground terminations are not uncommon, and up to seven ground terminations have been confirmed to occur from a single flash. While they do not all strike the ground at the same time, photographers can open the camera shutter long enough to capture all of the strokes from a single, or even multiple flashes. There is nothing "unrealistic" about this. --PurpleDiana (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lightning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Speed

Okay, don't get me wrong. this article is usefulll and all but, i want to know the speed of lightning in general. i saw the speed of lightning in the dutch page but the english page has different information and numbers so i was wondering if hey tought the speed was the same.

please explain.

-zoefkris

A speed of 100,000 kilometers per second has been mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Magnetic pinch

I was surprised to find no mention of the pinch effect in this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics) Probably belongs somewhere in the "transient currents" section? Is it even relevant? 203.13.3.90 (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Crown flash

Considering the direct relationship between lightning storms and the crown flash phenomenon it would be logical to touch on this in this article but the only question is how to integrate this information? 86.212.240.167 (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a mention of the relationship in the observational variations section? Sario528 (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
As crown flash is not lightning, it doesn't belong in observational variants. I'll stick it in "see also", at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.69.174.194 (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Needs Organization

I'm not surprised this didn't make "good article". It needs a thorough reworking as too much information is repeated due to lack of initial organization. The info is here, but it feels like a cut and paste job by a first year student. 184.69.174.194 (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

New section - protection

What about a new section on lightning protection systems ? CecilWard (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That ... hard to believe that's not an ARTICLE already. Lightning rod does exist with a lot of coverage ... will a REDIRECT suffice? I'll link to LR in SEE ALSO (?!)

Also worth coverage: records set by lightning flashes ... many have been created in recent years. EG Huge Lightning 'Megaflash' in Brazil Breaks Record for Longest Strike, Extraordinary ‘megaflash’ lightning strikes cover several hundred kilometres, smashing records (certified by the UN's WMO). Twang (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Electrification - why?

The Electrification section, paragraph 2 and Figure 2, says that "When the rising ice crystals collide with graupel, the ice crystals become positively charged and the graupel becomes negatively charged; see Figure 2" but doesn't say anything about why that should be the case. I'm not knowledgeable enough to give a good explanation myself (otherwise I would just do it), but I feel like it's really needed. That seems the the crux of the whole "how do physically-separate areas of the cloud end up with dramatically different charges" thing? Is there any chance that someone who knows more than I would like to take this on?

KLuwak (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Suspicious and Weird Ommission

There is no discussion of Ground to Cloud, the true form of lightning. The article says itself "cloud to ground" is rare, and frankly isn't really true. The ground is ALWAYS 100% NECESSARY, to strike ground. The charge goes Upward, not downward. This is a scientific fact. The weird part of this is it's totally ommitted, and only cloud to ground is written here with no title or first place position of ground to cloud. My explanation for this is creationist Christians are responsible. They like to believe lightning strikes downward and it's a popular low IQ myth. It doesn't. There is no other probable or clear motive to ignore the most scientific explanation in this article. I want to shame wikipedia staff for dropping their scientific standard and letting this stealthy revision take place. You've been warned now, guys, about this.Marriotte (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

If you see room for improvement, go ahead and make the improvement. 'wikipedia staff' is just people like you or me. 2601:281:8280:21F0:7D95:D130:B38E:B4E5 (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

"Alharrkentye" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Alharrkentye. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Alharrkentye until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Number of pictures

Someone put the template saying that there are too many pictures. I disagree. I think there's just the right amount of pictures. BirdValiant (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree. And if the article has too much going on, we don't need the clutter of a big banner tag too so I'm removing it. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

"Stepped leader(meteorology)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Stepped leader(meteorology) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 6#Stepped leader(meteorology) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Early theories of lightning

It would be interesting to know what scientists/philosophers believed was the cause of lightning before the discovery of electricity حمزة الوحش (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a little information in the section "In culture and religion", which itself links to the article "Lightning in religion". Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022

In the "Cloud to ground (CG)" subcategory within the "Types" section, the last sentence repeats the word 'ground' but appears to employ two different definitions of the term - first indicating electrical ground, then the common English usage referring to the surface of the Earth. 

 The conductivity of the ground, be it ground, fresh water or salt water, may affect the lightning discharge rate and thus visible characteristics.[64]

This is both conceptually ambiguous for a lay reader, and makes for a somewhat awkward sentence structure to parse.
I would suggest replacing the second occurrence with 'earth' (or 'soil'), changing the first to read 'electrical ground', or both:

 The conductivity of the electrical ground, be it soil, fresh water, or salt water, may affect the lightning discharge rate and thus visible characteristics.


Jeffrey Shafer (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 23:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The very point: piezoelectricity in atmosphere!

Understanding the physics around thunderclouds and lightnings has been very poor since ancient times and your article of course suffer from that fact, but considering https://www.quora.com/Lightning-and-thunder-are-caused-by-electric-discharges-due-to-charge-differences-from-the-ground-and-the-clouds-But-why-is-there-a-charge-build-up could certainly improve your article on several and central points and understanding the role of piezoelectricity can, as shown in https://www.quora.com/How-do-raindrops-form , also explain rain! /Regards John Larsson ([email protected]) 87.51.162.168 (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

21 March 2023

Mandalore has a right to do protected itself. For example, I have a dream of Mandalore, because it had a great life and of that I am the Queen of Mandalore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.226.173 (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

'Place on Earth with most lightning'

Would also be useful to state that region on Earth with highest lightning strike frequency is clearly Congo Basin (colorscale on the global map runs out!) Nzadi (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial

Juno managed to image lightning On Jupiter:

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/jpl/nasa-s-juno-mission-captures-lightning-on-jupiter

©Geni (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2023

Re ref for "[...] discovery of the clear signatures of antimatter produced in lightning."

Original link is dead and archive link is no good (content "available to subscribers only").

New links, same source:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/signature-antimatter-detected-lightning

https://web.archive.org/web/20230728171126/https://www.sciencenews.org/article/signature-antimatter-detected-lightning

2A02:560:5916:9C00:40AB:CA76:BF17:C388 (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2023

There is an informational error under flashes and strikes: discharge: return stroke: last paragraph. Article states "The core temperature of the plasma during the return stroke may exceed 50,000 K." Unit of measure is wrong. Please change 50,000 K to 50,000 F. (Source: https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-science-thunder#:~:text=The%20lightning%20discharge%20heats%20the,the%20surface%20of%20the%20sun.) 66.29.208.159 (talk) 05:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've also added the Celsius equivalent via the convert template. Thanks, Lewcm Talk to me! 13:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Port and_lighthouse_overnight_storm_with_lightning_in_Port-la-Nouvelle.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for January 16, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-01-16. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Lightning

Lightning is a natural phenomenon formed by electrostatic discharges through the atmosphere between two electrically charged regions, either both in the atmosphere or one in the atmosphere and one on the ground, temporarily neutralizing these in a near-instantaneous release of an average of between 200 megajoules and 7 gigajoules of energy, depending on the type. The three main types of lightning are distinguished by where they occur: either inside a single thundercloud (intra-cloud), between two clouds (cloud-to-cloud), or between a cloud and the ground (cloud-to-ground), in which case it is referred to as a lightning strike. Lightning causes thunder, a sound from the shock wave which develops as gases in the vicinity of the discharge heat suddenly to very high temperatures. It is often heard a few seconds after the lightning itself. Thunder is heard as a rolling, gradually dissipating rumble because the sound from different portions of a long stroke arrives at slightly different times. This photograph shows strokes of cloud-to-ground lightning hitting the Mediterranean Sea close to Port-la-Nouvelle in southern France.

Photograph credit: Maxime Raynal

Recently featured:

Proposed major restructure

I consider the structure of the page to be a mess. There are section headings such as "General considerations" which gives no clue to the section content, and there are sections which belong with other sections (e.g. "injuries and deaths" and "effects on animals" are clearly talking about the same things.

My PhD was on the topic of lightning and I have written several papers on these topics. Therefore I share my expert review of the structure of the article below, and propose my idea for new section headings. The proposed new structure should be able to accommodate all existing content, but to me would be more useful for people coming to the page, and presents a more logical order. I very much welcome criticism and suggestions. I will come back to check responses in due course and will (eventually) find time to make changes.

Review of the structure:

• Electrification 

 → to “Electrification of a cloud”

• General considerations 

 → “The typical cloud-to-ground lightning flash culminates” are facts that should be with other discharge or frequency info
 → Remove “Lightning primarily occurs when warm air is mixed with colder air masses,[26] resulting in atmospheric disturbances necessary for	polarizing the atmosphere.[27]” Most storms form this way, lightning or no.
 → “Lightning can also occur during dust storms, fo” is probably all covered elsewhere or can be

• Distribution,frequency and extent 

 → generally correct, but jumps all over the place and could do with being made more coherent
 → I don’t	think “extent” in the section title means anything

• Necessary conditions 

 → Most of this could be wrapped into electrification of a cloud I think (the electric field part is the culmination of the electrifcation

• Flashes and strikes 

 → I suggest change to “Components of lightning discharge” or “Lightning discharge”
 → Are we missing a section on “triggering”?
   → If we get the structure in order then we could ask a relevant expert to chip in to such a standalone section or it could come at the beginning of this section

• Types 

 → I think the	postive and negative aspect could be covered in a discharge section the CG-CC-IC part could be covered in the “distribution” section as it is relevant there, and is basically the distribution within the cloud system.

• Effects 

 → The chemistry part of this would be better focused initially on the dissociation of air molecules as a result of the extreme heat in the lightning channel. Other things follow that, such as N and O atoms reform to	Nitric Oxide which then goes on to have various chemical effects in the atmosphere, which would hopefully be found by following a link to the chemical's wiki page, but can be mentioned that it indirectly goes on to affect ozone and methane concentrations and nitrates

• Radio 

 → might be better as Electromagnetic radiation this can begin by saying that in addition to the light (EM rad) that we	see, there are many other frequencies produced too and these propagate through the atmosphere, and can be detected – then	link to section on detection ozone and nitrogen oxides should be merged with nitrates into a atmospheric	chemical composition subsection in effects
 → “High energy radiation” can be merged with Radio into an EM rad effects section. Don’t need to go into loads here about detection as that should have its own section

• volcanic, fire (pyrocumulus part) and human-related sections 

 → are all	“drivers of electrification conditions in clouds”. I think maybe there needs to be a section on that which would include	meteorological stuff like cumulonimbus etc
 → alternatively something like “Conducive atmospheric conditions”, or a section each for “related meteorology” and “aerosol influence”.

• I think extraterrestrial probably does warrant its own section, otherwise it would go in a distribution section

• Scientific study 

 → Silly section title? Surely the scientific information is either of general	interest in which case it should be built into relevant sections, or it’s not, in which case it doesn’t belong on the page.
 → Properties bit can be integrated into previous sections and is largely covered
 → Detection and	monitoring – I think this deserves a section in its own right.
 → I think the	artificially triggered part could stay in detection section, or it could have its own mini section
 → magnetism looks to be something to go in effects sections
 → solar wind etc is to go in the currently non-existant triggering sections
 → Lightning and climate change I think would be better of joining the fire lightning section (wildfire part) in a “Lightning in the Earth system” section which would allow expansion beyond the direct	effects (i.e. temperature, energy, dissociation of air moelcules)		to talk about large-scale influences. e.g. that it can modify climate, forest and grassland ecology, landscapes). The lightning and climate change section also needs a content improvement to cover more of the literature (sorry, I think I might written this some years ago)

• I think having a section on culture and mythology is good

• injuries and deaths section should be in effects on animals sections

Proposed section structure:

1. Electrification

1a. Charge separation and formation of an electric field

1b. Conducive meteorological conditions

1c. Influence of aerosol

2. Discharge

2a. Triggering

2b. Lightning strike components

3. Effects (this would be focused on immediate, direct effects in the vicinity of the lightning channel)

4. Detection and monitoring

5. Distribution and frequency

6. Effects within the Earth system (probably need a non-expert to decide best title here, maybe just “wider effects in the atmosphere and ecosystems”)

7. Culture and Mythology

8. Extraterrestrial (maybe comes before “culture” section or maybe a subsection in “distribution”) DecFinney (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

"lightning prediction" is probably a worthwhile new section that could come between the distribution and earth system effects sections. DecFinney (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Please, please do jump in and get started with this. I've made a whole bunch of improvements myself tonight, overlapping with a few items you've mentioned here, but it would be wonderful to have your expertise in further improving it, especially merging and improving all of the sections detailing the mechanics.
I've done quite a bit of reorganisation of 'effects'. I don't agree that the 'climate change' bit should be merged with that, since everything currently in the 'effects' section deals with effects lightning has on other things, while the climate change stuff addresses the topic of how climate change might increase/decrease/intensify lightning activity, which thus doesn't fit in there.
I don't like the section title 'electrification', but I don't really like 'electrification of a cloud' either, I feel that it's not friendly or understandable enough to the lay person. It should be more simple like 'process' or 'mechanism' or 'mechanics' or something. We absolutely should have the full process from formation to strike laid out in clear detail within one section. That stuff is all a big mess as it is. I'd really appreciate your expertise in sorting it out. It would be nice if this could please include clear description of strike vs stroke terminology. Update - as detailed below I've grouped things under a new 'mechanics' section, feel free to use 'electrification of a cloud' if you feel it best as a sub-section within 'mechanics'. I intend to leave all of the mechanics stuff for you to sort out properly.
The 'general considerations' section is indeed an awful mess, I agree that that stuff needs merging/deleting/whatever you think best.
I did a lot of tweaking to 'Distribution,frequency and extent'. I think by 'extent' they refer to duration of a strike, which is mentioned.
I agree about the 'scientific study' section. I've moved the detection and climate change bits into their own sections, deleted a bit about thunder that was just repeating what was described better earlier (very good description under effects), and just left a few bits for you to merge elsewhere or delete as you see fit, allowing this scientific study section to then be gone entirely.
I don't really agree about moving the bit at the end about deaths into the effects section, the effects section is describing what types of impact lightning can have, whereas that bit at the end is just a bit of very mildly interesting trivia and wouldn't really work there, especially since we can only go four headings deep. Actually, I just went ahead and deleted it and added a see-also link to the separate Lightning strike page, since that has a ton more such info.
The 'Human-related phenomena' section is a bit iffy.
The 'volcanic' section probably wants moving/merging into the discussion on mechanics earlier on. Or, perhaps better would be to delete this and just use a see-also link to avoid unnecessary duplication of work since we have an entire separate article on it, as linked to in the introduction. Update - done just that, deleted and linked instead!
The introduction briefly discussed the main different types (CG/CC/IC) only for this to be redone later on in the 'types' section, which wasn't ideal. I also felt that going from the introduction directly into the "heavy" 'electrification' section wasn't ideal for most readers either. So what I've done is moved the 'types' section up front, though renaming it 'forms' which I like a lot better, and merged the intro of that section with paragraphs 2&3 from the article intro. I've also then grouped all of the stuff relating to the mechanics of how a lighting strike works under a new 'mechanics' heading following it. Discussing types/forms first like this I think does a better job of easing readers into things. The one downside is that some parts of types/forms does use technical terms that aren't explained until later in the mechanics section. I'm undecided what's best to do about that, just leave it and expect readers to wait until they've read some of the next section before they will fully understand, add a note along the lines of 'details of the mechanics are covered in the next section, don't fret!', or to split the types/form section in two, moving the more involved details to a 'forms continued' or 'form details' section after 'mechanics', or moving those bits into mechanics somewhere...
I think the distribution/frequency stuff might be slightly more interesting and less "heavy" than the topic of detection, so should come before it as it is now.DiscreetParrot (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, that's great stuff. I'm pretty content with your proposals, at least to see it take shape. Details can be discussed down the line. I have made a bunch of edits and would welcome proofing of them if/when you have time.
I got rid of general considerations, scientific study and human-related phenomena. I also moved the fire lightning section as that was not about an effect of lightning but a way that lightning forms.
I think we my edits we roughly have the sections needed to contain any content that should exist on the page. Names of sections and subsections needs some time and thought but we can keep tweaking them. I'm content for now.
The only thing is I wonder if a subsection on "lightning prediction/forecasting" should be included? Perhaps as a subsection under "distribution etc"? or maybe on its own following that section? It seems to me relevant to other sections and surely often of interest to people, yet there is not a word on it. I would be able to draft it in due course, but just raising it now for initial feedback on what's needed.
I would say almost every section could be made more concise, better worded, more complete, have superfluous or minor facts removed, and given overview paragraphs. This will take some time, I'd like to get a rough section structure that contributors are happy with and then I think we'll need discussion topics for each section to decide what is important to include in them and how to make it approachable to a lay audience. I'd be interested to know which sections others think are the priority -- personally, I think there is way too much in "Forms" (and it's the first section). I'd be happy with a paragraph or maybe 2 at a stretch, details about positive/negative CG/IC flash frequency and strength relative to one another could be in Distribution, Frequency and Properties section? DecFinney (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Just taken a look at your edits, and I'm very pleased with them, thanks! Your 'formation' heading is much better than 'mechanics', and that paragraph you rewrote in forms is so much better now. Things are shaping up great. 👍
Regarding prediction/forecasting, no problem with you adding that if you like, note that there's a related page here: Lightning-prediction_system
I absolutely agree that forms could do with slimming down; various details could perhaps do with being merged somewhere into formation or something. DiscreetParrot (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I have read over "Forms" and made the following notes. I will try to do something about these at some point:
1) What does this mean?... “Different common names used to describe a particular lightning event may be attributed to the same or to different events.”
2) Propose moving or removing from this section: “The typical cloud-to-ground lightning flash culminates in the formation of an electrically conducting plasma channel through the air in excess of 5 km (3.1 mi) tall, from within the cloud to the ground's surface. The actual discharge is the final stage of a very complex process.” I think the info is mainly elsewhere, the number seems suspicious, surely the height varies so why state something so arbitrary. The plasma point belongs somewhere else, and I think is written elsewhere in the page.
3) Condense 6 bullet points on +ve charge mechanisms into a sentence. Is there a more recent review?
4) Citation needed. “As a result of their greater power, positive lightning strikes are considerably more dangerous than negative strikes.” DecFinney (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I have enacted some changes to address the issues I raised above:
1) removed. With a follow-up read it still didn't make sense to me.
2) I've moved the fact about a typical flash length to a paragraph in return stroke description that refers to other flash characteristics. I do not have the reference material so I assume the Uman reference is for this fact as well the sentence that discharge is complex. I have left the reference with the factual statement. I have deleted the second sentence as I don't think it adds anything - we have a whole section attempting to describe what IS known about the process.
3) Nag and rakov is still the most cited relevant article when I look on google scholar. It has 145 citations on there. Other reviews since 2013 do not seem well cited so I did not pursue them. Looking at the paper, these 6 options are just hypotheses so I think a bit too much info, especially so early on in the article. If someone wants to keep them then they should refer to fig1 in the reference and move the info later in the wiki article. For now I have made the comments more concise, trying to not to introduce to many new terms to the reader.
4) I can't find any primary evidence that positive flashes are more damaging. I can believe they are given the higher power, but I think that should be left to be inferred unless there's actual evidence. The best I can find is on the NOAA page below. But I don't know what it's based on. 'm not going to include it, but will leave a note that a citation is needed.
>>> "Positive flashes are also believed to be responsible for a large percentage of forest fires and power line damage." https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/lightning/positive-and-negative-side-of-lightning#:~:text=Positive%20lightning%20makes%20up%20less,greater%20damage%20than%20negative%20lightning. DecFinney (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Upward Streamer Photo

The upward streamer photo looks like a reflection of the main bolt in the lens of the camera (a lens flare), not a positive leader. It even seems to be obscured by an object, just like the main bolt is partially obscured by a tree. Please review the description of that photo since it might be inaccurate. 88.220.51.36 (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's what a lens flare may look like on an iPhone 8 Pro: https://i.imgur.com/6GtLxxm.png 185.238.206.92 (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the "upward streamer" appears to be a camera artifact, either caused by a lens flare/reflection or the camera sensor being oversaturated which can create a similar artifact as explained here: https://ztresearch.blog/2017/05/16/blinded-by-the-light/
Upward connecting leaders are generally only seen within around 50m of the main discharge, and they emanate from the tops of pointed objects, and not from a flat object some distance away from the main bolt. PurpleDiana (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I also agree that this is not an upward streamer. I get these "ghost" lightning bolts all the time when filming lightning. It's just lens flare. On top of being too far from the main bolt and not being from a pointy object, the streamer in question looks too curved. Styro.drake (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@Styro.drake comments in this discussion seem sensible to me. can any of replace it with a better photo, or upload an example of your own? DecFinney (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2024

This information, 

"The process of going from charge as ions (positive hydrogen ion and negative hydroxide ion) associated with liquid water or solid water to charge as electrons associated with lightning must involve some form of electro-chemistry, that is, the oxidation and/or the reduction of chemical species.[23] As hydroxide functions as a base and carbon dioxide is an acidic gas, it is possible that charged water clouds in which the negative charge is in the form of the aqueous hydroxide ion, interact with atmospheric carbon dioxide to form aqueous carbonate ions and aqueous hydrogen carbonate ions,"

listed at the bottom of the electrification section, is not supported by the reference source. The reference article details electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen gas over time periods far greater than could occur in a lightning strike. The unreferenced commentary in the latter part of the section does not seem to make sense from a chemical standpoint as CO2 forms carbonic acid in aqueous solutions regardless of electrification. Beyond chemical inconsistencies the information is at best tangentially relevant, so I think it should probably be deleted. Thanks Jameshoww (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jameshoww i dont think this was addressed? the text appears to still be there.
During my restructure i moved it to formation. i have not had time to review that bit of content carefully yet. my impression is it related to "inductive" charging. that is compared to the likely primary charging by "non-inductive" charging. i have now included the term "non-inductive" in the earlier paragraphs which sets us up to have a paragraph to acknowledge other theories of charging. the Yair2008 paper is probably a good source to take from for that.
would you be prepared to have a crack at an edit? im happy to then review it. i will get to this but it's some way down my plans for the page at the moment. DecFinney (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
sorry. i forgot where i was at. i have posted a proposed edit in relation to moninductive charging in my discussion on "major content review" DecFinney (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I appreciate your good faith. Just wrong format. I know I sound like a stickler- but rules are rules, and I am not qualified in lightning-related subjects. I would suggest posting as a regular talk page post.

intro sentence query

This sentence seems a bit odd, so noting to get peoples' opinions. It's not got a reference.

I think in think would be clearer in a different order. currently its not clear that EM radiation is from blackbody radiation, nor that blackbody radiation is related to the heating. I propose the following ordering... 1. fast moving electrons generate high temperatures 2. black-body radiation results in a range of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation being emitted. 3. this include brilliant flashes of visible light.

"This discharge may produce a wide range of electromagnetic radiation, from heat created by the rapid movement of electrons, to brilliant flashes of visible light in the form of black-body radiation." DecFinney (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I think useful information regarding known and unknown aspects of the cause of EM radiation can be gleaned from the following. I'm even more sure now that this sentence is not sufficiently precise, but I've not taken in enough to redraft it, as yet.
DecFinney (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
also https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-temperature for what generates the high temperatures of lightning DecFinney (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
I am adding a sentence to the leader which makes a statement about temperature in relation to resistance to electron flow. This will then set up both the black body reference and the thunder sentence.
"Whilst the electrical current of lightning doesn't have a temperature, the resistance of the air to the flow of electrons rapidly heats the air to temperatures of around 30,000°C.[1]" DecFinney (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
I think a more subtle reference to EM radiation is needed. I am adding:
"Lightning leads to emission of electromagnetic radiation, partly due to black-body radiation resulting from the temperature increase [1], and partly due to other reasons that are still actively research.[2]" DecFinney (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lightning/Archive_3&oldid=1290421089"