I do have one experience with Singaporean lightning, pre the 2020 regulation! I was on a ship that was anchored overnight for fueling right outside of the port of Singapore, and saw an otherworldly scene. I was on the smoke-deck in a storm, late at night. There was lightning every 5 seconds, the port in the distance, horizontal rain, dozens of huge cargo ships around, and some gigantic flames coming from land that looked like Mordor (a refinery or plant of some sort?).
Not sure if the crazy lightning was because of sulfur, but I still remember it!
I would imagine that a column of soot-containing air is more conductive if it contains oxides of sulfur than if it does not.
The same electrical potential may still be present in the clouds, but instead of being neutralized dramatically it could now be dissipating slowly rather than gone in a flash :)
A little tangential, but I wonder if the decrease in ball lightning sightings is related to a decrease in particulate matter in the atmosphere as a result of less open-flame burning (hearths and whatnot).
Maybe so, but honestly that seems just as contrived. Surely we should be looking for the atmospheric science nerds to be chiming in here, not the computer engineering or EE nerds?
Problem is, atmospheric science isn't exactly considered "high status" vs the other two.
>The same electrical potential may still be present in the clouds
I wouldn't jump to this lemma so quickly. The paper mentions the density of aerosols. Sulfur oxides promote condensation by forming low-volatility compounds like H2SO3 and H2SO4. An increase in the number density of droplets could mean more triboelectric charge transfer between the droplets and the air. That would increase the amount of electric energy in the clouds.
This is also the mechanism by which sulfur has been proposed for geoengineering, but I think the variant that replaces sulfur with terpenes sounds safer.
> The same electrical potential may still be present in the clouds, but instead of being neutralized dramatically it could now be dissipating slowly rather than gone in a flash
That was my initial thought, like a “phantom power” drain, the process by which electrons knock each other is able to happen in a broad manner, not concentrated in the poles and suddenly discharging among a single path, i.e., lightning.
It seems similar to how static electricity builds up easier in dry environments because in humid ones the electrons can more easily equalize across water molecules.
I wonder if this has implications for geo-engineering projects that want to inject sulfur into the atmosphere. More lightning seems like a problematic side effect.
AIUI those plans typically involve injecting e.g. sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere specifically, not the atmosphere as a whole. Lightning can sometimes occur that high, but it's definitely not the norm.
There's all kinds of weather events in the upper atmosphere, including lightning-like. They're mostly understudied from difficulty in studying them, not because they don't exist.
Average power output from lightning is terrible, but the spikes are pretty amazing.
I think there is only one spot in the planet that gets enough regular lightning to maybe be worth something (a random place in Venezuela, oddly), otherwise it isn’t worth the Capital.
Now that the US is eliminating satelite based monitering of emmisions there is no way to do a definitive study on S0² concentrations over shipping lanes, and the earlier tentative conclusions will have to be disregarded.
The very far fetched conjecture that adding S0² emmisions into the stratosphere without actualy increasing C0² and water vapor related and overall heat gain, is maddness.
Not quite. The emissions act as an electrically conductive medium. In a roundabout way it's similar to how pure and deionized water is an insulator, but tap water is conductive because of various impurities.
Interestingly, chemistry is an electrical reaction (electron interactions). So it might be more accurate to say both are mediated through the same underlying force - electromagnetism.
Very interesting, but this article is kind of a mess and all over the place.
I would expect a shipping lane to have more or less than baseline amounts of lightening regardless of soot on the basis of it being generally more churned up and therefore having slightly different potential than the rest of the ground (which just happens to be liquid water in this case).
It's not clear to me if the study is isolating the variable they're measuring properly.
Surely there's a "control" shipping lane somewhere that was cleaner to begin with or never cleaned up.
Additionally, it's well known that having a bunch of crap (including water) suspended in the air to bridge the gaps makes it easier for electricity to arc so it's not clear if and/or to what extent this the change a result of sulfer emissions or particulate generally.
It's also well known that particulate facilitates condensation (the article talks about this).
Yes, and sulfur isn't the only cloud nucleation trigger. Refineries of ship 'bunker fuel' used to seek contracts from disposal companies to burn their chemical waste at sea. And dirty fuel has lots of natural vanadium. Source: oil spill around my houseboat legal case in the 1980s, fuel company had to disclose breakdown of content.
Hopefully you read all of the links in the article -- the purpose of thecoversation is to present information to the general public, with references to research that the author has been involved with.
> Surely there's a "control" shipping lane somewhere that was cleaner to begin with or never cleaned up.
Isn't the shipping lane the "treatment" group and everywhere else in the world the "control" group?
Like we administered x mg of sulfer to the patient and they saw y outcome while patients not receiving sufler saw z outcome. When we stopped administering sulfer all patients saw z outcome seems to be isolating sulfer as causing y.
> Like we administered x mg of sulfer to the patient and they saw y outcome while patients not receiving sufler saw z outcome. When we stopped administering sulfer all patients saw z outcome seems to be isolating sulfer as causing y.
There is a reason we use placebos for control groups.
I'm more interested in the reason the OP had in mind. I don't think it's required that you have a placebo control group, but the OP might have a reason in mind that's something I haven't considered.
> It's not clear to me if the study is isolating the variable they're measuring properly.
> Surely there's a "control" shipping lane somewhere that was cleaner to begin with or never cleaned up.
As mentioned in the first paragraph of the article they are using the Global Lightning Detection Network, which is well, global. Then you just need a map of SO2 concentration and compare shipping lanes against non-shipping lanes. You don't need an explicit control group if your data includes the whole planet, since you can just compare shipping lanes against similar areas with less/no shipping. Since both lightning and SO2 also varies over time you can also correlate this way with enough data.
I do have one experience with Singaporean lightning, pre the 2020 regulation! I was on a ship that was anchored overnight for fueling right outside of the port of Singapore, and saw an otherworldly scene. I was on the smoke-deck in a storm, late at night. There was lightning every 5 seconds, the port in the distance, horizontal rain, dozens of huge cargo ships around, and some gigantic flames coming from land that looked like Mordor (a refinery or plant of some sort?).
Not sure if the crazy lightning was because of sulfur, but I still remember it!
I would imagine that a column of soot-containing air is more conductive if it contains oxides of sulfur than if it does not.
The same electrical potential may still be present in the clouds, but instead of being neutralized dramatically it could now be dissipating slowly rather than gone in a flash :)
More study would be good to have.
A little tangential, but I wonder if the decrease in ball lightning sightings is related to a decrease in particulate matter in the atmosphere as a result of less open-flame burning (hearths and whatnot).
The proposed mechanism would cause more lightning, not less.
I expect it's related to how lightning is triggered, not changes in atmospheric charge due to conductivity.
Maybe there’s a parasitic bipolar transistor in the atmosphere, with sulphur acting as a doping that reduced the threshold for latchup.
Maybe so, but honestly that seems just as contrived. Surely we should be looking for the atmospheric science nerds to be chiming in here, not the computer engineering or EE nerds?
Problem is, atmospheric science isn't exactly considered "high status" vs the other two.
>The same electrical potential may still be present in the clouds
I wouldn't jump to this lemma so quickly. The paper mentions the density of aerosols. Sulfur oxides promote condensation by forming low-volatility compounds like H2SO3 and H2SO4. An increase in the number density of droplets could mean more triboelectric charge transfer between the droplets and the air. That would increase the amount of electric energy in the clouds.
This is also the mechanism by which sulfur has been proposed for geoengineering, but I think the variant that replaces sulfur with terpenes sounds safer.
Yeah, nothing could go wrong with actively engineering more acid rain.
> The same electrical potential may still be present in the clouds, but instead of being neutralized dramatically it could now be dissipating slowly rather than gone in a flash
That was my initial thought, like a “phantom power” drain, the process by which electrons knock each other is able to happen in a broad manner, not concentrated in the poles and suddenly discharging among a single path, i.e., lightning.
It seems similar to how static electricity builds up easier in dry environments because in humid ones the electrons can more easily equalize across water molecules.
I wonder if this has implications for geo-engineering projects that want to inject sulfur into the atmosphere. More lightning seems like a problematic side effect.
AIUI those plans typically involve injecting e.g. sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere specifically, not the atmosphere as a whole. Lightning can sometimes occur that high, but it's definitely not the norm.
There's all kinds of weather events in the upper atmosphere, including lightning-like. They're mostly understudied from difficulty in studying them, not because they don't exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper-atmospheric_lightning
Doesn't lightning help make ozone? And lightining does help make hydroxyl ions, which help convert airisol methane.
Aren't there some wild power generation ideas of harvesting lightning?
Average power output from lightning is terrible, but the spikes are pretty amazing.
I think there is only one spot in the planet that gets enough regular lightning to maybe be worth something (a random place in Venezuela, oddly), otherwise it isn’t worth the Capital.
Could also help make lightning rods more efficient. Make them spout sulfur.
Wait, that explains why volcanoes always have a cloud full of lightnings too, when they erupt.
Okay, I think you're being facetious, but just in case, my understanding is that the lightning from eruptions is a form of static electricity.
It feels like there’s something mythological about less brimstone attracting less ire from the gods
Perhaps they should put altars to Zeus on the ships.
And then Poseidon is envious and takes you down with giant whirlpools or sea monsters! ;)
Not just lightning apparently. SO2 masked for decades the global warming, and here we are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
Sadly misunderstood by a bunch of people.
Dear downvoter, please tell me what you didn’t like about my comment because I cannot make any sense of it.
Gotta love when the mods reset an article and a comment that's mildly popular with the weekday crowd goes to shit.
Now that the US is eliminating satelite based monitering of emmisions there is no way to do a definitive study on S0² concentrations over shipping lanes, and the earlier tentative conclusions will have to be disregarded. The very far fetched conjecture that adding S0² emmisions into the stratosphere without actualy increasing C0² and water vapor related and overall heat gain, is maddness.
Lightning is a chemical reaction? Fascinating.
Not quite. The emissions act as an electrically conductive medium. In a roundabout way it's similar to how pure and deionized water is an insulator, but tap water is conductive because of various impurities.
Interestingly, chemistry is an electrical reaction (electron interactions). So it might be more accurate to say both are mediated through the same underlying force - electromagnetism.
Very interesting, but this article is kind of a mess and all over the place.
I would expect a shipping lane to have more or less than baseline amounts of lightening regardless of soot on the basis of it being generally more churned up and therefore having slightly different potential than the rest of the ground (which just happens to be liquid water in this case).
It's not clear to me if the study is isolating the variable they're measuring properly.
Surely there's a "control" shipping lane somewhere that was cleaner to begin with or never cleaned up.
Additionally, it's well known that having a bunch of crap (including water) suspended in the air to bridge the gaps makes it easier for electricity to arc so it's not clear if and/or to what extent this the change a result of sulfer emissions or particulate generally.
It's also well known that particulate facilitates condensation (the article talks about this).
Yes, and sulfur isn't the only cloud nucleation trigger. Refineries of ship 'bunker fuel' used to seek contracts from disposal companies to burn their chemical waste at sea. And dirty fuel has lots of natural vanadium. Source: oil spill around my houseboat legal case in the 1980s, fuel company had to disclose breakdown of content.
Hopefully you read all of the links in the article -- the purpose of thecoversation is to present information to the general public, with references to research that the author has been involved with.
> Surely there's a "control" shipping lane somewhere that was cleaner to begin with or never cleaned up.
Isn't the shipping lane the "treatment" group and everywhere else in the world the "control" group?
Like we administered x mg of sulfer to the patient and they saw y outcome while patients not receiving sufler saw z outcome. When we stopped administering sulfer all patients saw z outcome seems to be isolating sulfer as causing y.
> Like we administered x mg of sulfer to the patient and they saw y outcome while patients not receiving sufler saw z outcome. When we stopped administering sulfer all patients saw z outcome seems to be isolating sulfer as causing y.
There is a reason we use placebos for control groups.
Can you explain the reason?
Otherwise the sky may realize it's in the control group.
I'm more interested in the reason the OP had in mind. I don't think it's required that you have a placebo control group, but the OP might have a reason in mind that's something I haven't considered.
Uh, there's no requirement to use placebos or a control group.
For example, covid just uses a treatment group and considers the rest of the world as control.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9124157/
> It's not clear to me if the study is isolating the variable they're measuring properly.
> Surely there's a "control" shipping lane somewhere that was cleaner to begin with or never cleaned up.
As mentioned in the first paragraph of the article they are using the Global Lightning Detection Network, which is well, global. Then you just need a map of SO2 concentration and compare shipping lanes against non-shipping lanes. You don't need an explicit control group if your data includes the whole planet, since you can just compare shipping lanes against similar areas with less/no shipping. Since both lightning and SO2 also varies over time you can also correlate this way with enough data.