Live data from Hacker News

What causes lightning? The answer keeps getting more interesting

quantamagazine.org

41–50 of 61 posts

Re: What causes lightning? The answer keeps getting more interesting

#41
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, nothing new? > The cosmic ray hypothesis has been dominant for a few years now. > This magazine… I think saying "This magazine…" as if the flaws of Quanta are well understood and agreed may need additional elaboration. If you mean that experts have known this—well, the role of Quanta is to disseminate and explain expert research to scientifically literate non-experts; it is not meant to be distributing the late…

Well, let's say I just don't understand the popularity of this magazine on HN.

Why not explain why you think that? We can't all be perpetually online to have an opinion about a one website that shows up occasionally on this site.

Re: What causes lightning? The answer keeps getting more interesting

#42
post #31
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a video of an EF5 tornado from the last 24-48 hours that shows continuous lightning in the background. There hasn’t been an increase in background cosmic rays, so likely the mechanism for lightning generation is likely a continuum in different scenarios. Cosmic rays are one, but not all.

I tried to find this after reading your comment and the amount of nonsense AI tornado videos is a lot to wade through. Wasn't able to find it.

This was it on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/mildyinteresting/comments/1t7jlat/a...

Despite the title, the video shows a really strong mesocyclone as there is a break between the cloud and the ground. The funnel might be visible, but it’s not as big as the video makes you think.

Re: What causes lightning? The answer keeps getting more interesting

#45
I found this article interesting but lacking. Lightning also sometimes travels from the ground up to the clouds. Storm clouds produce red sprites (there are some theories about these) and blue jets, that shoot upwards towards space. Then there's ball lightning. None of these phenomena were discussed in the article.

I don't think scientists fully understand lightning at all. (At least, I don't!)

Re: What causes lightning? The answer keeps getting more interesting

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't we do this on the norm and somehow harness the energy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvesting_lightning_energy

Prize is too low. Says it only delivers 38 gallons of gas equivalent energy, assuming no loss which there will be.

There are some places that are hit by lighting with high regularity where it might make sense. Lightning rods on tall buildings. Somewhere near here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catatumbo_lightning

Re: What causes lightning? The answer keeps getting more interesting

#48
post #42
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried to find this after reading your comment and the amount of nonsense AI tornado videos is a lot to wade through. Wasn't able to find it.

This was it on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/mildyinteresting/comments/1t7jlat/a... Despite the title, the video shows a really strong mesocyclone as there is a break between the cloud and the ground. The funnel might be visible, but it’s not as big as the video makes you think.

This video was a repost btw, it's from 2025:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Enderlin_tornado#Tornado_...

Re: What causes lightning? The answer keeps getting more interesting

#49
post #3

That 7 second video of a small rocket shot into a cloud to induce a lightning strike (about half way down the article) is incredible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BJIiX9_c_M Any ideas why the lightning strike appears mostly green (and momentarily purple and orange)?

I always wanted to replicate this with a helium balloon and a long, wet string coated with copper filings.

[dead]

Re: What causes lightning? The answer keeps getting more interesting

#50
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, let's say I just don't understand the popularity of this magazine on HN.

Why not explain why you think that? We can't all be perpetually online to have an opinion about a one website that shows up occasionally on this site.

Not the guy you’re responding to but Quanta articles are invariably horribly written, horribly explained, and constantly do this thing whether they simultaneously are pretentious and over complicate things while also belabouring simple, elementary concepts. Essentially it’s the worst of every world.
Post reply on HN