4.3 Review

A brief review of the problem of lightning initiation and a hypothesis of initial lightning leader formation

Journal

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES
Volume 113, Issue D17, Pages -

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2007JD009036

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NSF-EPSCoR [EPS-0082725]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A brief review of hypothesized mechanisms of lightning initiation is presented, with the suggestion that these mechanisms provide an incomplete picture of lightning initiation. This is followed by two ideas: (1) a combination of previously hypothesized lightning initiation mechanisms as a means for local intensification of the thundercloud electric field, and (2) a process for the formation of a hot lightning leader channel that is analogous to the space leader phase of the laboratory negative stepped leader. Thundercloud electric field observations have consistently yielded peak values that are an order of magnitude weaker than the dielectric strength of air. Various mechanisms have been proposed to explain how lightning can initiate in such weak electric fields, including hydrometeor-initiated positive streamers and cosmic ray-initiated runaway breakdown. The historically favored positive streamer mechanisms are problematic due to requiring electric fields two to three times larger than peak observed fields. The recently favored runaway breakdown mechanisms appear capable of developing in conditions comparable to peak observed fields although it is not clear how these diffuse discharges can lead to creation of a lightning leader. This paper proposes a solution whereby runaway breakdown and hydrometeor-initiated positive streamer systems serve to locally intensify the electric field. Following this local field intensification, it is hypothesized that formation of the initial lightning leader channel is analogous to the formation of a space leader in a laboratory negative stepped leader.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available