All venomousness aside, let's return to the topic at hand. I was discussing a bit of lightning, as I recall. And I might point you toward an interesting thought exercise...

Now, I'm hoping that you have Firefox or another tabs-capable browser that will resize images to fit in the browser window. It's handy for keeping things the same size for reference.

Now, my thought experiment is this (you may object on the basis that Earth and Mars are dissimilar; nonetheless consider...). I just happened to look for lightning maps on Earth to see if there was any interesting or noticeable pattern. There were a couple that didn't directly bear on the situation. IE, some areas are FAR more likely to get lightning strikes than others. But the more interesting note I might make is that during any particular month, lightning strike appear to be probabilistically related along very specific bands of Earth that seem to be polarly aligned.

So, here goes the thought experiment. Please be open, I don't claim this is conclusive, just "interesting."

Now, if you have a browser like firefox, and can open each link in a different tab and then flip through them like a flip book, take a look at the following lightning distribution maps:

Sorry, wish I knew how to make those links on this bulletin board. =o\

Seriously though, if you open them all up sequentially, you see a definite banding pattern during many months that appears to be at discrete latitudes (there is sime seasonal variability in the massive congregations, but some of the smaller bands appear to remain in specific areas/latitudes despite the greater concentrations moving elsewhere seasonally). And the strikes are along the entirety of the ring around the axis, with decent amounts of space between said strike patterns and more equatorial strikes. Again, this appears to support the preferential banding along field lines hypothesis (though you could probably offer other reasons for the banding, perhaps rotational jetstreams or some such make for more conducive conditions for electrical dissipation into the atmosphere along said preferential bands; still the banding, from whatever cause, is readily apparent in the lightning distribution).

Look at say, September of 1997. You can see a distinct banding in the southern hemisphere It extends through the middle lower half of South America, across the Pacific to the lower half of Australia, and across the southern tip of Africa.

Take also July of 1997. There is a distinct band around the equator, and a distinct faint band just below the tip of Africa, just below Australia, goingthrough southern parts of South America.

Should I quote February of 1997? With a distinct band in the northern hemisphere across the southeast/Florida, between Europe and Africa, even across the Pacific Ocean? It seems the Lightning LIKES preferential banding.

In January of 1997 the North American band is even more prominent than in February. Again, my only point is that Lightning appears to like banding arond the axis of rotation and/or the magnetic axis (hard to tell which since Earth's axes are pretty close with only a little bit of wobble).

So, were we saying something about how lightning couldn't possibly form in specific banded patterns around the axis?? I think that claim has all but been refuted. Don't you? So, where does that leave us? More open to discussing lightning (catastrophic dielectric breakdown) clumping in bands around specific latitudes just yet? Or are we still of the misimpression that lightning is a random phenomenon with no respect for location, rotation or magnetic fields? The evidence is out there. It just remains to be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD.

So, I would put forth that lightning CAN and DOES strike in preferential banded patterns (associated with the axis of rotation and/or the magnetic fields), and that a particularly strong solar flare or coronal mass ejection could theoretically preferentially charge said banded patterns causing the HYPOTHESIZED banded electrical discharge phenomenon.

Counterpoint? Or should I look through a few more years worth of data on Earth for more strong banding patterns associated with Lightning?

Cheers, and I look forward to the next cogent argument against the new evidence. Something along the lines of "well that's just not POSSIBLE" is in order. Yes...? If it happens here, and we get auroras and banded hotspots on Saturn, Jupiter, etc. Polar auroras on IO and Enceladus. double-vortexes at the poles of Venus. Why is Mars SO out of the question for the EXACT SAME THING (banded patterns associated with the poles)? I'll grant you that mars' atmosphere is much more rarified, so it generally won't form auroras as readily or apparently as other planets. But that just leaves the planet itself and its weak induced magnetic field to fend for itself against charged particle bombardment. And like the acrylic in the lab, it can only take so much before you get beautiful dielectric breakdowns and Lichtenberg figures. May or may not be happening as actively today, but the banded spiders speak volumes for Mars' past. Now, whether the lightning bands on earth are caused by seasonal flucturation and attendant heat fluctuations or by electrical alignment with the earth's magnetic field (I favor the latter), we definitely SEE banding quite pronouncedly. Granted it's all statistical on a per-month basis. But, things like quantum mechanics are all about statistics and they're regarded as just as real as the next theory (which isn't to say I believe in quantum mechanics any more than fluid dynamics on Mars or CO2 theory; ya' have to admit, they have a few large problems to overcome).

But anyway, as I was saying, at some point the statistics become SIGNIFICANT statistically speaking. When you start to see distinct banding patterns within a finite amount of time. It makes you wonder "why" and also "why not apply the same statistics to other places that appear to exhibit similar banded behavior?"

Guess that's all for now. I've showed you mine. Where's yours? (I'd honestly like to know more about your theories, just for reference, despite seeing issues. For comparison if nothing else. I skimmed them, but to be honest and no offense intended didn't find them especially compelling. They seemedto take the same anomalous data and reinterpret it with a different carving mechanism. But I feel that it still suffers from some of the same issues the prior theories did. But, if you can offer a quick rundown, I'd be happy to listen. After all this should be a fair interchange, and perhaps I haven't given your ideas the attention they merit?)

I look forward to hearing back.

Just wondering. =o]