Loading…

A Comparison of Two Ground-Based Lightning Detection Networks against the Satellite-Based Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS)

Lightning stroke data from both the World Wide Lightning Location Network (WWLLN) and the Earth Networks Total Lightning Network (ENTLN) were compared to lightning group data from the Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS) from 1 January 2010 through 30 June 2011. The region of study, from 39°S to 39°N lati...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of atmospheric and oceanic technology 2014-10, Vol.31 (10), p.2191-2205
Main Authors: Thompson, Kelsey B, Bateman, Monte G, Carey, Lawrence D
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c451t-1f0269a6a9539848ccb9ff3fe314bb7526f452eded620ab014207500d9f60d393
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c451t-1f0269a6a9539848ccb9ff3fe314bb7526f452eded620ab014207500d9f60d393
container_end_page 2205
container_issue 10
container_start_page 2191
container_title Journal of atmospheric and oceanic technology
container_volume 31
creator Thompson, Kelsey B
Bateman, Monte G
Carey, Lawrence D
description Lightning stroke data from both the World Wide Lightning Location Network (WWLLN) and the Earth Networks Total Lightning Network (ENTLN) were compared to lightning group data from the Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS) from 1 January 2010 through 30 June 2011. The region of study, from 39°S to 39°N latitude, chosen based on the orbit of LIS, and 164°E east to 17°W longitude, chosen to approximate the possible Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) longitude, was considered in its entirety and then divided into geographical subregions. Over this 18-month time period, WWLLN had an 11.0% entire region, 13.2% North American, 6.2% South American, 16.4% Atlantic Ocean, and 18.9% Pacific Ocean coincidence percent (CP) value. The ENTLN CP values were 28.5%, 63.3%, 2.2%, 3.0%, and 2.5%, respectively. During the 18 months, WWLLN CP values remained rather consistent but low and often higher over ocean than land; ENTLN CP values showed large spatial and temporal variability. With both networks, North America had less variability during summer months than winter months and higher CP values during winter months than summer months. The highest ENTLN CP values were found in the southeastern United States, especially in a semicircle that extended from central Oklahoma, through Texas, along the northern Gulf of Mexico, across southern Florida, and along the U.S. East Coast. There was no significant change in CP values over time; the lowest monthly North American ENTLN CP value was found in June 2011 at 48.1%, the last month analyzed. These findings are consistent with most ENTLN sensors being located in the United States.
doi_str_mv 10.1175/JTECH-D-13-00186.1
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1642309810</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1618160280</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c451t-1f0269a6a9539848ccb9ff3fe314bb7526f452eded620ab014207500d9f60d393</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkT9PwzAQxS0EEqXwBZgsscAQuLNjJx6h5U9RBUPLbLmJXQJtXGxXhW9PCkywML0bfne69x4hxwjniIW4uJ9eD-6yYYY8A8BSnuMO6aFgkEHO5C7pQcFVBqJg--QgxhfoKI6yR94v6cAvVyY00bfUOzrdeHob_LqtsysTbU3Hzfw5tU07p0ObbJWajnuwaePDa6Rmbpo2JpqeLZ2YZBeLJtk_i6OlmW91YtvoAz0djyZnh2TPmUW0Rz_aJ08319POxPjxdjS4HGdVLjBl6IBJZaRRgqsyL6tqppzjznLMZ7NCMOlywWxta8nAzABzBoUAqJWTUHPF--T0--4q-Le1jUkvm1h1j5rW-nXUKHPGQZUI_0CxRAms3KInv9AXvw5tZ2RLMS5U3gXcJ-ybqoKPMVinV6FZmvChEfS2N_3Vmx5q5Pqrt274BPAFifQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1612359401</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Comparison of Two Ground-Based Lightning Detection Networks against the Satellite-Based Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS)</title><source>Freely Accessible Journals</source><creator>Thompson, Kelsey B ; Bateman, Monte G ; Carey, Lawrence D</creator><creatorcontrib>Thompson, Kelsey B ; Bateman, Monte G ; Carey, Lawrence D</creatorcontrib><description>Lightning stroke data from both the World Wide Lightning Location Network (WWLLN) and the Earth Networks Total Lightning Network (ENTLN) were compared to lightning group data from the Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS) from 1 January 2010 through 30 June 2011. The region of study, from 39°S to 39°N latitude, chosen based on the orbit of LIS, and 164°E east to 17°W longitude, chosen to approximate the possible Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) longitude, was considered in its entirety and then divided into geographical subregions. Over this 18-month time period, WWLLN had an 11.0% entire region, 13.2% North American, 6.2% South American, 16.4% Atlantic Ocean, and 18.9% Pacific Ocean coincidence percent (CP) value. The ENTLN CP values were 28.5%, 63.3%, 2.2%, 3.0%, and 2.5%, respectively. During the 18 months, WWLLN CP values remained rather consistent but low and often higher over ocean than land; ENTLN CP values showed large spatial and temporal variability. With both networks, North America had less variability during summer months than winter months and higher CP values during winter months than summer months. The highest ENTLN CP values were found in the southeastern United States, especially in a semicircle that extended from central Oklahoma, through Texas, along the northern Gulf of Mexico, across southern Florida, and along the U.S. East Coast. There was no significant change in CP values over time; the lowest monthly North American ENTLN CP value was found in June 2011 at 48.1%, the last month analyzed. These findings are consistent with most ENTLN sensors being located in the United States.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0739-0572</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-0426</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1175/JTECH-D-13-00186.1</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Boston: American Meteorological Society</publisher><subject>Atmospheric models ; Atmospheric sciences ; Atmospherics ; Imaging ; Lightning ; Longitude ; Networks ; Remote sensing ; Sensors ; Summer ; Winter</subject><ispartof>Journal of atmospheric and oceanic technology, 2014-10, Vol.31 (10), p.2191-2205</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Meteorological Society Oct 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c451t-1f0269a6a9539848ccb9ff3fe314bb7526f452eded620ab014207500d9f60d393</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c451t-1f0269a6a9539848ccb9ff3fe314bb7526f452eded620ab014207500d9f60d393</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Thompson, Kelsey B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bateman, Monte G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carey, Lawrence D</creatorcontrib><title>A Comparison of Two Ground-Based Lightning Detection Networks against the Satellite-Based Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS)</title><title>Journal of atmospheric and oceanic technology</title><description>Lightning stroke data from both the World Wide Lightning Location Network (WWLLN) and the Earth Networks Total Lightning Network (ENTLN) were compared to lightning group data from the Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS) from 1 January 2010 through 30 June 2011. The region of study, from 39°S to 39°N latitude, chosen based on the orbit of LIS, and 164°E east to 17°W longitude, chosen to approximate the possible Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) longitude, was considered in its entirety and then divided into geographical subregions. Over this 18-month time period, WWLLN had an 11.0% entire region, 13.2% North American, 6.2% South American, 16.4% Atlantic Ocean, and 18.9% Pacific Ocean coincidence percent (CP) value. The ENTLN CP values were 28.5%, 63.3%, 2.2%, 3.0%, and 2.5%, respectively. During the 18 months, WWLLN CP values remained rather consistent but low and often higher over ocean than land; ENTLN CP values showed large spatial and temporal variability. With both networks, North America had less variability during summer months than winter months and higher CP values during winter months than summer months. The highest ENTLN CP values were found in the southeastern United States, especially in a semicircle that extended from central Oklahoma, through Texas, along the northern Gulf of Mexico, across southern Florida, and along the U.S. East Coast. There was no significant change in CP values over time; the lowest monthly North American ENTLN CP value was found in June 2011 at 48.1%, the last month analyzed. These findings are consistent with most ENTLN sensors being located in the United States.</description><subject>Atmospheric models</subject><subject>Atmospheric sciences</subject><subject>Atmospherics</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Lightning</subject><subject>Longitude</subject><subject>Networks</subject><subject>Remote sensing</subject><subject>Sensors</subject><subject>Summer</subject><subject>Winter</subject><issn>0739-0572</issn><issn>1520-0426</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkT9PwzAQxS0EEqXwBZgsscAQuLNjJx6h5U9RBUPLbLmJXQJtXGxXhW9PCkywML0bfne69x4hxwjniIW4uJ9eD-6yYYY8A8BSnuMO6aFgkEHO5C7pQcFVBqJg--QgxhfoKI6yR94v6cAvVyY00bfUOzrdeHob_LqtsysTbU3Hzfw5tU07p0ObbJWajnuwaePDa6Rmbpo2JpqeLZ2YZBeLJtk_i6OlmW91YtvoAz0djyZnh2TPmUW0Rz_aJ08319POxPjxdjS4HGdVLjBl6IBJZaRRgqsyL6tqppzjznLMZ7NCMOlywWxta8nAzABzBoUAqJWTUHPF--T0--4q-Le1jUkvm1h1j5rW-nXUKHPGQZUI_0CxRAms3KInv9AXvw5tZ2RLMS5U3gXcJ-ybqoKPMVinV6FZmvChEfS2N_3Vmx5q5Pqrt274BPAFifQ</recordid><startdate>20141001</startdate><enddate>20141001</enddate><creator>Thompson, Kelsey B</creator><creator>Bateman, Monte G</creator><creator>Carey, Lawrence D</creator><general>American Meteorological Society</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88F</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>M1Q</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20141001</creationdate><title>A Comparison of Two Ground-Based Lightning Detection Networks against the Satellite-Based Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS)</title><author>Thompson, Kelsey B ; Bateman, Monte G ; Carey, Lawrence D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c451t-1f0269a6a9539848ccb9ff3fe314bb7526f452eded620ab014207500d9f60d393</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Atmospheric models</topic><topic>Atmospheric sciences</topic><topic>Atmospherics</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Lightning</topic><topic>Longitude</topic><topic>Networks</topic><topic>Remote sensing</topic><topic>Sensors</topic><topic>Summer</topic><topic>Winter</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Thompson, Kelsey B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bateman, Monte G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carey, Lawrence D</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Military Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database‎ (1962 - current)</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Military Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Journal of atmospheric and oceanic technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Thompson, Kelsey B</au><au>Bateman, Monte G</au><au>Carey, Lawrence D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Comparison of Two Ground-Based Lightning Detection Networks against the Satellite-Based Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS)</atitle><jtitle>Journal of atmospheric and oceanic technology</jtitle><date>2014-10-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>2191</spage><epage>2205</epage><pages>2191-2205</pages><issn>0739-0572</issn><eissn>1520-0426</eissn><abstract>Lightning stroke data from both the World Wide Lightning Location Network (WWLLN) and the Earth Networks Total Lightning Network (ENTLN) were compared to lightning group data from the Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS) from 1 January 2010 through 30 June 2011. The region of study, from 39°S to 39°N latitude, chosen based on the orbit of LIS, and 164°E east to 17°W longitude, chosen to approximate the possible Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) longitude, was considered in its entirety and then divided into geographical subregions. Over this 18-month time period, WWLLN had an 11.0% entire region, 13.2% North American, 6.2% South American, 16.4% Atlantic Ocean, and 18.9% Pacific Ocean coincidence percent (CP) value. The ENTLN CP values were 28.5%, 63.3%, 2.2%, 3.0%, and 2.5%, respectively. During the 18 months, WWLLN CP values remained rather consistent but low and often higher over ocean than land; ENTLN CP values showed large spatial and temporal variability. With both networks, North America had less variability during summer months than winter months and higher CP values during winter months than summer months. The highest ENTLN CP values were found in the southeastern United States, especially in a semicircle that extended from central Oklahoma, through Texas, along the northern Gulf of Mexico, across southern Florida, and along the U.S. East Coast. There was no significant change in CP values over time; the lowest monthly North American ENTLN CP value was found in June 2011 at 48.1%, the last month analyzed. These findings are consistent with most ENTLN sensors being located in the United States.</abstract><cop>Boston</cop><pub>American Meteorological Society</pub><doi>10.1175/JTECH-D-13-00186.1</doi><tpages>15</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0739-0572
ispartof Journal of atmospheric and oceanic technology, 2014-10, Vol.31 (10), p.2191-2205
issn 0739-0572
1520-0426
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1642309810
source Freely Accessible Journals
subjects Atmospheric models
Atmospheric sciences
Atmospherics
Imaging
Lightning
Longitude
Networks
Remote sensing
Sensors
Summer
Winter
title A Comparison of Two Ground-Based Lightning Detection Networks against the Satellite-Based Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS)
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T12%3A36%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Comparison%20of%20Two%20Ground-Based%20Lightning%20Detection%20Networks%20against%20the%20Satellite-Based%20Lightning%20Imaging%20Sensor%20(LIS)&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20atmospheric%20and%20oceanic%20technology&rft.au=Thompson,%20Kelsey%20B&rft.date=2014-10-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=2191&rft.epage=2205&rft.pages=2191-2205&rft.issn=0739-0572&rft.eissn=1520-0426&rft_id=info:doi/10.1175/JTECH-D-13-00186.1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1618160280%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c451t-1f0269a6a9539848ccb9ff3fe314bb7526f452eded620ab014207500d9f60d393%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1612359401&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true