A great example of GLM usability is over the Gulf of Mexico (or any open bodies of water) where radar coverage and ENTI lightning sources diminish. Here’s an example of how a system moves eastward over the Gulf: radar disappears, but GLM (and some NLDN/ENTI) lightning data still lets you know where the strongest storm updrafts are located. Not only that, but the spatial extent of lightning is better known now that you have GLM alone. Below is displaying radar and satellite with FED GLM data, and NLDN/ENTI lightning detection. ProbSevere also becomes less relevant. The separate updrafts are easily distinguishable toward the end of the animation using FED.

Next animation is the same, but with FED on top of radar making it easier to see its evolution and usability:

Now with the same scenario, comparing the Minimum Flash Area (MFA) GLM product with the Average Flash Area (AFA) GLM product, it is MUCH easier to differentiate new convection with the MFA product. Notice all of the yellow spots in NM and Mexico that make it easily detectable with the human eye as you watch your SA monitor. This may be a product of color scale for the AFA, but this tells me that the MFA would be more useful in convective initiation. I have not gotten much value out of the AFA  as I would with just simply using the FED (Flash Extend Density GLM product) or TOE (Total Optical Energy). -shearluck

TOP IMAGE: MFA       ;     BOTTOM IMAGE: AFA