Charmander and Kilometers were watching over an event in central Tennessee and employed the lightning cast meteogram. The probability of lightning tool worked (img. 1) great for alerting the event staff to an increase in the lightning threat, providing about 45 minutes of lead time.

I began to monitor the cell for further intensification and any chance that it could become severe. In the background of this work I was also monitoring for lightning activity from the cell. Eventually, the cell did produce lightning. Image two showed the ENTLN product pick up on a series of cloud flashes, with the GLM product showing some light lightning activity two minutes later (img. 3).

Positive for GLM was that the latency was not an issue. What was more of an issue was that the meteogram from lightning cast never plotted the GLM data on the meteogram. If the person working the event shared the meteogram to event organizers, they would assume this was a missed event. Positive though, is that the organizers could be shown the GLM image or ground network data and be assured that their actions were not for nothing. This left us wondering why the meteogram did not show the lightning activity picked up in the vicinity?

We saw that the GLM began showing up when the main line of convection moved through the event space about an hour later than we identified it through alternate means (img. 4).

Image one: Meteogram for the Probability of Lightning product with GLM flash Density.

 

 

Image three: GLM Data quality (upper-left), GLM Background Image (upper-right), Day cloud phase RBG overlaid with GLM Flas Density (Bottom-right), ENTLN observed lighting flashes and cloud-to-ground strikes (bottom-right).

 

 

 

Image four: Meteogram for the Probability of Lightning product with GLM flash Density beginning at 15:15 local time.

 

– Kilometers / Charmander