Thunderstorm characteristics with lightning jumps and dives in satellite-based nowcasting

Erdmann, Felix; Poelman, Dieter Roel

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-174

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-174

Preprints

12 Feb 2024

| 12 Feb 2024

Thunderstorm characteristics with lightning jumps and dives in satellite-based nowcasting

Felix Erdmann and Dieter Roel Poelman

Abstract. The first Meteosat Third Generation (MTG) satellite was launched in December 2022. Its high resolution Flexible Combined Imager (FCI) in combination with the Lightning Imager (LI) herald a new period for geostationary (GEO) weather observations over Europe, Africa, and adjacent regions. Similar instruments are already operational over the U.S., with the Advanced Baseline Imagers (ABIs) and the Geostationary Lightning Mappers (GLMs). The objective of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of GEO data, with a specific emphasis on sudden increases in a storm's lightning activity, referred to as lightning jumps (LJ), and decreases, known as lightning dives (LD), as observed from a geostationary orbit. ABI-based cloud characteristics of thunderstorms are analyzed while storms are categorized by whether they produced LJs, LDs, or severe weather. It is found that the storms with LJs and/or LDs feature overall similar characteristics as the severe thunderstorms. Those storms typically feature elevated, colder cloud tops, more and stronger overshooting tops (OTs), consequently leading to more structured updrafts. As a result, these storms tend to generate higher convective rain rates (CRRs) on average compared to storms lacking LJs, LDs, and those categorized as non-severe. In particular, thunderstorms experiencing multiple LJs throughout their lifecycle exhibit the most and strongest OTs, signifying highly organized updrafts, extremely cold cloud tops, and highest CRRs. Considering the characteristics mentioned above, these storms, especially those featuring multiple LJs and LDs during their lifecycle, are of particular interest for nowcasting potentially dangerous weather phenomena.

Received: 19 Jan 2024 – Discussion started: 12 Feb 2024

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 4959 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (4959 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

27 May 2025

Insights into thunderstorm characteristics from geostationary lightning jump and dive observations

Felix Erdmann and Dieter Roel Poelman

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1751–1768, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-1751-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-1751-2025, 2025

Short summary

Felix Erdmann and Dieter Roel Poelman

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-174', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Mar 2024

I have read this paper on lightning jumps and dives for the use in nowcasting, and while the topic is interesting, I think the paper needs major revisions before it can be considered for publications.
Major comments:
1) The paper is much too long. It appears to be a follow on of a previous paper by the authors that shows similar results. The paper appears to be a shopping list that brings basically all parameters possible to compare with lightning jumps and dives, without the focus needed and defined by the title of the paper. This is very distracting for the reader since there is too much information provided without a clear storyline. If you want to use lightning for nowcasting of severe weather or floods, you should focus on that. It is clear to all (nothing new) that storms with LJs with be more developed with stronger updrafts, higher tops, colder tops, more overshooting turrets, etc. This is not new, and hence does not contribute to our scientific knowledge. Just presenting these results again does not make them novel or innovative. So I would focus ONLY on the use of LJ for severe events. Remove all the analysis not related to severe weather and LJs
2) This brings me to the next point that as the authors point out in lines 176-177, 60% of storms with LJs do not produce severe weather, and there are severe weather events without LJs in 57% of cases. So this shows that lightning jumps from the GLM are NOT good for predicting and nowcasting of severe weather. So why continue with the paper then. Either the paper is not about nowcasting, and then you need to change the title and focus of the paper, or you need to prove that LJs are good in predicting severe weather. Here I would separate the analysis for tornadoes, wind damage, and hail. And if LJs are not good for detecting severe weather from GLM, then that too is a result, even if "negative". But no need to go on and on about cloud parameters linked to thunderstorms with LJs.
3) I do not understand the interest in lightning dives (LDs). This is the first time I hear of their "importance" as a measure of thunderstorm activity. The physical meaning of LJs is the intensification of the storms, with stronger electrification, more rainfall, and maybe more severe weather. But why should we be interested in LDs which imply the decay of the updrafts in the storm, the drop in electrification, the drop in lightning, and hence the drop in probability of severe weather. Why should LDs be important for severe weather. Please explain the physical connection if you plan to keep talking about it. I would focus only on the LJs and remove the LDs analysis.
Minor comments:
Title: The paper does not focus on nowcasting. Either it should, or the title should be changed.
line 19: ...certain maxima and minima
line 23: do you have a reference for "lightning dives" other than your own papers? Please add reference
line 93: study aims
line 124: Problem with text after 777.4nm
line 152: Both algorithm types use a FR
line 172: do not produce
line 174: It is obvious that what goes up must come down. Hence all LJs with be followed by a LD. Is this not a trivial conclusion
line 179: would still show
line 196: Again, it is obvious that min pressure implies higher cloud tops and min BTs
Figure 2 appears to be a shopping list with no clear point. Are the overlapping blue boxes in 2a significantly different from each other?
Line 217 and 236: Reference to Fig 2a should occur before Fig. 2b
Line 330: Are these conclusions new? It appears a logical conclusion of more lightning in thunderstorms that has been studied for decades.
line 334: "severe storms often feature".....quantify this. How often? This qualitative conclusion is not scientific
line 340: "might cause flash floods" is speculation. Do you not have information of floods at the surface? If not you cannot speculate so broadly.
line 341: If the results here are similar to your previous publication, why do we need another publication saying the same thing? You need to provide new knowledge to advance the sciences and field of thunderstorm research and nowcasting.
line 347: 2.1 +- what standard deviation? Same for 1.9. Are these values statistically different?
line 353: tropopause
Line 396: I would like to see more spatial plots in the paper like A1. Maybe a plot showing lightning jumps compared with severe weather reports of different kinds. I would add spatial plots to the main text

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-174-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Felix Erdmann, 23 Apr 2024
  
  We, the authors, thank the reviewer for his/her work, which helps to improve the quality of our manuscript.
  We respond to all of the comments in the attached PDF file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-174-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-174', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Mar 2024

Title: Thunderstorm characteristics with lightning jumps and dives in satellite-based nowcasting
Author(s): Felix Erdmann and Dieter Roel Poelman
MS No.: egusphere-2024-174
MS type: Research article

Thunderstorm characteristics with lightning jumps and dives in satellite-based nowcasting" by Felix Erdmann and Dieter R. Poelman presents an attempt of adapting the Lightning Jump to satellite imagery (Lightning Imager), as also introduces a new concept, such as the Lightning Dive. The results are interesting and promissing, having in mind the put in operation of the MTG in an early future. The main issue the lack of information regarding this last concept, because it is a novelty and it should be better introduced, with some examples that should help to make more understandeable to the reader. Besides, there is some vaguety about the "severe weather" convept, which it must be better explained. Finally, the results are sometimes presented in a difuse way and I think the Authors could do an effort to improve the quality of presentation.

You can find below the specific comments associated with the review.

L21: "The opposite behavior, a sudden decrease in the FR is termed a lightning dive (LD)" Referència?
Introduction: "Severe" or "Adverse" weather?
Have you noticed if "However, most LJ algorithms were tuned based on ground-based lightning mapping array (LMA) data." are operational and running in real-time? (L44)
L80: "The object-oriented approach can effectively differentiate between convective and non-convective cloud cells, and track the convective cells through image recognition, identification of known patterns, and statistical models." Have you any feed-back comparing with weather radar database?
L104: why these thresholds?
Caption: "Figure 1. Relations between tools and data of this study." Is this a data flow? If yes, please change the caption.
L 90: "During our selected study days (Table 1), there was one important GOES-16 downtime from 03 Jun 17:00UTC to 04 June 01:30UTC." change to "It is worth noting that there was one relevant GOES-16 downtime from 03 Jun 17:00UTC to 04 June 01:30UTC (Table 1)."
L92: "It should be noted that only thunderstorms are analyzed that are defined as RDT cloud cells with GLM lightning activity." This sentence is difficult to understand.
L93: "This studies aims at understanding the meaning of LJs and LDs for thunderstorm characteristics." -> "This study aims to understand the meaning of LJs and LDs for thunderstorm characteristics."
L95: "Such cells generally give rise to weaker weather phenomena compared to major thunderstorms." Partially disagree: warm rain clouds cause heavy rainfall and flash floods in many regions around the World.
Section 2.3: Have you considered the parallax effect? Besides, which is the general size of a RDT cell? Have you manually evaluated these thresholds in any case, to validate them?
L120: Have you evaluated the limitation of using standard scan instead of rapid scan? Which is the time running of the NWCSAF software?
L160: I think you should present an example of the LD, because is not an usual phenomenon as LJ and it needs to be assimilated by the reader.
Section 3.1: the thunderstorm' categorization should be presented as part of the methodology. The analysis of the categories should be included in the Results section.
L172: Why do you think there are more LD than LJ?
L173: "A thunderstorm can produce more than one type of severe weather (the sum of withTornado, withHail, and withWind is greater than the number of severe TSs)." Please, write more clearly.
L174: This sentence is reduntant and can be shortened
L176: "There are storms with LJs and/or LDs that did not produce severe weather (59.9 % and 71.9 %, respectively)." Disagree. Severe storm can occurr but it has not been reported (or reported to the used database)
L319 Rigo and Farnell (2022) did not analyze LMA-based multi-LJ storms

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-174-RC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Felix Erdmann, 23 Apr 2024
  
  We, the authors, thank the reviewer for his/her work, which helps to improve the quality of our manuscript.
  We respond to all of the comments in the attached PDF file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-174-AC1

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-174', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Mar 2024

I have read this paper on lightning jumps and dives for the use in nowcasting, and while the topic is interesting, I think the paper needs major revisions before it can be considered for publications.
Major comments:
1) The paper is much too long. It appears to be a follow on of a previous paper by the authors that shows similar results. The paper appears to be a shopping list that brings basically all parameters possible to compare with lightning jumps and dives, without the focus needed and defined by the title of the paper. This is very distracting for the reader since there is too much information provided without a clear storyline. If you want to use lightning for nowcasting of severe weather or floods, you should focus on that. It is clear to all (nothing new) that storms with LJs with be more developed with stronger updrafts, higher tops, colder tops, more overshooting turrets, etc. This is not new, and hence does not contribute to our scientific knowledge. Just presenting these results again does not make them novel or innovative. So I would focus ONLY on the use of LJ for severe events. Remove all the analysis not related to severe weather and LJs
2) This brings me to the next point that as the authors point out in lines 176-177, 60% of storms with LJs do not produce severe weather, and there are severe weather events without LJs in 57% of cases. So this shows that lightning jumps from the GLM are NOT good for predicting and nowcasting of severe weather. So why continue with the paper then. Either the paper is not about nowcasting, and then you need to change the title and focus of the paper, or you need to prove that LJs are good in predicting severe weather. Here I would separate the analysis for tornadoes, wind damage, and hail. And if LJs are not good for detecting severe weather from GLM, then that too is a result, even if "negative". But no need to go on and on about cloud parameters linked to thunderstorms with LJs.
3) I do not understand the interest in lightning dives (LDs). This is the first time I hear of their "importance" as a measure of thunderstorm activity. The physical meaning of LJs is the intensification of the storms, with stronger electrification, more rainfall, and maybe more severe weather. But why should we be interested in LDs which imply the decay of the updrafts in the storm, the drop in electrification, the drop in lightning, and hence the drop in probability of severe weather. Why should LDs be important for severe weather. Please explain the physical connection if you plan to keep talking about it. I would focus only on the LJs and remove the LDs analysis.
Minor comments:
Title: The paper does not focus on nowcasting. Either it should, or the title should be changed.
line 19: ...certain maxima and minima
line 23: do you have a reference for "lightning dives" other than your own papers? Please add reference
line 93: study aims
line 124: Problem with text after 777.4nm
line 152: Both algorithm types use a FR
line 172: do not produce
line 174: It is obvious that what goes up must come down. Hence all LJs with be followed by a LD. Is this not a trivial conclusion
line 179: would still show
line 196: Again, it is obvious that min pressure implies higher cloud tops and min BTs
Figure 2 appears to be a shopping list with no clear point. Are the overlapping blue boxes in 2a significantly different from each other?
Line 217 and 236: Reference to Fig 2a should occur before Fig. 2b
Line 330: Are these conclusions new? It appears a logical conclusion of more lightning in thunderstorms that has been studied for decades.
line 334: "severe storms often feature".....quantify this. How often? This qualitative conclusion is not scientific
line 340: "might cause flash floods" is speculation. Do you not have information of floods at the surface? If not you cannot speculate so broadly.
line 341: If the results here are similar to your previous publication, why do we need another publication saying the same thing? You need to provide new knowledge to advance the sciences and field of thunderstorm research and nowcasting.
line 347: 2.1 +- what standard deviation? Same for 1.9. Are these values statistically different?
line 353: tropopause
Line 396: I would like to see more spatial plots in the paper like A1. Maybe a plot showing lightning jumps compared with severe weather reports of different kinds. I would add spatial plots to the main text

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-174-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Felix Erdmann, 23 Apr 2024
  
  We, the authors, thank the reviewer for his/her work, which helps to improve the quality of our manuscript.
  We respond to all of the comments in the attached PDF file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-174-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-174', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Mar 2024

Title: Thunderstorm characteristics with lightning jumps and dives in satellite-based nowcasting
Author(s): Felix Erdmann and Dieter Roel Poelman
MS No.: egusphere-2024-174
MS type: Research article

Thunderstorm characteristics with lightning jumps and dives in satellite-based nowcasting" by Felix Erdmann and Dieter R. Poelman presents an attempt of adapting the Lightning Jump to satellite imagery (Lightning Imager), as also introduces a new concept, such as the Lightning Dive. The results are interesting and promissing, having in mind the put in operation of the MTG in an early future. The main issue the lack of information regarding this last concept, because it is a novelty and it should be better introduced, with some examples that should help to make more understandeable to the reader. Besides, there is some vaguety about the "severe weather" convept, which it must be better explained. Finally, the results are sometimes presented in a difuse way and I think the Authors could do an effort to improve the quality of presentation.

You can find below the specific comments associated with the review.

L21: "The opposite behavior, a sudden decrease in the FR is termed a lightning dive (LD)" Referència?
Introduction: "Severe" or "Adverse" weather?
Have you noticed if "However, most LJ algorithms were tuned based on ground-based lightning mapping array (LMA) data." are operational and running in real-time? (L44)
L80: "The object-oriented approach can effectively differentiate between convective and non-convective cloud cells, and track the convective cells through image recognition, identification of known patterns, and statistical models." Have you any feed-back comparing with weather radar database?
L104: why these thresholds?
Caption: "Figure 1. Relations between tools and data of this study." Is this a data flow? If yes, please change the caption.
L 90: "During our selected study days (Table 1), there was one important GOES-16 downtime from 03 Jun 17:00UTC to 04 June 01:30UTC." change to "It is worth noting that there was one relevant GOES-16 downtime from 03 Jun 17:00UTC to 04 June 01:30UTC (Table 1)."
L92: "It should be noted that only thunderstorms are analyzed that are defined as RDT cloud cells with GLM lightning activity." This sentence is difficult to understand.
L93: "This studies aims at understanding the meaning of LJs and LDs for thunderstorm characteristics." -> "This study aims to understand the meaning of LJs and LDs for thunderstorm characteristics."
L95: "Such cells generally give rise to weaker weather phenomena compared to major thunderstorms." Partially disagree: warm rain clouds cause heavy rainfall and flash floods in many regions around the World.
Section 2.3: Have you considered the parallax effect? Besides, which is the general size of a RDT cell? Have you manually evaluated these thresholds in any case, to validate them?
L120: Have you evaluated the limitation of using standard scan instead of rapid scan? Which is the time running of the NWCSAF software?
L160: I think you should present an example of the LD, because is not an usual phenomenon as LJ and it needs to be assimilated by the reader.
Section 3.1: the thunderstorm' categorization should be presented as part of the methodology. The analysis of the categories should be included in the Results section.
L172: Why do you think there are more LD than LJ?
L173: "A thunderstorm can produce more than one type of severe weather (the sum of withTornado, withHail, and withWind is greater than the number of severe TSs)." Please, write more clearly.
L174: This sentence is reduntant and can be shortened
L176: "There are storms with LJs and/or LDs that did not produce severe weather (59.9 % and 71.9 %, respectively)." Disagree. Severe storm can occurr but it has not been reported (or reported to the used database)
L319 Rigo and Farnell (2022) did not analyze LMA-based multi-LJ storms

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-174-RC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Felix Erdmann, 23 Apr 2024
  
  We, the authors, thank the reviewer for his/her work, which helps to improve the quality of our manuscript.
  We respond to all of the comments in the attached PDF file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-174-AC1

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (14 May 2024) by Maria-Carmen Llasat

AR by Felix Erdmann on behalf of the Authors (15 May 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (07 Jun 2024) by Maria-Carmen Llasat

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (21 Jun 2024)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (23 Jun 2024)

RR by Tomeu Rigo (11 Jul 2024)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Dear Reviewers,

Please find below my comments/suggestions regarding the manuscript entitled "Characterizing lightning jump and dive producing thunderstorms from geostationary observations".

In general, I think that the Authors try to answer to many questions but I can't see a previous work for adjusting the algorithm to the requierements of the new tool, considering a similar configuration than the used in terrestrial lightning detection networks.

My specific comments are (those starting with "**" are the more rellevant ones):

- L9: "consequently leading to more structured updrafts." -> "As a consequence of more structured and intense updrafts."
- L11: "GEO LJs throughout their lifecycle exhibit the most and strongest OTs, signifying highly organized updrafts, extremely cold cloud tops, and highest CRRs." Add some values.
- L17: "lightning observations can be used to locate these deep convective systems." Add some references
- L20: "lifecycle of the storm." -> Add references
- L22: "Previous studies" -> There are many more updated refs. Please, include some of them
- L25: "significant hail, or severe wind." -> Add the specific definition of each phenomenon
- L25: Add Farnell et al 2017
- L31: "decrease in lightning activity" Some interesting references:
Murphy, M. J., & Demetriades, N. W. (2005, January). An analysis of lightning holes in a DFW supercell storm using total lightning and radar information. In Extended Abstracts, Conf. on Meteorological Applications of Lightning Data (p. 52).
Pineda, N., Rigo, T., Montanyà, J., & van der Velde, O. A. (2016). Charge structure analysis of a severe hailstorm with predominantly positive cloud-to-ground lightning. Atmospheric Research, 178, 31-44.
- L38: "appear to be" -> "are"
- L39: "CG records" -> Add Rigo, T., & Farnell, C. (2022). Characterisation of thunderstorms with multiple lightning jumps. Atmosphere, 13(2), 171.
- L53: "severe weather" -> Add Farnell et al (2017)
- L66: "found" -> add Farnell et al 2018
- General: add a list of acronyms
- L151: "characteristics are normalized" -> "similar to Rigo and Llasat (2016) or Rigo et al (2010)"
- L164: "increase level (RIL) algorithm." -> add references
** L162: "Erdmann and Poelman (2023) optimized the LJ algorithm for GLM lightning records" -> Have hou considered the limitations of GLM? Have you compared the FR with the obtained by the NLDN or a LMA, for example?
** L166: "The FRarea LJ algorithm first smoothens" Why? In the case of large thunderstorms, you limit the algorithm capabilities
** L171: "This study uses the FRarea LJ algorithm with FR threshold of 15" This threshold is for the observed FR or the normalized FR?
** L186: "an LJ also had an LD" -> Why?
- L187: "However, it is possible that these storms did produce severe weather that was not reported." There are many references about the limitations of severe weather databases.
Hulton, F., & Schultz, D. M. (2024). Climatology of large hail in Europe: characteristics of the European Severe Weather Database. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 24(4), 1079-1098.
Schroeter, S., Richter, H., Arthur, C., Wilke, D., Dunford, M., Wehner, M., & Ebert, E. (2021). Forecasting the impacts of severe weather. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, The, 36(1), 76-83.
** L195: "The key questions to be answered are (i) Do thunderstorms with GLM LJs and/or LDs feature particular characteristics?, (ii) How do the severe thunderstorms compare to
the thunderstorms with GLM LJs and/or LDs?, (iii) Do GLM LDs provide added value?, and (iv) Is the number of GLM LJs or LDs important?" These lines should be moved to the end of the Introduction, as the goals of your research
- L201: "Figure 2 compares the normalized characteristics" Why this comparison?
** L203: "LJs (Figure 2b) cover a larger area than the storms with LDs" But all cells with LJ have LD... I can't understand this result
- L204: "((Figure 2a))." Typo
** L205: "large anvils for CTs near the tropopause" -> Explain better
** L206: "Storms with LJs had an average area of 15,780 km2 (median 6,995 km2), whereas non-severe thunderstorms and those without LJs typically covered about 2,000 km2 on average (with medians around km2)." -> Considering that most of supercells are associated with severe weather (Farnell, C., Rigo, T., & Pineda, N. (2018). Exploring radar and lightning variables associated with the Lightning Jump. Can we predict the size of the hail?. Atmospheric Research, 202, 175-186.), do you have an approximation of the area of this convective mode in the region of study?
- L209: "LJs, LDs, and/or NCEI reports." Could it be related with the way as you consider the FR?
** Section 3.1.1: You could compare your results with:
Bedka, K. M. (2011). Overshooting cloud top detections using MSG SEVIRI Infrared brightness temperatures and their relationship to severe weather over Europe. Atmospheric Research, 99(2), 175-189.
Bedka, K., Brunner, J., Feltz, W., & Dworak, R. Overshooting Top and Enhanced-V Detections Objective Day/Night Overshooting Top and Enhanced-V Detections Using MODIS, AVHRR, and MSG Imagery in Preparation for GOES-R ABI.
** L239 "Overshooting tops (OTs) define a region of" How do you detect OTs?
** L240: "above an anvil" -> Include at least one reference: Bedka, K. M., & Khlopenkov, K. (2016). A probabilistic multispectral pattern recognition method for detection of overshooting cloud tops using passive satellite imager observations. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 55(9), 1983-2005.
- L240: "Sometimes OTs even break through the tropopause. OTs are usual transient features, so this study analyzes the maximum OT activity of each thunderstorm. OT development needs a strong force manifestated as a strong, persistent updraft in thunderstorms. The air gets accelerated vertically and can overshoot the level of thermal equilibrium. Hence, OTs are indicative of dynamical thunderstorm cells with strong updrafts that are usually well organized. Given that strong updrafts frequently play a crucial role in the formation of tornadoes and large hail, storms with these characteristics are especially significant for nowcasting." These lines should be removed from results.
- Section 3.1.2: Include at least one reference: Bedka, K. M., & Khlopenkov, K. (2016). A probabilistic multispectral pattern recognition method for detection of overshooting cloud tops using passive satellite imager observations. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 55(9), 1983-2005.
** Section 3.1.3.: "The max CRR in Figure 2 reveals that thunderstorms with LJs experience higher rain rates than storms with LDs, while CRRs 260 of the latter are still significantly higher compared to the noLJ storms. Furthermore," Explain how the CRR are estimated or reference it
- L293: "but about half of the LD storms had no LJ. " Why?
Other questions:
- Which is the Lead time between LJ and severe weather?
- which is the Lead Time between LD and severe weather?
- Have you considered the limitations of the occurence area? Problems in the limits of the region, or in higher latitudes?
- Have you considered the size of the thunderstorms? In some cases it is possible that thunderstorm have small dimensions, specially in non warm season.

Best regards

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (22 Jul 2024) by Maria-Carmen Llasat

AR by Felix Erdmann on behalf of the Authors (29 Aug 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (27 Sep 2024) by Maria-Carmen Llasat

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (08 Oct 2024)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (09 Oct 2024)

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (23 Oct 2024) by Maria-Carmen Llasat

AR by Felix Erdmann on behalf of the Authors (12 Nov 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (07 Feb 2025) by Maria-Carmen Llasat

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (17 Feb 2025)

ED: Publish as is (02 Mar 2025) by Maria-Carmen Llasat

AR by Felix Erdmann on behalf of the Authors (03 Mar 2025) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

27 May 2025

Insights into thunderstorm characteristics from geostationary lightning jump and dive observations

Felix Erdmann and Dieter Roel Poelman

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1751–1768, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-1751-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-1751-2025, 2025

Short summary

Felix Erdmann and Dieter Roel Poelman

Viewed

Total article views: 667 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
442	188	37	667	30	29

HTML: 442
PDF: 188
XML: 37
Total: 667
BibTeX: 30
EndNote: 29

Views and downloads (calculated since 12 Feb 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Feb 2024	100	32	4	136
Mar 2024	35	12	5	52
Apr 2024	53	19	8	80
May 2024	22	11	3	36
Jun 2024	55	11	4	70
Jul 2024	18	8	2	28
Aug 2024	4	4	4	12
Sep 2024	10	14	1	25
Oct 2024	8	2	0	10
Nov 2024	13	8	0	21
Dec 2024	35	12	1	48
Jan 2025	25	11	1	37
Feb 2025	14	9	2	25
Mar 2025	18	12	0	30
Apr 2025	21	15	1	37
May 2025	11	8	1	20

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 12 Feb 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Feb 2024	100	32	4	136
Mar 2024	35	12	5	52
Apr 2024	53	19	8	80
May 2024	22	11	3	36
Jun 2024	55	11	4	70
Jul 2024	18	8	2	28
Aug 2024	4	4	4	12
Sep 2024	10	14	1	25
Oct 2024	8	2	0	10
Nov 2024	13	8	0	21
Dec 2024	35	12	1	48
Jan 2025	25	11	1	37
Feb 2025	14	9	2	25
Mar 2025	18	12	0	30
Apr 2025	21	15	1	37
May 2025	11	8	1	20

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 644 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 644 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 27 May 2025

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (4959 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

This study provides detailed insight into the thunderstorm characteristics associated with abrupt changes in the lightning activity of a thunderstorm – lightning jump (LJ) and lightning dive (LD) – using geostationary satellite observations. Thunderstorms exhibiting one or multiple LJs or LDs feature similar characteristics as severe thunderstorms. Storms with multiple LJs contain strong convective updrafts, and are prone to produce high rain rates, large hail or tornadoes.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0