Systematic Evaluation of the Meteosat-12 Lightning Imager Using Direct Lightning Current Measurements from an Instrumented Wind Turbine
Abstract. Geostationary optical lightning imagers provide continuous observations of total lightning activity, but their response to upward lightning and continuing-current-dominated flashes remains difficult to evaluate because direct current-based ground truth is rarely available. This paper evaluates Meteosat-12 Lightning Imager (LI) observations using direct lightning-current measurements from an instrumented wind turbine in Croatia. The turbine is equipped with a current-measurement system, and selected events are additionally documented using high-speed video and observations from a ground-based lightning location system. We analyze 76 direct strikes to the instrumented wind turbine during the LI pre and operational period from July 2024 to February 2026. The dataset consists predominantly of upward flashes, with only five downward cloud-to-ground cases, and includes negative, positive, and bipolar flashes. It also encompasses waveform classes dominated by initial continuous current (ICC), as well as flashes containing pulse-type components such as return strokes (RSs). For each measured lightning current waveform, LI group-level observations were extracted within 50 km of the turbine and referenced to the onset and duration of the measured current. LI detections were evaluated in a preceding window, from 500 ms before current onset to the beginning of current flow, and in a during-current window extending over the measured current duration. The overall LI detection efficiency was 76.3 % when detections in either window were considered, with efficiencies of 61.8 % in the preceding window and 65.8 % during the measured current flow. LI detectability depended on current waveform class, with flashes containing pulse-type components generally more frequently detected during current flow. Furthermore, LI detected groups more frequently in the preceding window for positive flashes initiated by negative upward leaders than for their negative-polarity counterparts. In contrast, the detection efficiency during the current-flow window was the same for both polarities. The day/night analysis showed a modestly higher detection efficiency at night. Moreover, group-count, radiance, and flash-level analyses show that LI observations mainly represent the cloud-top optical manifestation of the broader lightning process rather than the local attachment process alone. These results demonstrate the value of direct lightning-current measurements for evaluating satellite optical lightning observations of lightning.
General comments
The manuscript analyses lightning flashes detected by the Lightning Imager (LI) onboard Meteosat Third Generation (MTG) in relation to an instrumented wind turbine. The detection performance and lightning characteristics derived from LI observations are compared with ground-based current measurements. The analysis includes detection efficiency, radiance, flash duration, and the number of groups per flash, as well as a separation between day and night observations. Based on the turbine's current measurement system, flashes are classified according to the presence of return strokes and initial continuous currents, as well as their polarity. Results are then presented for the different flash classes to better understand how LI observations compare with ground-based current measurements. Two case studies are also included.
The paper is clearly structured. The topic is relevant and contributes to recent scientific developments. Satellite-based lightning observations, particularly over Europe, remain a relatively novel source of information. A detailed analysis of the physical characteristics of LI detections, as presented in this manuscript, will be valuable for future studies using LI data.
The methodology is mostly clear and well described, although some minor refinements would further improve the clarity of this section. However, there are potential issues with some of the chosen methods that also affect the interpretation of the results. The Results section presents a thorough and diverse analysis and addresses several relevant research questions, supported by a variety of figures and their interpretation.
Please refer to the specific and technical comments below.
Specific comments
1. Â Â A total of 76 flashes are analyzed and subsequently divided into up to nine classes or types. This results in fewer than ten flashes per class on average. Such a small sample size is unlikely to provide statistically representative estimates of the underlying distributions, particularly for classes with very few observations. Since robust statistics are mentioned as one of the objectives of the paper, the methods and results should be reconsidered in light of the sample size within each class. The limitations this imposes on the statistical conclusions should also be explicitly discussed. What does this mean for generalizability of the findings?
2. Â Â Closely related to Comment 1: You should compare your results to existing studies, especially the results regarding LI flash characteristics, flash duration, and the day-night comparison. This is an important point, especially when dealing with small sample sizes.
3.   The authors use LI groups and cluster them into flashes based on their own criteria. However, this approach appears to produce large flashes, I’d rather call them clusters, that may combine multiple distinct LI flashes. Why did the authors not use the flash-level data and flash-clustering algorithm provided by EUMETSAT for LI observations? Using a 50 km and 500 ms window to identify potentially matching groups may be reasonable. However, if the selected groups belong to multiple distinct LI flashes, comparing the resulting cluster with the flash that struck the wind turbine could be misleading. In such cases, why did the authors not use the best-matching LI flash instead? The authors should discuss the potential impact of their clustering approach on the results and conclusions of the study.
4. Â Â The impact of the chosen duration of the preceding time window (500 ms) should also be discussed. How was this duration selected? Was a sensitivity analysis performed to justify the choice of this temporal window?
5. Â Â The results are detailed and diverse. However, it would be helpful to relate the findings more explicitly to the objectives of the paper in some places. In addition, some figures referenced in the main text are provided only in the Supporting Information. I am unsure whether this is common practice in Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT), but the authors could consider whether these figures would be more appropriately placed in the main manuscript.
6. Â Â Is there any difference in the results between MTG-LI pre and operational phases?
7. Â Â The figures appear to be of relatively low resolution, although this may be an issue specific to the preprint version.
8. Â Â Please see the attached PDF for further comments.
Minor comments and technical comments
Please see the attached PDF.
Â