Comparison of a SAFIR lightning detection network in northern Germany to the operational BLIDS network
Comparison of a SAFIR lightning detection network in northern Germany to the operational BLIDS network
复制标题
DOI：
10.1029/2006jd007680
复制
发表时间：
2007-09
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
C. Drüe;T. Hauf;U. Finke;S. Keyn;O. Kreyer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Drüe;T. Hauf;U. Finke;S. Keyn;O. Kreyer
本文介绍了一种基于SAFIR传感器（监视和警报雷达干涉无线电电）的区域闪电探测网络与使用LPATS（闪电定位和跟踪系统）和IMPACT（综合技术改进性能）传感器的德国闪电探测系统（BLIDS）的比较。汉诺威大学的气象和气候学研究所（IMUK）在德国北部运行着一个区域闪电探测网络（UHSN）。它由三个边长约180公里的三角形SAFIR接收站组成。作为一个先验的假设，盲盲或UHSN代表真理是不可能的，每个系统的相对性能进行比较，以另一个进行了研究。检测概率（POD）用于研究两个网络同时感知到的闪光事件。假设BLIDS测量值为真，计算UHSN的POD；反之，假设UHSN测量值为真，计算BLIDS的POD。这一对比表明，如预期的那样，超高频网络对云内闪电要敏感得多。相比之下，UHSN对云对地闪电的灵敏度远低于blds网络。因此，超高频网络对两种闪电类型（总闪电）的灵敏度主要是云内闪电，因此比盲闪电高。发现超高频网络的灵敏度表现出很强的水平变化。这些都是由网络几何和数据处理程序主导的。本研究显示了这两个系统的优点和缺点，并有助于更好地评估每个系统的潜力。
[1] This paper presents a comparison of a regional lightning detection network based on SAFIR sensors (Surveillance et Alerte Foudre par Interferometrie Radioelectrique) with the operational German lightning detection system (BLIDS) that uses LPATS (Lightning Positioning and Tracking System) and IMPACT (Improved Performance from Combined Technology) sensors. The Institute for Meteorology and Climatology (IMUK) of the University of Hannover runs a regional lightning detection network in northern Germany (UHSN). It consists of three SAFIR receiving stations in a triangle of about 180 km side-length. As an a priori assumption that either BLIDS or UHSN represents the truth is not possible, the relative performance of each system in comparison with the other one is investigated. Probability of detection (POD) is used to investigate flash events simultaneously sensed by both networks. POD of UHSN was calculated assuming BLIDS measurements as true and, vice versa, POD of BLIDS was calculated assuming UHSN measurements as true. This comparison yielded that UHSN, as expected, is far more sensitive to intracloud lightning. In contrast, the sensitivity of UHSN for cloud-to-ground lightning was much lower than that of the BLIDS network. Hence the sensitivity of UHSN for both lightning types together (total lightning) is dominated by intracloud lightning and is consequently higher than that for BLIDS. The sensitivity of UHSN was found to exhibit strong horizontal variations. These are dominated by the network geometry and data processing procedures. The present study shows strengths and weaknesses of both systems and contributes to a better assessment of the potentials of each system.