deletions | additions       diff --git a/TRMM Satellite Lightning Detection compared to Ground-based lightning detection.tex b/TRMM Satellite Lightning Detection compared to Ground-based lightning detection.tex  index a57d15e..dd15c76 100644  --- a/TRMM Satellite Lightning Detection compared to Ground-based lightning detection.tex  +++ b/TRMM Satellite Lightning Detection compared to Ground-based lightning detection.tex 
...
Of concern is the spatial distributions of IC strokes, compared to CG or GC strokes over Australia. Lightning detected from the Lightning Image Sensor (LIS) on the TRMM polar orbiting satellite is considered very accurate in detecting total lightning (Cummins and Murphy 2009). GPATS CG/GC stroke locations have been compared to LIS total stroke locations for 4 summer and 4 winter days within the 2008-2014 period, chosen by visual inspection of global TRMM LIS lightning strike location images (http://thunder.nsstc.nasa.gov/lisib/lisbrowsecal.pl?which=qc).  A limitation of the GPATS ground-based network is it’s ability to detect all types of lightning strokes (intra-cloud strokes (IC) and cloud to ground (CG) or ground to cloud (GC) strokes constitutes “total lightning”). In a comparison of GPATS stroke types to stroke types from a high-quality research lightning flash counter (CGR4) in Brisbane, GPATS grossly under reports IC strokes, (Kuleshov 2012), with the majority of detected strokes being either CG or GC types. After a software upgrade in 2006 however, the number of GPATS ground strokes detected from 2007 onwards seem to be comparable to ground stroke numbers from the high quality CGR4 sensor at Brisbane. This means that whilst GPATS detected ground stroke numbers can be trusted after 2007 (a dataset from 2008-2014 is readily available), GPATS will not be detecting thunderstorm activity from IC strokes.   Lightning detected from the Lightning Image Sensor (LIS) on the TRMM polar orbiting satellite is considered very accurate in detecting total lightning (Cummins and Murphy 2009). How much stroke spatial coverage is GPATS missing by not detecting IC strokes? Grids of LIS and GPATS based thunderstorm activity over the same time periods typically 1-2 seconds per gridbox, and at 0.5 degree resolution (4 summer and 4 winter days in 2008-2014 with subjectively chosen high lightning activity) have been analysed. Of the 690 grid boxes containing any lighting activity for all 8 days, 402 boxes (58%) contained LIS strokes only and no GPATS, 56 boxes (8%) contained GPATS strokes only and no LIS, and 232 boxes (34%) contained both LIS and GPATS strokes. However, comparing LIS spatial coverage to GPATS coverage with a larger time window per gridbox (10min before and after each gridbox time window) yields an increase of boxes containing any lighting activity to 1280. The number of gridboxes containing only LIS and no GPATS decrease to 148 (12%), GPATS only boxes increase to 646 (50%), and GPATS and LIS boxes increase to 486 (38%). GPATS will therefore capture far more of the spatial thunderstorm activity over a storms lifetime than LIS.  \textbf{(para re LIS VIEWTIMES and GPATS selection per viewtime space/time window)}  \begin{itemize}  \item TRMM LIS data includes VIEWTIMES - CCD pixels view the earth in 0.5degree boxes over a time period ranging from 2-20 seconds. THe VIEWTIMES dataset per orbit contains lat and lon centre of 0.5degree box, start and end observing time