4.3 Article

Lightning morphology and impulse charge moment change of high peak current negative strokes

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2011JD016890

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  3. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences
  4. Directorate For Geosciences [1047588] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have analyzed very high frequency lightning mapping observations and remote magnetic field measurements to investigate connections between lightning morphology and impulse charge moment change (iCMC) of negative cloud-to-ground (CG) strokes with high estimated peak currents. Four lightning morphologies are identified for a total of 2126 strokes within optimum detection range of the North Alabama Lightning Mapping Array, and statistical iCMC distributions are given for each of these types. Almost all (>90%) of the largest impulse charge moments (greater than -200 C km in this data set) are not produced by strokes in ordinary negative CG flashes. Instead, negative strokes with the largest iCMCs are almost exclusively associated with two unusual flash types that both initially develop as positive (normal) intracloud lightning. In the first type the negative stroke with high iCMCs results from a negative leader that descends from the midlevel negative charge region after the upper level negative leader ceases propagating. In the second type, the upper level negative leader of the intracloud lightning progresses toward ground as a so-called bolt from the blue to generate the negative stroke. Measurements of strokes associated with four negative polarity sprites suggest that all four were most likely produced in the first unusual lightning type. Our results highlight that estimated peak current and impulse charge transfer are not always well correlated and that the in-cloud lightning structure strongly influences charge transfer on short time scales in negative CG strokes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据