# A Year-Long Total Lightning Forecast over Italy with a Dynamic Lightning Scheme and WRF

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{5}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Data and Methods

#### 2.1. WRF Model

#### 2.2. The Dynamic Lightning Scheme and LINET Data

^{−1}kg

^{−1}). The electric potential is computed for positive, negative, and intracloud lightning. Negative flashes originate from the lower part of the cloud, positive flashes originate from the upper part of the cloud, and intracloud flashes originate everywhere in the cloud. These assumptions are consistent with the tripolar charge model of Williams [73], but more complex electric structures can be present inside the clouds [73].

^{−4}C; L75, in which the charge transferred in 1 s is 0.75 × 10

^{−4}C; and L100, in which the charge transferred in 1 s is 1.0 × 10

^{−4}C. The three settings were used to simulate all 162 cases considered in this work.

^{9}J for positive strokes and 1 × 10

^{9}J for intracloud and negative strokes), it is converted into electrical energy by lightning strokes (cloud-to-ground or intracloud), immediately dissipating the energy and reducing the electric potential magnitude at that grid point. The same thresholds as Lynn et al. [72] are used. The sum of positive, negative, and intracloud lightning is considered for comparison with observed strokes.

#### 2.3. Case Studies

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. Example of Predicted Fields

^{2}for the verifications area, i.e., the number of strokes observed/forecasted in a day in each WRF grid cell in the verification area). This was a well predicted event. Observations (Figure 3d) shows intense electrical activity with about 204,000 strokes recorded for the day. The total number of strokes is underestimated by L50, slightly overestimated by L75, and quite overestimated by L100.

#### 3.2. Comparison among L50, L75, and L100 Configurations and Upscaling of the Model Output

#### 3.3. Performance in Different Seasons and Comparison between the Forecast over Land and over Sea

_{o}/2, where f

_{o}is the probability of occurrence of the forecasted event. We consider the event as having at least 1 stroke in a grid cell per day for the L75 configuration of the lightning scheme. The probability of occurrence of the forecast event f

_{o}is about 1% in winter and spring, and 2% in summer and fall. These probabilities were estimated considering the number of grid cells in which strokes were observed over the total number of grid cells.

_{o}for different seasons and the result of Lynn [52], a 0.5 threshold was used to determine the scale of usefulness of the forecast.

^{2}) larger than the meteorological alert areas used by the Civil Protection Department.

#### 3.4. Sensitivity to the Microphysical Scheme

^{−4}C, so the impact of changing the microphysical scheme can be quantified by comparing WSM6 and L75 forecasts.

## 4. Discussion

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## Appendix A

Observed | Observed | ||

YES | NO | ||

Forecast | YES | a | b |

Forecast | NO | c | d |

_{r}is the probability of a correct forecast by chance when the yes/no forecast occurrence is independent from the observation. The frequency bias (FBIAS; range (0, +∞), where 1 is the perfect score, i.e., when no misses and false alarms occur) is the ratio of the number of yes forecasts of the event and the observed number of yes events. The probability of detection (POD; range (0, 1), where 1 is the perfect score and 0 is the worst value) is the proportion of correct forecasts over the total number of observed events. The threat score (TS; range (0, 1), where 1 is the perfect score and 0 is the worst score) is the number of correct forecasts of the event divided by the total number of occasions on which the event was observed and/or forecast. The equitable threat score (ETS; range (−1/3, 1), where 1 is the perfect score and 0 is a useless forecast) is the proportion of correct forecasts corrected for the probability of a correct forecast by chance, where the occurrence/non-occurrence of the event is independent from its observation.

_{x}and N

_{y}are the number of grid points in the x and y directions (635 in both directions in this paper). Fractions are generated for different spatial scales by changing the value of n, which can be any odd value up to 2N − 1, where N is the number of points along the longest side of the domain. In the statistics of this paper, n varies from 3 to 43, corresponding to spatial scales from 9 to 129 km. The FSS score is summed over all grid points in the domain, and it is defined such that the perfect (no) skill forecast has an FSS equal to 1 (0).

_{(n),i,j}is the resultant field of observed fractions for a square of length n obtained from the binary field I

_{o}and M

_{(n),i,j}is the resultant field of forecast fractions for a square of length n obtained from the binary field I

_{M}. Specifically, I

_{o}(I

_{M}) is 1 if the observed (forecast) lightning density per grid cell is above a threshold value, and I

_{o}(I

_{M}) is 0 if the observed (forecast) lightning density per grid cell is below this threshold. The corresponding formulae are as follows:

## References

- American Meteorological Society. Lightning explodes dynamite. Mon. Weakly Rev.
**1924**, 52, 313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - American Meteorological Society. Loss of forty-seven head of cattle by a single lightning bolt. Mon. Weakly Rev.
**1924**, 52, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lopez, R.E.; Holle, R.L. Fluctuations of lightning casualties in the United States: 1959–1990. J. Clim.
**1996**, 9, 608–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Lopez, R.E.; Heitkamp, T.A. Lightning casualties and property damage in Colorado from 1950 to 1991 based on Storm Data. Weather Forecast.
**1995**, 10, 114–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Rorig, M.L.; Ferguson, S.A. The 2000 fire season: Lightning-caused fires. J. Appl. Meteorol.
**2002**, 41, 786–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Holle, R.L.; López, R.E.; Arnold, L.J.; Endres, J. Insured lightning-caused property damage in three western states. J. Appl. Meteorol.
**1996**, 35, 1344–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Hodanish, S.; Holle, R.; Lindsey, D.T. A small updraft producing a fatal lightning flash. Weather Forecast.
**2004**, 19, 627–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Holle, R.L.; López, R.E.; Navarro, B.C. Deaths, injuries, and damages from lightning in the United States in the 1890s in comparison with the 1990s. J. Appl. Meteorol.
**2005**, 44, 1563–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Ashley, W.S.; Gilson, C.W. A reassessment of U.S. lightning mortality. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.
**2009**, 90, 1501–1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wallmann, J.; Milne, R.; Smallcomb, C.; Mehle, M. Using the 21 June 2008 California lightning outbreak to improve dry lightning forecast procedures. Weather Forecast.
**2010**, 25, 14471462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schultz, C.J.; Petersen, W.A.; Carey, L.D. Preliminary development and evaluation of lightning jump algorithms for the real-time detection of severe weather. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol.
**2009**, 48, 2543–2563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Koshak, W.J.; Cummins, K.L.; Buechler, D.E.; Vant-Hull, B.; Blakeslee, R.J.; Williams, E.R.; Peterson, H.S. Variability of CONUS lightning in 2003–2012 and associated impacts. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol.
**2015**, 54, 15–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Epicentro—Istituto Superiore di Sanità. Available online: www.epicentro.iss.it/fulmini/epidemiologia (accessed on 3 June 2022).
- Mäkelä, A.; Saltikoff, E.; Julkunen, J.; Juga, I.; Gregow, E.; Niemelä, S. Cold-season thunderstorms in Finland and their effect on aviation safety. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.
**2013**, 94, 847–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mazur, V.; Fisher, B.D.; Gerlach, J.C. Lightning strikes to a NASA airplane penetrating thunderstorms at low altitudes. J. Aircr.
**1986**, 23, 499–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sweers, G.; Birch, B.; Gokcen, J. Lightning Strikes: Protection, Inspection, and Repair. Aero. 2012. Available online: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2012_q4/4/ (accessed on 3 June 2022).
- Rash, C.E. When lightning strikes. AeroSaf. World
**2010**, 5, 18–23. [Google Scholar] - Parodi, A.; Mazzarella, V.; Milelli, M.; Lagasio, M.; Realini, E.; Federico, S.; Torcasio, R.C.; Kerschbaum, M.; Llasat, M.C.; Rigo, T.; et al. A Nowcasting Model for Severe Weather Events at Airport Spatial Scale: The Case Study of Milano Malpensa. SIDs (SESAR Innovation Days). 2021. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Riccardo-Biondi-2/project/SINOPTICA-H2020/attachment/61d353a4b3729f0f619eaa4f/AS:[email protected]/download/SID_SINOPTICA_paper_final_revision.pdf?context=ProjectUpdatesLog (accessed on 3 June 2022).
- Goodman, S.J.; MacGorman, D.R. Cloud-to-ground lightning activity in mesoscale convective complexes. Mon. Weakly Rev.
**1986**, 114, 2320–2328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Kane, R.J. Correlating lightning to severe local storms in the northeastern United States. Weather Forecast.
**1991**, 6, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Smith, J.A.; Baeck, M.L.; Morrison, J.E.; Sturdevant-Rees, P. Catastrophic rainfall and flooding in Texas. J. Hydrometeorol.
**2000**, 1, 5–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - McCaul, E.W.; Buechler, D.E.; Goodman, S.J.; Cammarata, M. Doppler radar and lightning network observations of a severe outbreak of tropical cyclone tornadoes. Mon. Weakly Rev.
**2004**, 132, 1747–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Underwood, S.J. Cloud-to-ground lightning flash parameters associated with heavy rainfall alarms in the Denver, Colorado, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District ALERT Network. Mon. Weakly Rev.
**2006**, 134, 2566–2580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gatlin, P.N.; Goodman, S.J. A total lightning trending algorithm to identify severe thunderstorms. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol.
**2010**, 27, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rudlosky, S.D.; Fuelberg, H.E. Documenting storm severity in the mid-Atlantic region using lightning and radar information. Mon. Weakly Rev.
**2013**, 141, 3186–3202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chronis, T.; Carey, L.D.; Schultz, C.J.; Schultz, E.V.; Calhoun, K.M.; Goodman, S.J. Exploring lightning jump characteristics. Weather Forecast.
**2015**, 30, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Christian, H.J.; Blakeslee, R.J.; Boccippio, D.J.; Boeck, W.L.; Buechler, D.E.; Driscoll, K.T.; Goodman, S.J.; Hall, J.M.; Koshak, W.J.; Mach, D.M.; et al. Global frequency and distribution of lightning as observed from space by the Optical Transient Detector. J. Geophys. Res.
**2003**, 108, ACL 4-1–ACL 4-15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Holle, R.L.; Said, R.K.; Brooks, W.A. Monthly GLD360 lightning percentages by continent. In Proceedings of the 7th International Lightning Meteorology Conference, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 12–15 March 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Fierro, A.O.; Mansell, E.R.; Ziegler, C.L.; MacGorman, D.R. Application of a lightning data assimilation technique in the WRF-ARW Model at cloud-resolving scales for the tornado outbreak of 24 May 2011. Mon. Weakly Rev.
**2012**, 140, 2609–2627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Torcasio, R.C.; Federico, S.; Comellas Prat, A.; Panegrossi, G.; D’Adderio, L.P.; Dietrich, S. Impact of lightning data assimilation on the short-term precipitation forecast over the Central Mediterranean Sea. Remote Sens.
**2021**, 13, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lynn, B.H.; Kelman, G.; Ellrod, G. An evaluation of the efficacy of using observed lightning to improve convective lightning forecasts. Weather Forecast.
**2015**, 30, 405–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lai, A.; Gao, J.; Koch, S.E.; Wang, Y.; Pan, S.; Fierro, A.O.; Cui, C.; Min, J. Assimilation of radar radial velocity, reflectivity, and pseudo–water vapor for convective-scale NWP in a variational framework. Mon. Weakly Rev.
**2019**, 147, 2877–2900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Roberts, R.D.; Rutledge, S. Nowcasting storm initiation and growth using GOES-8 and WSR-88D data. Weather Forecast.
**2003**, 18, 562–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Wilson, J.W.; Ebert, E.E.; Saxen, T.R.; Roberts, R.D.; Mueller, C.K.; Sleigh, M.; Pierce, C.E.; Seed, A. Sydney 2000 Forecast Demonstration Project: Convective storm nowcasting. Weather Forecast.
**2004**, 19, 131–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sieglaff, J.M.; Cronce, L.M.; Feltz, W.F.; Bedka, K.M.; Pavolonis, M.J.; Heidinger, A.K. Nowcasting convective storm initiation using satellite-based box-averaged cloud-top cooling and cloud-type trends. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol.
**2011**, 50, 110–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mecikalski, J.R.; Williams, J.K.; Jewett, C.P.; Ahijevych, D.; LeRoy, A.; Walker, J.R. Probabilistic 0–1-h convective initiation nowcasts that combine geostationary satellite observations and numerical weather prediction model data. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol.
**2015**, 54, 1039–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Rossi, P.J.; Chandrasekar, V.; Hasu, V.; Moisseev, D. Kalman filtering–based probabilistic nowcasting of object-oriented tracked convective storms. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol.
**2015**, 32, 461–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - La Fata, A.; Amato, F.; Bernardi, M.; D’Andrea, M.; Procopio, R.; Fiori, E. Horizontal grid spacing comparison among Random Forest algorithms to nowcast Cloud-to-Ground lightning occurrence. Stoch Environ. Res. Risk Assess
**2022**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Stern, A.D.; Brady, R.H.; Moore, P.D.; Carter, G.M. Identification of aviation weather hazards based on the integration of radar and lightning data. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.
**1994**, 75, 2269–2280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - MacGorman, D.R.; Rust, W.D. The Electrical Nature of Storms; Oxford University Press: Oxford, MI, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Short, D.A.; Sardonia, J.E.; Lambert, W.C.; Wheeler, M.M. Nowcasting thunderstorm anvil clouds over Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Weather Forecast.
**2004**, 19, 706–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Price, C. Lightning sensors for observing, tracking and nowcasting severe weather. Sensors
**2008**, 8, 157–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Saxen, T.R. The operational mesogammascale analysis and forecast system of the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command. Part IV: The White Sands Missile Range Auto Nowcast system. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol.
**2008**, 47, 1123–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Kohn, M.; Galanti, E.; Price, C.; Lagouvardos, K.; Kotroni, V. Nowcasting thunderstorms in the Mediterranean region using lightning data. Atmos. Res.
**2011**, 100, 489–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dahl, J.M.L.; Höller, H.; Schumann, U. Modeling the flash rate of thunderstorms. Part I: Framework. Mon. Weakly Rev.
**2011**, 139, 3093–3111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Hondl, K.D.; Eilts, M.D. Doppler radar signatures of developing thunderstorms and their potential to indicate the onset of cloud-to-ground lightning. Mon. Weakly Rev.
**1994**, 122, 1818–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Gremillion, M.S.; Orville, R.E. Thunderstorm characteristics of cloud-to-ground lightning at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida: A study of lightning initiation signatures as indicated by the WSR-88D. Weather Forecast.
**1999**, 14, 640–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yang, Y.H.; King, P. Investigating the potential of using radar echo reflectivity to nowcast cloud-to-ground lightning initiation over southern Ontario. Weather Forecast.
**2010**, 25, 12351248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mosier, R.M.; Schumacher, C.; Orville, R.E.; Carey, L.D. Radar nowcasting of cloud-to-ground lightning over Houston, Texas. Weather Forecast.
**2011**, 26, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Seroka, G.N.; Orville, R.E.; Schumacher, C. Radar nowcasting of total lightning over the Kennedy Space Center. Weather Forecast.
**2012**, 27, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Walker, J.R.; MacKenzie, W.M., Jr.; Mecikalski, J.R.; Jewett, C.P. An enhanced geostationary satellite–based convective initiation algorithm for 0–2-h nowcasting with object tracking. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol.
**2012**, 51, 1931–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lynn, B.H. The Usefulness and Economic Value of Total Lightning Forecasts Made with a Dynamic Lightning Scheme Coupled with Lightning Data Assimilation. Weather Forecast.
**2017**, 32, 645–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Solomon, R.; Baker, M. A one-dimensional lightning parameterization. J. Geophys. Res.
**1996**, 101, 14983–14990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Solomon, R.; Medaglia, C.M.; Adamo, C.; Dietrich, S.; Mugnai, A.; Biader Ceipidor, U. An explicit microphysics thunderstorm model. Int. J. Model. Simul.
**2005**, 25, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mansell, E.R.; MacGorman, D.R.; Ziegler, C.L.; Straka, J.M. Simulated three-dimensional branched lighting in a numerical thunderstorm model. J. Geophys. Res.
**2002**, 107, 4075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mansell, E.R.; MacGorman, D.; Ziegler, C.; Straka, J.M. Charge structure and lightning sensitivity in a simulated multicell thunderstorm. J. Geophys. Res.
**2005**, 110, D12101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - MacGorman, D.; Straka, J.; Ziegler, C. A lightning parameterization for numerical cloud models. J. Appl. Meteorol.
**2001**, 40, 459–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Barthe, C.; Molinie, G.; Pinty, J. Description and first results of an explicit electrical scheme in a 3D cloud resolving model. Atmos. Res.
**2005**, 76, 95–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Barthe, C.; Deierling, W.; Barth, M.C. Estimation of total lightning from various storm parameters: A cloud- resolving model study. J. Geophys. Res.
**2010**, 115, D24202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fierro, A.O.; Mansell, E.R.; MacGorman, D.R.; Ziegler, C.L. The implementation of an explicit charging and discharge lightning scheme within the WRF-ARW Model: Benchmark simulations of a continental squall line, a tropical cyclone, and a winter storm. Mon. Weakly Rev.
**2013**, 141, 2390–2415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Skamarock, W.C. A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 3. NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN-4751STR; CiteSeerX: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2008; 113p. [Google Scholar]
- Price, C.; Rind, D. A simple lightning parameterization for calculating global lightning distributions. J. Geophys. Res.
**1992**, 97, 9919–9933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - McCaul, E.W.; Goodman, S.J.; LaCasse, K.M.; Cecil, D.J. Forecasting lightning threat using cloud-resolving model simulations. Weather Forecast.
**2009**, 24, 709–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yoshida, S.; Morimoto, T.; Ushio, T.; Kawasaki, Z. A fifth-power relationship for lightning activity from Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission satellite observations. J. Geophys. Res.
**2009**, 114, D09104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yair, Y.; Lynn, B.H.; Price, C.; Kotroni, V.; Lagouvardos, K.; Morin, E.; Mugnai, A.; Llasat, M.C. Predicting the potential for lightning activity in Mediterranean storms based on the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model dynamic and microphysical fields. J. Geophys. Res.
**2010**, 115, D04205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Wong, J.; Barth, M.C.; Noone, D. Evaluating a lightning parameterization based on cloud-top height for mesoscale numerical model simulations. Geosci. Model Dev.
**2013**, 6, 429–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Lagasio, M.; Parodi, A.; Procopio, R.; Rachidi, F.; Fiori, E. Lightning Potential Index performances in multimicrophysical cloud-resolving simulations of a back-building mesoscale convective system: The Genoa 2014 event. J. Geophys. Res.
**2017**, 122, 4238–4257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - McCaul, E.W., Jr.; Priftis, G.; Case, J.L.; Chronis, T.; Gatlin, P.N.; Goodman, S.J.; Kong, F. Sensitivities of the WRF lightning forecasting algorithm to parameterized microphysics and boundary layer schemes. Weather Forecast.
**2020**, 35, 1545–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Bright, D.R.; Wandishin, M.S.; Jewell, R.E.; Weiss, S.J. A Physically Based Parameter for Lightning Prediction and Its Calibration in Ensemble Forecasts. 2004. Available online: http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/84173.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2022).
- Williams, E.; Renno, N. An analysis of the conditional instability of the tropical atmosphere. Mon. Weather Rev.
**1993**, 121, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Romps, D.M.; Charn, A.B.; Holzworth, R.H.; Lawrence, W.E.; Molinari, J.; Vollaro, D. CAPE times P explains lightning over land but not the land-ocean contrast. Geophys. Res. Lett.
**2018**, 45, 12623–12630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Lynn, B.H.; Yair, Y.; Price, C.; Kelman, G.; Clark, A.J. Predicting cloud-to-ground and intracloud lightning in weather forecast models. Weather Forecast.
**2012**, 27, 1470–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Williams, E.R. The tripole structure of thunderstorms. J. Geophys. Res.
**1989**, 94, 13151–13167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Stolzenburg, M.; Marshall, T.C.; Rust, W.D.; Smull, B.F. Horizontal distribution of electrical and meteorological conditions across the stratiform region of a mesoscale convective system. Mon. Weakly Rev.
**1994**, 122, 1777–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Federico, S.; Avolio, E.; Petracca, M.; Panegrossi, G.; Sanò, P.; Casella, D.; Dietrich, S. Simulating lightning into the RAMS model: Implementation and preliminary results. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
**2014**, 14, 2933–2950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Dahl, J.M.L.; Holler, H.; Schumann, U. Modeling the flash rate of thunderstorms. Part II: Implementation. Mon. Weather Rev.
**2011**, 139, 3112–3124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Skamarock, W.C.; Klemp, J.B.; Dudhia, J.; Gill, D.O.; Liu, Z.; Berner, J.; Wang, W.; Powers, J.G.; Duda, M.G.; Barker, D.M.; et al. A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 4. No. NCAR/TN-556+STR, NCAR Technical Note; National Center for Atmospheric Research: Boulder, CO, USA, 2019; 145p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, G.; Field, P.R.; Rasmussen, R.M.; Hall, W.D. Explicit forecasts of winter precipitation using an improved bulk microphysics scheme. Part II: Implementation of a New Snow Parameterization. Mon. Weakly Rev.
**2008**, 136, 5095–5115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Janjic, Z.L. Nonsingular Implementation of the Mellor–Yamada Level 2.5 Scheme in the NCEP Meso Model; NCEP Office Note 437. 2002; 61p. Available online: http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/officenotes/newernotes/on437.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2022).
- Chen, F.; Janjic, Z.; Mitchell, K. Impact of atmospheric surface-layer parameterizations in the new land-surface scheme of the NCEP mesoscale Eta model. Bound.-Layer Meteorol.
**1997**, 85, 391–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dudhia, J. Numerical study of convection observed during the Winter Monsoon Experiment using a mesoscale two-dimensional model. J. Atmos. Sci.
**1989**, 46, 3077–3107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mlawer, E.J.; Taubman, S.J.; Brown, P.D.; Iacono, M.J.; Clough, S.A. Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the longwave. J. Geophys. Res.
**1997**, 102, 16663–16682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Lynn, B.H.; Yair, Y. Prediction of lightning flash density with the WRF model. Adv. Geosci.
**2010**, 23, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Takahashi, T. Electrical properties of oceanic tropical clouds at Ponape, Micronesia. Mon. Weakly Rev.
**1978**, 106, 1598–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Saunders, C.P.R. Charge separation mechanisms in clouds. Space Sci. Rev.
**2008**, 137, 335–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Betz, H.-D.; Schmidt, K.; Oettinger, P.; Wirz, M. Lightning detection with 3D-discrimination of intracloud and cloud-to-ground discharges. J. Geophys. Res. Lett.
**2004**, 31, L11108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Betz, H.-D.; Schmidt, K.; Laroche, P.; Blanchet, P.; Oettinger, P.; Defer, E.; Dziewit, Z.; Konarski, J. LINET—An international lightning detection network in Europe. Atmos. Res.
**2009**, 91, 564–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Petracca, M. Studio dell’Attività Elettrica Nelle Nubi Temporalesche ed Utilizzo dei Dati di Fulminazione per la Meteorologia Operativa. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy, 2016; 231p. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, S.-Y.; Lim, J.-O.J. The WRF single-moment 6-class microphysics scheme (WSM6). J. Korean Meteorol. Soc.
**2006**, 42, 129–151. [Google Scholar] - Roberts, N.M.; Lean, H.W. Scale-selective verification of rainfall accumulations from high-resolution forecasts of convective events. Mon. Weakly Rev.
**2008**, 136, 78–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Uhlířová, I.B.; Popová, J.; Zbyněk, S. Lightning Potential Index and its spatial and temporal characteristics in COSMO NWP model. Atmos. Res.
**2022**, 268, 106025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sobash, R.A.; Kain, J.S.; Bright, D.R.; Dean, A.R.; Coniglio, M.C.; Weiss, S.J. Probabilistic forecast guidance for severe thunderstorms based on the identification of extreme phenomena in convection-allowing model forecasts. Weather Forecast.
**2011**, 26, 714–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ebert, E.E. Fuzzy verification of high-resolution gridded forecasts: A review and proposed framework. Meteorol. Appl.
**2008**, 15, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kain, J.S.; Weiss, S.J.; Bright, D.R.; Baldwin, M.E.; Levit, J.J.; Carbin, G.W.; Schwartz, C.S.; Weisman, M.L.; Droegemeier, K.K.; Weber, D.B.; et al. Some Practical Considerations Regarding Horizontal Resolution in the First Generation of Operational Convection-Allowing NWP. Weather Forecast.
**2008**, 23, 931–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kalnay, E. Atmospheric Modeling, Data Assimilation and Predictability; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Federico, S.; Petracca, M.; Panegrossi, G.; Transerici, C.; Dietrich, S. Impact of the assimilation of lightning data on the precipitation forecast at different forecast ranges. Adv. Sci. Res.
**2017**, 14, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Avolio, E.; Federico, S. WRF simulations for a heavy rainfall event in southern Italy Verification and sensitivity tests. Atmos. Res.
**2018**, 20, 14–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jankov, I.; Schultz, P.J.; Anderson, C.J.; Koch, S.E. The impact of different physical parameterizations and their interactions on cold season QPF in the American River Basin. J. Hydrometeorol.
**2007**, 8, 1141–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Lagasio, M.; Parodi, A.; Pulvirenti, L.; Meroni, A.N.; Boni, G.; Pierdicca, N.; Marzano, F.S.; Luini, L.; Venuti, G.; Realini, E.; et al. A synergistic use of a high-resolution numerical weather prediction model and high-resolution earth observation products to improve precipitation forecast. Remote Sens.
**2019**, 11, 2387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Federico, S.; Torcasio, R.C.; Avolio, E.; Caumont, O.; Montopoli, M.; Baldini, L.; Vulpiani, G.; Dietrich, S. The impact of lightning and radar reflectivity factor data assimilation on the very short-term rainfall forecasts of [email protected]: Application to two case studies in Italy. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
**2019**, 19, 1839–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Fierro, A.O.; Gao, J.; Ziegl, C.L.; Calhoun, K.M.; Mansell, E.R.; MacGorman, D.R. Assimilation of flash extent data in the variational framework at convection-allowing scales: Proof of-concept and evaluation for the short-term forecast of the 24 May 2011 tornado outbreak. Mon. Weakly Rev.
**2016**, 144, 4373–4393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Buizza, R.; Milleer, M.; Palmer, T.N. Stochastic representation of model uncertainties in the ECMWF ensemble prediction system. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc.
**1999**, 125, 2887–2908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Leutbecher, M.; Palmer, T.N. Ensemble forecasting. J. Comput. Phys.
**2008**, 227, 3515–3539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Toth, Z.; Kalnay, E. Ensemble Forecasting at NCEP and the Breeding Method. Mon. Weakly Rev.
**1997**, 125, 3297–3319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wilks, D.S. Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences; Elsevier Science: Oxford, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, K.E. Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram. J. Geophys. Res.
**2001**, 106, 7183–7192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**WRF domain and verification area (domain around Italy). Locations cited in the text are also shown.

**Figure 2.**(

**a**) Total number of observed strokes in different seasons for all days (yellow) and the 162 cases studied (grey); (

**b**) the hourly distribution of the strokes shown in (

**a**).

**Figure 3.**Strokes density field (number of strokes in 9 km

^{2}) for 3 October 2020 calculated with a charge transfer setting of (

**a**) L50, (

**b**) L75, (

**c**) L100 for the lightning scheme; (

**d**) LINET strokes density. The total number of strokes is shown in the figure title of each panel. The dots represent the daily rate, i.e., the number of strokes accumulated for the whole day in the model grid cells (3 km horizontal resolution). LINET daily data are remapped onto the model grid. Gray dots are smaller than other dots to avoid a large superposition of the dots.

**Figure 4.**Total number of strokes simulated (L50, L75, L100) and observed (OBS) for each season and for the year. The number of cases considered are shown in Table 1.

**Figure 5.**The upscaling of the model output. The green cell has a horizontal resolution of 12 km as a result of applying an upscale factor of 4. The 3 km WRF grid is shown in blue.

**Figure 6.**Performance diagram for grid cells of (

**a**) 6 km and (

**b**) 24 km. L50 is represented by a diamond, L75 is represented by a circle, and L100 by a square. Red symbols are used for 1 stroke per grid cell per day, green symbols for 10 strokes per grid cell per day, and magenta symbols for 30 strokes per grid cell per day. Grey lines indicate FBIAS with values in grey, and blue lines indicate the TS with values in blue.

**Figure 7.**Fraction skill score for different scales for x from 9 to 129 km in 6 km increments. The FSS refers to the L75 configuration and the event forecast is 1 stroke per grid cell.

**Figure 8.**Taylor diagram for the 162 cases studied and each configuration of the DLS. The number of 48 km grid cells classified as sea and land is 44,712 and 34,930, respectively. The cells containing an equal amount of WRF 3 km grid cells labelled as land or sea were discarded from the analysis. L50S is the result for L50 over the sea, L50L is the results for L50 over the land; L75S is the result for L75 over the sea, L75L is the result for L75 over the land; L100S is the result for L100 over the sea, L100L is the result for L100 over the land.

**Figure 9.**(

**a**) FBIAS, (

**b**) POD, (

**c**) FAR, and (

**d**) ETS for different lightning thresholds (x-axis) for L75 (blue curves) and the same charge configuration using the WSM6 microphysical scheme (red curves). Scores are shown for 24 km grid cells.

SEASON | Number of Days |
---|---|

SUMMER | 69 |

FALL | 46 |

WINTER | 18 |

SPRING | 29 |

**Table 2.**Number of strokes simulated with the different charge transfer settings by the DLS (columns L50, L75, and L100) and observed by LINET (column OBS) for each season and for the whole year. The second number in each cell of the L50, L75, and L100 columns shows the correlation coefficient for the daily simulated and observed number of strokes for each season and for the whole year. The number of pairs used for each correlation are those from Table 1: 29 in spring, 69 in summer, 46 in fall, 19 in winter, 162 for the whole year.

SEASON/YEAR | L50 | L75 | L100 | OBS |
---|---|---|---|---|

SPRING | 352,397; 0.64 | 647,563; 0.66 | 968,901; 0.66 | 494,678 |

SUMMER | 3,630,810; 0.76 | 5,954,415; 0.77 | 8337,,408; 0.77 | 7,140,804 |

FALL | 2,314,092; 0.76 | 3,861,155; 0.78 | 5,491,026; 0.77 | 3,528,789 |

WINTER | 521,886; 0.87 | 1,021,174; 0.85 | 1,574,974; 0.84 | 332,347 |

YEAR | 6,819,185; 0.77 | 11,484,307; 0.77 | 16,372,309; 0.77 | 11,496,618 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Federico, S.; Torcasio, R.C.; Lagasio, M.; Lynn, B.H.; Puca, S.; Dietrich, S. A Year-Long Total Lightning Forecast over Italy with a Dynamic Lightning Scheme and WRF. *Remote Sens.* **2022**, *14*, 3244.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14143244

**AMA Style**

Federico S, Torcasio RC, Lagasio M, Lynn BH, Puca S, Dietrich S. A Year-Long Total Lightning Forecast over Italy with a Dynamic Lightning Scheme and WRF. *Remote Sensing*. 2022; 14(14):3244.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14143244

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Federico, Stefano, Rosa Claudia Torcasio, Martina Lagasio, Barry H. Lynn, Silvia Puca, and Stefano Dietrich. 2022. "A Year-Long Total Lightning Forecast over Italy with a Dynamic Lightning Scheme and WRF" *Remote Sensing* 14, no. 14: 3244.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14143244