Land Surface Temperature Difference

Post here questions, comments, and suggestions about the general i-Tree project. To avoid duplication, please be sure to check the i-Tree website and the FAQs before posting. Relevant topics include background, purpose, requirements, hardware, installation, training and events.

Moderators: i-Tree Support, i-Tree Team

Post Reply
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:37 am

Land Surface Temperature Difference

Post by Dan_Buckler » Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:10 pm


I am trying to wrap my head around the land-surface temperature differences for places. Is the number that is calculated for a geographic unit the average pixel value within those borders, but the actual pixel value is the difference with the scene median? I am just trying to figure out the best way of using this data when it seems like we're using means and medians. For example, can I say in Wisconsin that X of Y places have average temperatures above the surrounding area (i.e. Landsat scene)? And of those X places with higher temperatures, they average Z degrees more than their surroundings?

Thanks for any clarification.
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:00 am

Re: Land Surface Temperature Difference

Post by KristaH » Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:43 am

Hi Dan - the short answer is yes: the values in the data set (each pixel) represent surface temperature in degrees above or below the median temp of the Landsat scene; for each place boundary, these values are averaged to calculate the value you can see in the table.

So yes, you could say that X number of places show an average temperature above the median for the surrounding area (and that the average temps are Z degrees higher than that median). It's worth noting that especially with place boundaries, this can be attributed to a wide variety of variations. Namely in Wisconsin, lakes make a huge difference. The difference between Sun Paririe (hotter) and Lake Koshkonong (cooler), for example, is typical. The Koshkonong boundary is much larger than Sun Prairie, but is primarily water, has a much lower population density, and actually has less canopy cover. Someone from WI might recognize that these 2 places don't represent apples to apples, but it can be worth investigating any wide temperature differences with this in mind. Hope that helps -

Post Reply