Using Landsat land surface temperature as a proxy for air temperature in urban settings: Experiments in the Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the UHI effect in any city requires high-resolution temperature data. This data is often difficult to obtain as cities usually have only a few ground sensors, leaving large data gaps. To fill these gaps, we compare Landsat-derived land surface temperature (LST) with air temperature (Tair) measurements from urban weather stations in the two largest cities in the Netherlands. Previous studies of this kind have often been limited due to a few main factors: low spatial resolution, limited weather station data and small sample sizes (Chung et al., 2020, Mutiibwa, 2015; Sheng 2017; Xiong, 2017; Yang, 2020). As a result, findings have been inconsistent, albeit mostly promising. Addressing these issues and adding to Burnett and Chen’s (2021) extensive comparison on a regional scale in Ontario, Canada, we present a reproducible, code-based approach focusing on cities. Using 149 Landsat scenes and data from 33 urban weather stations in the Netherlands (24 in Amsterdam, 9 in Rotterdam) between 2013-2022, 1700 comparison points across all European seasons are established. We find that there is a strong positive and significant linear relationship between LST and Tair across the dataset (r = .89). OLS regression results indicate 80% of the Tair variation can be explained by the LST, with Tair increasing by 0.62°C for every 1°C increase in LST. Analyses were repeated to account for seasonality, each station's local climate zone (Stewart and Oke, 2012) as well as mean absolute error and root mean square error to interrogate the discrepancy, all of which will be highlighted in the presentation. Overall, our evidence suggests that LST can indeed be a suitable proxy for Tair and could consequently form an additional decision-making layer to assist climate monitoring and urban planning in the Netherlands as well as similar climates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".