Summary of SST data for FACE-IT study sites
Robert Schlegel
15 December 2021
Last updated: 2021-12-15
Checks: 7 0
Knit directory: WP1/
This reproducible R Markdown analysis was created with workflowr (version 1.6.2). The Checks tab describes the reproducibility checks that were applied when the results were created. The Past versions tab lists the development history.
Great! Since the R Markdown file has been committed to the Git repository, you know the exact version of the code that produced these results.
Great job! The global environment was empty. Objects defined in the global environment can affect the analysis in your R Markdown file in unknown ways. For reproduciblity it’s best to always run the code in an empty environment.
The command set.seed(20210216) was run prior to running the code in the R Markdown file. Setting a seed ensures that any results that rely on randomness, e.g. subsampling or permutations, are reproducible.
Great job! Recording the operating system, R version, and package versions is critical for reproducibility.
Nice! There were no cached chunks for this analysis, so you can be confident that you successfully produced the results during this run.
Great job! Using relative paths to the files within your workflowr project makes it easier to run your code on other machines.
Great! You are using Git for version control. Tracking code development and connecting the code version to the results is critical for reproducibility.
The results in this page were generated with repository version 993272c. See the Past versions tab to see a history of the changes made to the R Markdown and HTML files.
Note that you need to be careful to ensure that all relevant files for the analysis have been committed to Git prior to generating the results (you can use wflow_publish or wflow_git_commit). workflowr only checks the R Markdown file, but you know if there are other scripts or data files that it depends on. Below is the status of the Git repository when the results were generated:
Ignored files:
Ignored: .Rhistory
Ignored: .Rproj.user/
Ignored: data/sst_trom.RData
Ignored: metadata/pangaea_parameters.tab
Ignored: mhw-definition_1_orig.xcf
Ignored: poster/SSC_2021_landscape_files/paged-0.15/
Note that any generated files, e.g. HTML, png, CSS, etc., are not included in this status report because it is ok for generated content to have uncommitted changes.
These are the previous versions of the repository in which changes were made to the R Markdown (analysis/sst_summary.Rmd) and HTML (docs/sst_summary.html) files. If you’ve configured a remote Git repository (see ?wflow_git_remote), click on the hyperlinks in the table below to view the files as they were in that past version.
| File | Version | Author | Date | Message |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rmd | 993272c | robwschlegel | 2021-12-15 | Re-built site. |
| html | 57f4772 | Robert | 2021-12-15 | Build site. |
| Rmd | 713428c | Robert | 2021-12-15 | Calculated SST trends for all model data |
| html | 713428c | Robert | 2021-12-15 | Calculated SST trends for all model data |
| html | 1beea50 | Robert | 2021-12-14 | Build site. |
| html | b554c7a | Robert | 2021-12-14 | Fixed labelling for CCI SST figures |
| html | 1da6285 | Robert | 2021-12-14 | Build site. |
| Rmd | 1b3e2f2 | Robert | 2021-12-14 | Added CCI SST analysis and figures to the SST data page |
| html | 1b3e2f2 | Robert | 2021-12-14 | Added CCI SST analysis and figures to the SST data page |
| html | 860f5d3 | Robert | 2021-12-10 | Build site. |
| html | 2725466 | Robert | 2021-12-10 | Merge |
| html | 64a5252 | Robert | 2021-12-10 | Build site. |
| html | 807675e | robwschlegel | 2021-12-06 | Build site. |
| html | 104acbc | Robert | 2021-12-03 | Build site. |
| Rmd | e8e7420 | Robert | 2021-12-03 | SST analysis figures |
| html | e8e7420 | Robert | 2021-12-03 | SST analysis figures |
Overview
This document contains a summary of the NOAA OISST and CCI SST (sea surface temperature) data that have been extracted around the FACE-IT sites. Both products have daily data from 1982 to 2020 however, the NOAA data are on a 0.25° grid while the CCI data are at 0.05°. This difference in the size of the pixels allows for some dramatic differences int he observed temperatures along the coast and in the fjords, as well as the decadal trends of those temperatures. Most importantly, the NOAA pixels are too coarse to capture SST within most of the FACE-IT fjords while CCI is able to provide SST in all sites except Young Sound. These very coastal/fjord pixels in the CCI data also tend to show strong cooling trends. I assume that these cooling trends are an artefact of the increased glacial melting into the fjord. But we can’t rule out that they are caused by any of the common remotely sensed coastal pixel issues, such as land bleed, which can interfere with the accurate assimilation of the data. Regardless, even in the more open coastal waters these two products do not agree very closely with one another and this is cause for some alarm. It is known that remotely sensed products begin to differ significantly from one another when approaching the poles and the quick analysis performed here certainly confirms that once again.
The rest of this page provides the results of the analysis by FACE-IT site. One may use the table of contents on the left to jump to a desired section. Each figure shown here has two panels: A) The average temperatures from 1982-2020, and B) The decadal trend over the same period. The first figure shows the results from the NOAA OISST data and the second for the CCI SST data. Note that the CCI product has a much higher resolution than NOAA.
Svalbard
Kongsfjorden
Figure 1: A) Average annual SST from 1982-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 1982-2020. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black. Note that the pixels in the NOAA OISST product are ~25km so there are no data within Kongsfjorden. One must also be cautious of the effect of land bleed on the temperatures for pixels that contain coastline.
Figure 2: A) Average annual SST from 1982-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 1982-2020. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black. Note that the pixels in the CCI SST product are ~5km so there are data within Kongsfjorden. How exactly these data points came to exist is curious and one should maintain a healthy skepticism of these results.
Figure 3: A) Average annual SST from 2000-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 2000-2099. Decadal trends are shown for the three most commonly used RCPs. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black. Note that the pixels in the model product are not on a cartesian grid so are shown here as points rather than as a raster.
Isfjorden
Figure 4: A) Average annual SST from 1982-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 1982-2020. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
Figure 5: A) Average annual SST from 1982-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 1982-2020. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
Figure 6: A) Average annual SST from 2000-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 2000-2099. Decadal trends are shown for the three most commonly used RCPs. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
Storfjorden
Figure 7: A) Average annual SST from 1982-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 1982-2020. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
Figure 8: A) Average annual SST from 1982-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 1982-2020. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
Figure 9: A) Average annual SST from 2000-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 2000-2099. Decadal trends are shown for the three most commonly used RCPs. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
Greenland
Young Sound
Figure 10: A) Average annual SST from 1982-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 1982-2020. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
Figure 11: A) Average annual SST from 1982-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 1982-2020. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
Figure 12: A) Average annual SST from 2000-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 2000-2099. Decadal trends are shown for the three most commonly used RCPs. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
Disko Bay
Figure 13: A) Average annual SST from 1982-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 1982-2020. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
Figure 14: A) Average annual SST from 1982-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 1982-2020. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
Nuup Kangerlua
Figure 15: A) Average annual SST from 1982-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 1982-2020. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
Figure 16: A) Average annual SST from 1982-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 1982-2020. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
Norway
Porsangerfjorden
Figure 17: A) Average annual SST from 1982-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 1982-2020. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
Figure 18: A) Average annual SST from 1982-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 1982-2020. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
Figure 19: A) Average annual SST from 2000-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 2000-2099. Decadal trends are shown for the three most commonly used RCPs. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
Tromsø
Figure 20: A) Average annual SST from 1982-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 1982-2020. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
Figure 21: A) Average annual SST from 1982-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 1982-2020. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
Figure 22: A) Average annual SST from 2000-2020. B) Decadal trends in SST calculated with annual averages from 2000-2099. Decadal trends are shown for the three most commonly used RCPs. Pixels with significant trends (p <= 0.05) are framed in black.
R version 4.1.2 (2021-11-01)
Platform: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (64-bit)
Running under: Ubuntu 20.04.3 LTS
Matrix products: default
BLAS: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/blas/libblas.so.3.9.0
LAPACK: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/lapack/liblapack.so.3.9.0
locale:
[1] LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 LC_NUMERIC=C
[3] LC_TIME=en_CA.UTF-8 LC_COLLATE=en_GB.UTF-8
[5] LC_MONETARY=en_CA.UTF-8 LC_MESSAGES=en_GB.UTF-8
[7] LC_PAPER=en_CA.UTF-8 LC_NAME=C
[9] LC_ADDRESS=C LC_TELEPHONE=C
[11] LC_MEASUREMENT=en_CA.UTF-8 LC_IDENTIFICATION=C
attached base packages:
[1] stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base
other attached packages:
[1] workflowr_1.6.2
loaded via a namespace (and not attached):
[1] Rcpp_1.0.7 whisker_0.4 knitr_1.34 magrittr_2.0.1
[5] R6_2.5.1 rlang_0.4.11 fastmap_1.1.0 fansi_0.5.0
[9] stringr_1.4.0 tools_4.1.2 xfun_0.26 utf8_1.2.2
[13] git2r_0.28.0 jquerylib_0.1.4 htmltools_0.5.2 ellipsis_0.3.2
[17] rprojroot_2.0.2 yaml_2.2.1 digest_0.6.28 tibble_3.1.4
[21] lifecycle_1.0.0 crayon_1.4.1 later_1.3.0 sass_0.4.0
[25] vctrs_0.3.8 promises_1.2.0.1 fs_1.5.0 glue_1.4.2
[29] evaluate_0.14 rmarkdown_2.11 stringi_1.7.4 bslib_0.3.0
[33] compiler_4.1.2 pillar_1.6.2 jsonlite_1.7.2 httpuv_1.6.3
[37] pkgconfig_2.0.3