Verified answer

No, we shouldn't expect big changes in the Köppen mapping. Look at how much global mean temperature has changed, and you're not going to expect big changes in the Köppen formulae. Those places where mean temperatures have changed the most (the polar regions) are mostly still going to fall in the E climates. Perhaps there have been slight boundary changes between E and D, but you need the data to back up changing the borders. Since the boundaries are probably determined by climatic averages over 30 years or more, that's going to make the changes due to global warming look even smaller. I think you can see some, though. If you look at the Northwest Territories you'll see that in the earlier map the D/E split cuts across the Great Bear Lake, now it's north of there.

You also have to remember that there is no guarantee that either map is completely correct. Some of the Köppen maps are drawn from vegetation and some are drawn based on temperature and precipitation and you need to have detailed information in order to draw the maps. I knew one guy that got the US Navy to fly him around at low altitudes in a helicopter over mountain and desert regions with sparse meteorological data, so that he could make maps from vegetation, but not everyone has that luxury. Some maps are very coarse so you wouldn't see the changes anyway. To give you an estimate of how fast things are changing, the northern hemisphere jet stream is estimated to be moving northward at about 1.25 miles per year on average. Average that over a thirty year time period and with the 0.5 degree resolution in these maps and you're not going to see much change.

Where I am, in Southern California, there may be one more pixel of BSk climate along the coast, but it's really hard to tell. You're trying to tease out very small changes. It's a good thing that the climates have not changed that much.

EDIT: Cool animation Trevor, thanks!

Koppen Climates

While (as trevor states) a static image is hard to judge, I do have to wonder why you posted static images when the main page of the site you linked to already has an animation using multiyear images and projecting changes into the future.

http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/

Even if you don't agree with the future projection even the two cherry picked images show changes as others have said in Northern Russia and the African arid zone, changes that certainly suggest warming.

While you say you don't think you would see much change the two images show that expansion of warmer zones across N' Canada and N' Europe basically the entire diameter N' Hemisphere and given the global scale of these images just a few pixels is going to be in the order of 100km.

Remember, it takes thousands of years for the climate to shift. Why do you think the Ice age lasted so long?

Also, I'm pretty sure the 1901-1925 map is a rough estimate of what the climate was like back then.

Lastly, it depends on what your looking at. If your looking at Washington State, there was a noticeable shift in climate change. However, if your looking at the Sahara Desert,there wasn't any change (unless you count the Sahara Desert expanding as change). There are plenty of regions where climate changes have shifted from one "type" to another.

The fact of the matter is that the climate is changing for the worst unless we do something to get our dependence off oil, become more ecologically aware, and practice sustainable methods. Otherwise we will lose our only planet that we've ever lived on.

Worse than that. Liberals attempt to modify us of a right into a dis-shown utopia designed by nineteenth century Germans. who's sons grew to develop into Nazi's. A conservative is in part about fixing (reforming) what's broken interior the american equipment. Liberals are all about tossing the newborn with the tub water (replace) replacing one set of fixable problems with 1 equipment. For an entirely new set of issues in an all waiting discredited socialist equipment. questioning they are so reliable (more suitable than all people) they receives socialism suitable this time the following.

To save you having to overlay one image on top of another I’ve created an animation showing the difference between the two maps. I’ve used the two images you linked to, if I’d have used a more up to date image the changes would be even more dramatic.

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/4710/koppenccan...

The boundaries between every juxtaposed KCC zone around the world have changed with the exception of the EF regions (ice caps) where temperatures are still below freezing all year round (the definition of an EF).

Looking at static images makes it’s harder to identify changes, in animated format you can see that climate zones have shifted on a global scale.

I don't know enough on the subject to comment. I think I can state observations about the maps though; there seems to be a substantial shift of vegetation northwards/southwards, or in other words towards the poles. This is more notable in the northern hemisphere though - perhaps because the north has been warming at a faster rate than the south?

Anyways, you can see the expansion of the purple/magenta shades (Dfc and Dfb?) northwards in Russia and North America, as well as the in-process disappearance of what I believe to be vegetation-free land in far eastern Russia. There's also an overall expansion of the pale-colored vegetation (Aw), and expansion of Cfb in North America and Europe. BWh is expanding in Africa, Am and Af are expanding, and there seems to be a clearer distinction between the boundaries of the zones, as if they are separating and not mixing as much.

Are there maps for the 40s through 70s? I would bet that would be a looker. You caught two times that were before very major industrialization and after the recognition of the fact we need to care for our planet, respectively.

You need some better eyeballs, then... The changes that I saw were pretty dramatic but the animation that Trevor provided shows it a bit better. Maybe you're focusing on your region (which of course it typical for the AGW denial crowd).

_