What, me worry?

OK, I was looking at the Koppen Geiger climate maps and discovered that the “fox is in the henhouse” there too, as they are busily ‘updating’ them based on the latest from the ClimateGate Gang. (So save your good copies while you can before they start re-writing history too…. that seems to be the usual next step for the climate modeler mania folks).

There is an interesting animation of the future vision at this link along with down loadable pdf files for various time ranges:

From: http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/shifts.htm#movies

Observed and projected climate shifts 1901-2100 depicted by world maps of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification
Abstract

In a previous paper we presented an update of the highly referenced climate classification map, that of Wladimir Köppen, which was published for the first time in 1900 and updated in its latest version by Rudolf Geiger in 1961. This updated world map of Köppen-Geiger climate classification was based on temperature and precipitation observations for the period 1951-2000. Here, we present a series of digital world maps for the extended period 1901-2100 to depict global trends in observed climate and projected climate change scenarios. World maps for the observational period 1901-2002 are based on recent data sets from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC) at the German Weather Service. World maps for the period 2003-2100 are based on ensemble projections of global climate models provided by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The main results comprise an estimation of the shifts of climate zones within the 21st century by considering different IPCC scenarios. The largest shifts between the main classes of equatorial climate (A), arid climate (B), warm temperate climate (C), snow climate (D) and polar climate (E) on global land areas are estimated as 2.6 – 3.4 % (E to D), 2.2 – 4.7 % (D to C), 1.3 – 2.0 (C to B) and 2.1 – 3.2 % (C to A).

OK, decoding the letters and numbers we get:

Polar to Snow 2.6% to 3.4%
Snow to Temperate 2.2% to 4.7%
Temperate to Arid 1.3% to 2.0%
Temperate to Equatorial 2.1% to 3.2%

So we have 3.4% to 5.2% of Temperate going to something else and
we have 2.2% to 4.7% of Snow turning into Temperate.

For about a ‘wash’, but with a little added “Equatorial”… Comparing “to Temperate” of 2.2% to 4.7% and the “Temperate to Arid” of 1.3% to 2.0% it looks to me like a net gain of about 0.9% to 2.7% of nice Temperate land and / or Equatorial where you can grow most anything. And a very large net loss of Icy Polar and Snow.

I’m not seeing a problem here… We get more land of the sort we like to live in and that grows more stuff with greater biodiversity and more vacation spots.

The Maps

I’m pretty sure that as I’m doing this for educational purposes my “educational fair use” allows the use of these maps. That they come from a government institution further reinforces that academic use. (And I am a credentialed instructor at the college level).

First off, the world as it was:

Climate Map 1901 to 1925 using actual data

Climate Map 1901 to 1925 using actual data

Original Image

Then, the world as “Re-Imagined” by the ClimateGate Crew:

Climate Map 75 years further on using "Re-Imagined" model "data food product"

Climate Map 75 years further on using "Re-Imagined" model "data food product"

Original Image

You can click on the maps (or the links) to get larger versions or put them in different windows to compare them.

First off, it’s hard to really notice anything at the gross overview level. Not a really major change, IMHO. A blink comparator would help. When you look closer, you find some of the bands move at the edges.

Biggest winners I can see are Russia and Canada. Larger growing areas and better winters by a LONG shot. Southern Africa looks to gain some crop areas too. Western USA gets a MUCH larger area of “Mediterranean” climate ( Csa / Csb / Csc ) so with all the folks flooding to the West Coast for the great weather able to spread out a little, that looks like a Big Win to me.

Northern France gets more like the Mediterranean coast, so folks can spread out over more beaches in August. Scandinavia gets a nicer time of it with what looks like much milder winters. I’d even speculate (though it’s hard to read it on this map) that the UK gets nice snowless winters and can grow wine grapes… No more need to run off to France for the weather. Looks good to me. (And probably looks even better to all the folks stuck in horrid snow in the UK and Scandinavia these last two winters… ) If only it would happen. And soon, please.

All in all, looks to me like we drop some snow and ice and gain some nice places to live.

And that’s even with the outrageous fantasy numbers from the ClimateGate folks.

The present map is available here:

http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/pics/kottek_et_al_2006.gif

Koeppen Geiger 2006 data

Koeppen Geiger 2006 data

Now I wonder what would happen if the ClimateGate Model Mania folks have it “exactly wrong” and we’re entering into a “Little Ice Age” set of conditions as the “Sun driven system” folks expect? Hmmmm?

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW Science and Background and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to What, me worry?

  1. H.R. says:

    “I’m not seeing a problem here… We get more land of the sort we like to live in and that grows more stuff with greater biodiversity and more vacation spots.”

    I’m reminded of that great old quote of Mae West, “Too much of a good thing is wonderful.” Where’s the “C” in CAGW?

  2. tallbloke says:

    It’s a pity they didn’t mark the major ocean currents and atmospheric circulations on here too. Nice images though E.M. Thanks.

  3. Adrian Camp says:

    Well, pity it’s based on worthless projections, but as I suggested last week, the difference between the first and the present map is crucial, essential, necessary and sufficient to show the effect (or not) of climate change so far. I find it difficult to see a change, but in this post they are separated by the predicted nonsense map. Chiefio, can you do some kind of blink comparator? Old to now, forget the other imagined version.

  4. Adrian Camp says:

    OK, I am not completely helpless, I downloaded a blink comparator app and looked for myself. I should have known what I’d find. Just like the recent warmth, the boundary changes are where no accurate data exists. Or probably did not exist in 1901. Of course it is CRU data, and they always fill in where they don’t know. Only a satellite would work. I still think this is crucial, and I am still not aware of any place where the climate has actually changed in a demonstrable way in the 20th-21st centuries, except because of land-use change.

  5. E.M.Smith says:

    If you have a pointer to that blink app I’d love to use it in the future…

  6. Adrian Camp says:

    I got it from here: http://www.softsea.com/review/Blink-Comparator.html

    No endorsement other than to say it worked for me for the two images I tried. It did not seem to be well-behaved on my version of windows, but then it is from 2004. I don’t know if it would produce something to imbed here, but I’m sure something else would. You seem to be too busy piling on the posts to do that right now?

  7. tallbloke says:

    Any free animated gif program will do the job.

Comments are closed.