Main Article Content
Earth’s climate changes rapidly due to the increases in human demands and rapid economic growth. These changes will affect the entire biosphere, mostly in negative ways. Predicting future changes will put us in a better position to minimize their catastrophic effects and to understand how humans can cope with the new changes beforehand. In this research, previous global climate data set observations from 1961-1990 have been used to predict the future climate change scenario for 2010-2039. The data were processed with Idrisi Andes software and the final Köppen-Geiger map was created with ArcGIS software. Based on Köppen climate classification, it was found that areas of Equator, Arid Steppes, and Snow will decrease by 3.9 %, 2.96%, and 0.09%, respectively. While the areas of Warm Temperature and Dessert will increase by 4.5% and 0.75%, respectively. The results of this study provide useful information on future climate Köppen-Geiger maps and areas that will most likely be affected by climate change in the following decades
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Tapiador FJ, Moreno R, Navarro A, Sánchez JL, García-Ortega E. Climate classifications from regional and global climate models: Performances for present climate estimates and expected changes in the future at high spatial resolution. Atmos Res. 2019; 228(1):107-121. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2019.05.022
Köppen W, Grundriß der Klimakunde. De Gruyter, Walter de Gruyter. Berlin, Germany 1931; p. 388 doi: 10.1515/9783111667751
Beck HE, Zimmermann NE, McVicar TR, Vergopolan N, Berg A, Wood EF. Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution. Sci. Data. 2018; 5(1), Art. no. 180214. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2018.214.
Gallardo C, Gil V, Hagel E, Tejeda C, de Castro M. Assessment of climate change in Europe from an ensemble of regional climate models by the use of Köppen–Trewartha classification. Int J Climatol. 2013; 33(9): 2157–2166. doi: 10.1002/joc.3580.
Sparovek G, De Jong Van Lier Q, Dourado Neto D. Computer assisted Koeppen climate classification: a case study for Brazil. Int J Climatol. 2007; 27(2): 257–266. doi: 10.1002/joc.1384.
Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B, Rubel F. World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Metz. 2006; 15(3): 259–263. doi: 10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130.
Lohmann U, Sausen R, Bengtsson L, Cubasch U, Perlwitz J, Roeckner E. The Köppen climate classification as a diagnostic tool for general circulation models. Clim. Res. 1993; 3(3): 177–193.
Folland CK, Karl TR, Jim Salinger M. Observed climate variability and change. Weather. 2002; 57(8):269–278. doi: 10.1256/004316502320517353.
Bechtel B. A New Global Climatology of Annual Land Surface Temperature. Remote Sens. 2015; 7(3) Art. no. 3. doi: 10.3390/rs70302850.
Portmann RW, Solomon S, Hegerl GC. Spatial and seasonal patterns in climate change, temperatures, and precipitation across the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009; 106(18): 7324–7329. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0808533106.
Baker B, Diaz H, Hargrove W, Hoffman F. Use of the Köppen–Trewartha climate classification to evaluate climatic refugia in statistically derived ecoregions for the People’s Republic of China. Clim Change. 2010; 98(1): 113. doi: 10.1007/s10584-009-9622-2.
Woolway RI, Merchant CJ. Worldwide alteration of lake mixing regimes in response to climate change. Nat Geosci. 2019; 12(4): 271-276. doi: 10.1038/s41561-019-0322-x.
Nistor MM, Mîndrescu M. Climate change effect on groundwater resources in Emilia-Romagna region: An improved assessment through NISTOR-CEGW method. Quat Int. 2019; 504(10): 214–228. doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2017.11.018.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Towards New Scenarios for Analysis of Emissions, Climate Change, Impacts, and Response Strategies; IPCC Expert Meeting Report: Geneva: IPCC, Switzerland, 2008.
Han G, Ma Z, Long Z, Perrie W, Chassé J. Climate Change on Newfoundland and Labrador Shelves: Results From a Regional Downscaled Ocean and Sea-Ice Model Under an A1B Forcing Scenario 2011–2069. Atmos.-Ocean. 2019; 57(1):3–17. doi: 10.1080/07055900.2017.1417110.
Hansford MR, Plink-Björklund P, Jones ER. Global quantitative analyses of river discharge variability and hydrograph shape with respect to climate types. Earth-Sci Rev. 2020; 200(1). 102977. doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102977.
Kushnir Y, Scaife AA, Arritt R, Balsamo G, Boer G, Doblas-Reyes F, et al. Towards operational predictions of the near-term climate. Nat Clim. Change. 2019; 9(2):94–101. doi: 1038/s41558-018-0359-7
Her Y, Yoo SH, Cho J, Hwang S, Jeong J, Seong C. Uncertainty in hydrological analysis of climate change: multi-parameter vs. multi-GCM ensemble predictions. Sci Rep. 2019; 21; 9(1):1-22. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-41334-7
Johannessen OM, Bengtsson L, Miles MW, Kuzmina SI, Semenov VA, Alekseev GV, et al. Arctic climate change: observed and modelled temperature and sea-ice variability. Tellus A. 2004; 56(4):328–341, doi: 10.3402/tellusa. v56i4.14418.
Friesen TM, Finkelstein SA, Medeiros AS. Climate variability of the Common Era (AD 1–2000) in the eastern North American Arctic: Impacts on human migrations. Quat Int. 2020; 549 (30):142–154, doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2019.06.002.
Change, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis: summary for policymakers. Geneva: Geneva: IPCC, 2007.