About ClimateZones.net
Climate identification is an interesting and practical thing in itself, but as a branch of learning it is still not well-defined. This is indicated in the first place by the many classification models to choose from, each having its own guidelines, specified uses, and resultant set of climate names. This tends to suggest that the real nature of the subject has never been quite pinpointed, and also helps to explain why the subject has never been able to achieve any kind of popular standing. In the material to follow we aim to address this situation in some detail and present yet another way to classify climates—hopefully one to be seen by the reader as a most agreeable and useful alternative or at least as a definite step forward in the subject.
The modern subject can be conveniently dated to Wladimir Koppen’s 1918 classification model, known for its popularizing perspective as well as its often-questionable results. Koppen himself struggled to improve this model throughout his life, as did his colleague Rudolf Geiger thereafter. In the meantime, more sophisticated models also began to appear. These too, however, must have had some significant shortcomings of their own since the standing of the Koppen classifications seems to have been hardly affected at all. Given its comparatively widespread usage, we could say that in many ways the subject has hardly progressed beyond its initial stage of development.
Without any single, convincing model to work with, the Koppen system has thus remained the major de facto model of the subject. As such, it is mostly recognized in advance that it has a lot of issues with accuracy, but is not too hard to work with and makes for a familiar reference. There are of course other models to choose from. However, using another model means that a whole new set of guidelines will have to be learned and carefully tested—the question being raised here is whether it will be worth the effort or will we end up simply exchanging one set of pros and cons for another. At the end of the day there is nothing about this situation that speaks well to the overall state of the subject matter, which, apart from generalities, has yet to reach a consensus on too much of anything. It is not at all the case that advances haven’t occurred within the subject since Koppen, however, but mostly that these are scattered here and there where their real significance is not necessarily apparent, or in any case that these cannot be incorporated into the Koppen model owing to the incompatibility between formats.
The model presented herein will show us that climate classification is indeed very practical by nature and can even be said to be people-friendly as far as subjects go. As demonstrated in the list of locations on the home page, the numbers represent climatic distances; the climate names or life zones, likewise, although in certain cases the effects of summer seasonality will name the climate in question. In short, basic climate classification as presented herein is actually quite simple and ready to be put to immediate use. The climate names and distances show us in practical terms how the world’s climates relate to one another, to the environment, everyday life, and so on. Of course, every model has its own outlook and puts forth its own solutions with regard to these or other items of interest. The particular effectiveness of this model is made possible by starting out with a shorthand of the most basic climate data. For that reason alone it will have a very wide range of uses and yet can be easily “absorbed” by the average person. Additionally, and for that same reason, it allows the subject to be gradually introduced into public education beginning with grade school since the background data, although open to certain improvements, is not open to interpretation per se and its derivative shorthand formulations will only require simple math.
Isn’t every model effectively a shorthand of climate data? Mostly yes. The Koppen model uses a letter-based shorthand but these do not represent any consistent numerical order nor do they have any well-defined functions separate and apart from providing the supposed identity of the climate in a particular location. Similarly the Holdridge life zones, although these generally follow a numerically consistent order. In cases like these, the methodology is somehow indefinite to begin with; hence, once the name of the climate is determined, that’s pretty much the end of the matter. In contrast, when the “background details” are definite things in themselves, they bring life to the subject and will be at least as useful as the name of the climate itself, indeed, even more so depending on one’s purpose. Without such details, the viability of the system being referenced is lacking confirmation and becomes entirely abstract.
The structure of our model is mostly outlined on the home page and will be discussed in greater detail under the section “climate classification” along with a comparison of other climate models. By comparing models we not only have a way of testing the viability of our own model, but also of investigating the subject matter much more thoroughly. The investigation is necessarily a very limited one given that the subject has very many arrangements and opinions and only a fraction of these could be examined in any detail. Nevertheless, even on this limited scale a lot can be gathered regarding its nature, its general course of development, etc., not to mention the individual models themselves, that is, how they contribute to the subject as a whole as well to our own model specifically—an insight, a methodology, etc. A limited manner of investigation, yes, but hopefully to be seen as enough to present the most basic aspects of climate classification.