Clim Dyn (2016) 46:2749–2757
DOI 10.1007/s00382-015-2727-6
Deficiencies in the simulation of the geographic distribution
of climate types by global climate models
Xianliang Zhang1 · Xiaodong Yan2
Received: 23 April 2014 / Accepted: 22 June 2015 / Published online: 8 July 2015
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Abstract The performances of General Circulation Mod-
els (GCMs) when checked with conventional methods (i.e.
correlation, bias, root-mean-square error) can only be eval-
uated for each variable individually. The geographic distri-
bution of climate type in GCM simulations, which reflects
the spatial attributes of models and is related closely to
the terrestrial biosphere, has not yet been evaluated. Thus,
whether the geographic distribution of climate types was
well simulated by GCMs was evaluated in this study for
nine GCMs. The results showed that large areas of climate
zones classified by the GCMs were allocated incorrectly
when compared to the basic climate zones established by
observed data. The percentages of wrong areas covered
approximately 30–50 % of the total land area for most
models. In addition, the temporal shift in the distribution of
climate zones according to the GCMs was found to be inac-
curate. Not only were the locations of shifts poorly simu-
lated, but also the areas of shift in climate zones. Overall,
the geographic distribution of climate types was not simu-
lated well by the GCMs, nor was the temporal shift in the
distribution of climate zones. Thus, a new method on how
to evaluate the simulated distribution of climate types for
GCMs was provided in this study.
* Xianliang Zhang
zhangxianliang@syau.edu.cn
* Xiaodong Yan
yxd@bnu.edu.cn
1 statistics; namely, correlation, bias, and root-mean-square
College of Forestry, Shenyang Agriculture University,
Shenyang 110086, China
2 tion evaluates the association between observed data and
State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes
and Resource Ecology, Beijing Normal University,
Beijing 100087, China
Keywords Model evaluation · Spatial distribution ·
GCMs · Regional climate pattern
1 Introduction
A General Circulation Model (GCM) is a mathematical
model of the general circulation that is established based
on equations that describe the physics of the conserva-
tion of mass, energy and momentum (Hansen et al. 1983).
Due to their solid physics-based foundations, GCMs are
widely accepted as a useful tool to apply in weather fore-
casting, understanding the climate system, and projecting
climate change (Räisänen 2007). GCMs have evolved and
improved into the currently used coupled atmosphere-
ocean GCMs (AOGCMs) (Taylor et al. 2012). Using a
number of AOGCMs, historical climate change from 1850
to 2005 and the future climate change under different sce-
narios have been simulated (IPCC AR5 2013). The simu-
lated results are important for understanding the climate
variability of the past and for predicting changes in the
future. However, there are more than 40 AOGCMs cur-
rently used to simulate the world’s climate, each with its
own strengths and weaknesses. The skill of these models
in simulating present-day and past climate changes affects
their reliability in future predictions (Whetton et al. 2007;
Reichler and Kim 2008; Reifen and Toumi 2009). There-
fore, the performance of each AOGCM should be evaluated
before using it to predict future climate changes.
In general, model performance is measured by three
error (RMSE) (Gates et al. 1999; Taylor 2001). Correla-
model simulations, while bias and RMSE indicate the dis-
tances between observed and simulated data. However,
13
2750
model performance can only be evaluated for single vari-
ables individually (Gates et al. 1999; Pincus et al. 2008;
Reichler and Kim 2008). Thus, the spatial distribution of
climate could be reflected by the distribution of model
mean bias or the RMSE for climate variables (Reichler
and Kim 2008; Knutti and Sedlacek 2013). These methods,
however, cannot evaluate model performance with respect
to the geographic distribution of climate types, which is an
indicator of regional climate characteristics. For instance,
whether or not a model correctly represents the location of
arid climate zones could not be evaluated using the above-
mentioned statistics. The successful simulation of the dis-
tribution of climate zones by climate models is crucial to
test model predictions of the future distribution of climate
zones. Future shifts in the distribution of climate zones can
be predicted using model simulations under different sce-
narios, and it is not only important for climate research (De
Castro et al. 2007; Kim et al. 2008; Feng et al. 2012; Hanf
et al. 2012), but also for other disciplines, such as agricul-
ture (Papadakis 1975; Cramer and Solomon 1993) and ter-
restrial ecology (Duchesne and Magnan 1997). Given the
importance of temporal shifts in the distribution of climate
types in related areas, it is clear that an accurate representa-
tion of the geographic distribution of climate types is cru-
cial to both climate and bio-climatic research.
The geographic distribution of climate types can be
obtained by a climate classification process (Kottek et al.
2006; Mahlstein and Knutti 2010). Generally, the Koeppen
classification method and its subsequent revisions are the
most widely used approaches to classify the climate of the
world (Guetter and Kutzbach 1990; Fraedrich et al. 2001;
Beck et al. 2005; Peel et al. 2007; Baker et al. 2010). The
errors in model simulations have been evaluated using the
Koeppen climate classification (Gnanadesikan and Stouffer
2006). The biases of threshold values can be reflected by
the Koeppen climate classification method because the
boundaries are defined by threshold values. Thus, Koep-
pen climate classification has advantages in evaluating the
spatial distribution of model bias, as many models produce
a cold bias in most grid cells of the world (Cordero and
Forster 2006). However, classifying regions with similar
climate characteristics to the same climate zone is difficult
to achieve based on the climate zones used in the Koeppen
climate classification method. As pointed out by Gnana-
desikan and Stouffer (2006), the more recently developed
schemes should instead be used to investigate these issues.
As an alternative approach, the K-means cluster method is
an effective method that can classify multiple variables to
a certain number of climate zones (Mahlstein and Knutti
2010; Zhang and Yan 2014a, b). Regions with similar cli-
mate attributes can be classified to one climate zone. The
K-means cluster method is thus suitable for detecting the
geographic distribution of climate types.
13
X. Zhang, X. Yan
Climate zones, as a representation of the spatial distri-
bution of regional climate patterns, were classified in the
present study based on observational data and model simu-
lations. Model performance in terms of the spatial attrib-
utes of climate was then evaluated by comparing the dis-
tribution of climate zones obtained by the models with
that obtained from the observational data. Models showing
better performance could then be used to predict the dis-
tribution of climate zones in the future with greater confi-
dence. Accordingly, the main goals of this study were to (a)
evaluate model performances in terms of their representa-
tion of the geographic distribution of climate types using
climate classification; and (b) investigate whether temporal
shifts in climate zones could be detected using the model
simulations.
2 Data and method
2.1 Climate data
Global monthly mean temperature and precipitation data
simulated by nine AOGCMs (BCC-CSM1-1, CAN-ESM2,
CNRM-CM5, GISS-E2-H, INMCM4, IPSL-CM5A-LR,
MIROC-ESM, MPI-ESM-P and NOR-ESM1-M) from
1901 to 2005 were retrieved from the CMIP5 website
(http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/about_ipcc.php). Detailed
descriptions of the models and their data can be found
on the website. The monthly observed mean temperature
and precipitation data over land (excluding the Antarctic)
were obtained from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) TS
3.0 dataset (www.cru.uea.ac.uk). The resolution of the
observed data is 1° × 1°, so the model simulations were
interpolated to the same resolution using a bilinear method
and masked with the observed data.
2.2 K‑means cluster method
The K-means cluster method is an unsupervised method
widely used in cluster analysis to classify multivariable
data into a given number of clusters. Generally, there are
four steps involved in the K-means method. First, K cen-
troids are randomly selected as the initial centroids for K
groups. Second, each point in the dataset is assigned to its
nearest centroid, so the dataset is allocated to K groups.
Third, the centroid in every group is recalculated and
assigned as a new centroid. Then, the K new centroids are
obtained. Finally, steps 2 and 3 are repeated until the cen-
troids no longer move. More details of the K-means algo-
rithm can be found in Zhang and Yan (2014a).
The initial centroids used in the K-means method have a
significant influence on the location of climate zones. The
initial centroids were generated using the observed climate
Deficiencies in the simulation of the geographic distribution of climate types by global…
data and used as the initial centroids in the classification
for every GCM. However, the initial centroids did not influ-
ence the final results. The boundaries of climate zones were
only sensitive to the bias in temperature and precipitation,
and small differences in climate variables could not affect
the classification in boundary regions significantly.
The number of clusters should be assigned prior to the
cluster analysis. Following the climate classification by the
K-means method in Zhang and Yan (2014a), the number of
clusters was assigned to 14 in the present study. Moreover,
the influences of units should be eliminated for temperature
and precipitation. Thus, monthly temperature and precipita-
tion were standardized using the following method:
x − min(X)
Z=
max(X) − min(X)
where Z is the standard index, the scale is 0–1, X is a vari-
able, x is every value in X, max(X) is the maximum value in
X, and min(X) is the minimum value in X.
2.3 Kappa test
The observed data and model simulations were classi-
fied using the K-means method. The agreement between
the climate zones obtained using observed data and those
obtained using model-simulated data were checked using
the Kappa test. Kappa statistics were first introduced by
Cohen (1960) to measure the agreement between observ-
ers of psychological behavior. The pattern of agreement
between two climate zones could be evaluated by the
Kappa value, and was calculated as:
po − p e
Kappa =
1 − pe
Suppose i represents a climate zone for the observation and
j represents a climate zone for the model simulation. Pij is
the proportion of the total number of grids assigned to cli-
mate zones i and j. These proportions can be formed into a
square matrix. The main diagonal consists of the individual
proportions Pii of grids where both the climate zones agree.
Po is the sum of the Pii values. Pe is the expected propor-
tion of agreement for the case in which the simulation and
observations are uncorrelated.
The range of the Kappa value is −1.0 to 1.0. A value
of zero indicates that the agreement is no better than that
expected by chance, a negative value indicates less agree-
ment than would be expected by chance, and a value of 1.0
represents complete agreement. “Agreement” can be “poor
to very poor” when Kappa <0.4, while 0.40–0.55 is “fair”,
0.55–0.70 is “good”, 0.70–0.85 is “very good to excellent”,
and Kappa >0.99 is “perfect” agreement (Landis and Koch
1977; Monserud and Leemans 1992).
2751
3 Results
3.1 Advantages and disadvantages of different metrics
In order to illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of
different metrics, an example is first provided. Consider the
following temperature distributions as a function of y over
the interval (0, L):
1. T1 = 20 × cos(pi × y/L)
2. T2 = 18 × cos(pi × y/L)
3. T3 = 20 × cos(pi × y/L) − 2
4. T4 = 20 × (1 − 2* abs(y)/L)
5. T5 = 20 × (1 − 2* abs(y)/L) − 2
(1)
If we try to cluster these temperature distributions
into “warm” and “cold” regimes, we obtain the same
two clusters with the same boundary (y = L/2) for all of
these spatial distributions. If, however, we look at corre-
lations, we find that the linear ones are the same and the
sinusoids are the same; while if we look at a threshold
of 10, we obtain different amounts classified in different
clusters (T1 and T4 will form one cluster, T2 another,
and T3 and T5 a third). Using different measures, we
find:
1. RMSE: Sensitive to patterns within climate zones,
global biases; insensitive to errors at zone boundaries,
values of thresholds.
2. Correlation: Sensitive to patterns within climate zones;
insensitive to global biases and values of thresholds,
errors at zone boundaries.
(2) 3. Koeppen: Insensitive to patterns within climate zones;
sensitive to global biases, errors at zone boundaries,
value of thresholds.
4. K-means: Less sensitive to patterns within climate
zones (some sensitivity as an extreme value will
shift the boundary a little) and to mean errors at zone
boundaries; sensitive to regional bias, and picks thresh-
olds more objectively.
A major aim of the present study is to reflect the spatial
distribution of regional climate patterns. From the above
descriptions, we can see that the K-means method can clas-
sify climate types objectively and reflect the regional bias.
Besides, the K-means method carries more advantages than
the other three metrics in classifying climate types. First,
systematic bias does not affect the clustering results. All
model simulations contain a systematic bias, which can be
removed by a bias-removal method (e.g. Kharin and Zwi-
ers 2002; Acharya et al. 2013), and the anomalies of model
simulations can be obtained after the systematic bias has
13
2752
been removed. However, Koeppen classification methods
could not process the anomalies of the model simulations.
Second, the K-means method carries advantages in cluster-
ing multivariable data into several groups according to their
consistencies. The level of consistency in multivariable
data is important in climate research. For instance, in some
climate types, the temperature is low when there is a lot of
precipitation. The consistency in multivariable data could
not be reflected by the other clustering methods. Thus, the
K-means method is superior to the other methods in clus-
tering climate types and was used to classify the climate
zones in this study.
3.2 Evaluation of the distribution of climate zones
in model simulations
Climate zones, which reflect the spatial distribution of
regional climate patterns, were classified for every model
to evaluate whether the distributions of climate zones were
well simulated. The basic climate zones classified accord-
ing to observations and the climate zones classified accord-
ing to the nine models are shown in Fig. 1. The distribution
of the simulated climate zones was similar to the distri-
bution of the basic climate zones. However, the climate
types ET (tundra climate) and DF (fully humid continen-
tal climate) were classified as one climate type in models
CAN-ESM2, MIROC-ESM and MPI-ESM-P. Moreover,
certain climate types had no corresponding basic climate
zone because one basic climate type was classified into
two climate types in the model simulations. For instance,
AF (fully humid equatorial rainforest) of the basic climate
zones was classified to two climate zones in model BCC-
CSM1-1 (AF and a “New” climate zone). Moreover, the
RMSE between the centroids of the clusters from the mod-
els and the centroids of the clusters from the observation
was small (Table 1). However, differences in RMSE were
large in the clusters of some models when the “New” cli-
mate type occurred for these models.
The level of agreement between the distribution of the
modeled climate zones and the basic climate zones was
evaluated by Kappa values (Table 2). The model MPI-
ESM-P had the highest Kappa value (0.6481), suggesting
“good” agreement with the basic climate zones. “Good”
agreement was also found for the models BCC-CSM1-1,
CAN-ESM2, CNRM-CM5, GISS-E2-H and INMCM4.
The Kappa values of models IPSL-CM5A-LR, MIROC-
ESM and NOR-ESM1-M were lower than 0.55, suggesting
“fair” agreement with the basic climate zones.
The differences between the distribution of climate
zones obtained by the model simulations and the basic cli-
mate zones are shown in Fig. 2. Only the boundaries of a
few climate zones were similar to those of the basic climate
13
X. Zhang, X. Yan
zones. Moreover, large areas were classified to the wrong
climate zone for every model. The climate zone DF was
classified to a totally wrong climate zone (ET) in models
CAN-ESM2, MIROC-ESM and MPI-ESM-P. However, the
model MPI-ESM-P obtained the most similar spatial distri-
bution pattern of climate zones.
The total area classified to the wrong climate zone
was calculated (Table 2). The “wrong” areas amounted
to >50 million km2, and the percentages of wrong areas
covered approximately 30–50 % of the total land area for
most models. The areal coverage of every cluster obtained
using observations and the model simulations were also
calculated (Table 3). Large areas were classified to the
wrong climate zones for more than half of all climate
types.
3.3 Temporal shift in the distribution of climate zones
in the model simulations
The temporal shift in the distribution of climate zones
was studied by comparing the climate zones in the period
1981–2005 with those in the period 1901–1925. Those
obtained by the nine climate models were compared with
that obtained by the observational data (Fig. 3). There
was a clear temporal shift in the boundaries of climate
zones in the observation; specifically, in the boundaries
of AF and AM (equatorial monsoon climate), DF and
DW (continental climate with dry winter), BS (steppe cli-
mate) and BW (desert climate). However, these changes
were not reproduced by the models. In fact, the bounda-
ries of climate zones that did not shift in the basic cli-
mate zones, did shift in many of the model results. For
instance, a larger than observed degree of boundary shift
was simulated by the model BCC-CSM1-1. Moreover,
the area of shift was not precisely captured by the mod-
els; a larger than observed area was detected in some
models, such as BCC-CSM1-1and GISS-E2-H, while a
smaller than observed area was detected in others, such
as INMCM4. The results of model MPI-ESM-P were the
closest to observations; however, it still showed less shift
(in terms of area) than was actually the case, according
to the observed data. Overall, the shift in the spatial dis-
tribution of climate zones was not simulated well by the
models.
4 Discussion
Conventionally, model performance tends to be evaluated
with respect to a single time series, such as the regional
mean, using measures such as correlation and RMSE.
In the present study, we took a different approach to
Deficiencies in the simulation of the geographic distribution of climate types by global…
Fig. 1  Climate zones classified according to observations (CRU) and
the nine AOGCMs using the K-means method. Climate zone abbre-
viations: AF, fully humid equatorial rainforest; AM, equatorial mon-
soon climate; AW, equatorial savannah with dry winter; AS, equatorial
savannah with dry summer; BW, desert climate; BS, steppe climate;
CF, fully humid warm temperate climate; CS, warm temperate cli-
mate with dry summer; CW, warm temperate climate with dry win-
evaluating the geographic distribution of climate types by
using the K-means cluster method.
The geographic distribution of climate types was not
well simulated by the models, with large areas classified to
incorrect climate zones—a finding that is consistent with
the research of Gnanadesikan and Stouffer (2006). Possible
2753
ter; DF, fully humid continental climate; DS, continental climate with
dry summer; DW, continental climate with dry winter; ET, tundra cli-
mate; EF, frost climate. Climate zone “NEW” in the models BCC-
M1-1, CNRM-CM5, GISS-E2-H, NOR-ESM1-M, MIROC-ESM and
MPI-ESM-P was assigned because it had no corresponding basic cli-
mate zone
reasons for the climate pattern bias could be inaccuracies
in the simulation of the large-scale atmospheric circulation
and/or deficiencies in land surface modeling or in processes
associated with the hydrological cycle. The areas classi-
fied to incorrect climate zones were mainly two climate
zones classified to one climate zone, or one climate zone
13
2754 X. Zhang, X. Yan

Table 1  The root mean square error (RMSE) between the clusters from the models and the clusters from the observation, calculated based on
the standardized data to avoid the influences of units
BCC-CSM1-1 CAN-ESM2 CNRM-CM5 GISS-E2-H INMCM4 IPSL-CM5A-LR MIROC-ESM MPI-ESM-P NOR-ESM1-M Smallest
RMSE

Af 0.88 0.31 0.45 0.36 0.47 0.76 0.77 0.43 0.21 0.21
Am 0.58 0.39 0.32 0.83 0.29 – 0.64 0.42 0.20 0.20
As 0.11 0.32 0.14 0.38 0.23 0.35 0.42 0.35 0.16 0.11
Aw 0.37 0.27 0.24 0.27 0.24 0.36 0.60 0.31 0.30 0.24
BS 0.27 0.38 0.19 0.40 0.19 0.25 0.52 0.42 0.13 0.13
BW 0.19 0.25 0.15 0.18 0.42 0.20 0.48 0.25 0.17 0.15
Cs 0.35 0.28 0.26 0.50 0.21 0.31 0.22 0.31 0.17 0.17
Cw 0.45 0.27 0.34 0.51 0.15 0.31 0.28 0.45 0.17 0.17
Cf 0.58 0.39 0.61 0.40 0.28 0.44 0.78 0.63 0.18 0.18
Ds 0.28 0.08 0.19 0.29 0.14 0.39 0.25 0.31 0.28 0.14
Dw 0.27 0.17 0.21 0.31 0.15 0.17 0.32 0.35 0.34 0.17
Df 0.27 0.53 0.20 0.32 0.12 0.16 – – 0.39 0.12
ET – 0.95 – – 0.59 0.82 1.07 1.06 – 0.59
EF 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.40 0.31 0.34 0.44 0.50 0.43 0.31

Table 2  Kappa values and the area/proportion of incorrect climate Indeed, the distribution of all climate zones would have
zones (excluding the Antarctic) for the nine AOGCMs been similar between them and observations if the climate
Model Kappa value Area (million Proportion of zone DF had been properly represented. Moreover, the
km2) global land area distribution of certain climate zones was simulated well
(%) by some models. The Kappa value is a useful measure for
BCC-CSM1-1 0.5726 57.2 39.06 ranking the order of agreement between two patterns (Mon-
CAN-ESM2 0.6213 50.4 34.43 serud and Leemans 1992), and was adopted in the present
CNRM-CM5 0.5451 56.6 38.67 study to rank the performance of the models in terms of
GISS-E2-H 0.5718 58.5 39.98 their representation of the spatial distribution of climate.
INMCM4 0.5740 56.8 38.83 We recommend that the Kappa value is used more widely
IPSL-CM5A-LR 0.4455 75.4 51.48 in the future as a tool to evaluate model performance with
MIROC-ESM 0.4800 74.0 50.56 respect to spatial attributes.
MPI-ESM-P 0.6481 48.1 32.88
The temporal shift of climate zones was also not simu-
NOR-ESM1-M 0.4785 72.0 49.19
lated well by the models. The boundaries of climate zones
were inaccurately positioned, meaning the shifts of bound-
aries in the models’ results were also inaccurate. Moreo-
ver, not only were the locations of shifts poorly simulated,
classified to two climate zones. When two climate zones but also the areas of shift in climate zones. Thus, cau-
were classified to one climate zone, one of the two climate tion should be applied when using model simulations to
zones was assigned as the basic climate zone because it examine the temporal shifts in the distribution of climate
had a larger crossover of similarity with the basic climate zones. This is also true of the Koeppen climate classifica-
zone than the other. The other of the two climate zones was tion method, under which approach it has also been found
then assigned as a new climate zone, despite having simi- that the boundaries of climate zones are poorly simulated
lar climate characteristics as the basic climate zone. In the (Gnanadesikan and Stouffer 2006). Therefore, future shifts
other situation, the climate attributes of one basic climate in the distribution of climate zones under different scenar-
zone were simulated by some models as being quite simi- ios reported in the literature (Rubel and Kottek 2010; Hanf
lar to those of another basic climate zone, and so the two et al. 2012; Mahlstein et al. 2013) should also be regarded
basic climate zones were classified to one climate zone in with caution. In conclusion, the spatial distribution of
these models’ results. Among these models, CAN-ESM2 regional climate patterns cannot be simulated well by the
and MPI-ESM-P produced climate zone distribution pat- models examined in this study, nor can the temporal shift in
terns that were the most similar to the basic climate zones. the distribution of climate zones.

13
Deficiencies in the simulation of the geographic distribution of climate types by global… 2755

Fig. 2  The areas classified to incorrect climate zones by the nine AOGCMs

Table 3  Areal coverage (million km2) of every cluster from the model simulations and the observation
CRU BCC-CSM1-1 CAN-ESM2 CNRM-CM5 GISS-E2-H INMCM4 IPSL-CM5A-LR MIROC-ESM MPI-ESM-P NOR-ESM1-M

Af 9.99 3.25 6.93 4.61 8.34 8.04 5.04 6.73 4.95 9.24
Am 4.09 5.50 12.52 8.36 0.65 0.00 5.01 6.20 6.57 9.06
As 13.48 13.13 14.20 14.23 8.24 14.28 9.75 9.78 11.81 10.69
Aw 16.00 17.17 13.24 18.77 21.73 13.12 14.22 11.21 15.88 9.69
BS 12.27 14.17 9.23 12.53 14.23 16.30 14.71 8.71 13.94 16.37
BW 17.31 16.25 15.59 17.30 11.92 15.14 14.11 15.34 15.19 10.76
Cs 12.45 13.20 12.97 12.51 13.47 19.41 15.56 10.73 12.48 11.41
Cw 15.15 14.04 13.81 7.49 15.14 14.70 14.15 13.84 15.15 15.03
Cf 4.39 8.51 3.90 3.43 3.86 6.30 4.55 6.88 5.85 6.55
Ds 16.35 14.17 14.21 14.69 14.98 5.29 15.96 15.69 15.70 14.02
Dw 12.72 10.63 13.66 13.99 11.69 17.86 12.27 15.20 11.78 9.70
Df 4.45 7.42 5.13 6.65 8.76 9.67 10.39 – – 6.85
ET 5.78 – 8.52 – – 4.35 8.22 10.06 8.30 –
EF 1.97 2.59 2.46 1.24 3.57 1.92 2.44 2.86 2.38 2.88
New – 6.35 – 10.57 9.32 – – 13.15 6.38 14.11

13
2756
Fig. 3  Comparison of the temporal shift in the distribution of climate zones between the periods 1981–2005 and 1901–1925 obtained by the
nine AOGCMs (black) with that obtained by the observational data (green)
Acknowledgments This work was funded by a National Key Sci-
entific Project of China (2012CB95570000) and the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (41271066 and 41330527). The authors
acknowledge the World Climate Research Program’s Working Group
on Coupled Modeling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank
the climate modeling groups for producing and making available their
model output. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their
constructive comments.
References
Acharya N, Chattopadhyay S, Mohanty UC, Dash SK, Sahoo LN
(2013) On the bias correction of general circulation model out-
put for Indian summer monsoon. Meteorol Appl 20:349–356
Baker B, Diaz H, Hargrove W, Hoffman F (2010) Use of the Kop-
pen Trewartha climate classification to evaluate climatic refugia
in statistically derived ecoregions for the People’s Republic of
China. Clim Change 98:113–131
Beck C, Grieser J, Kottek M, Rubel F, Rudolf B (2005) Character-
izing global climate change by means of Koeppen climate clas-
sification Klimastatusbericht. Dtsch. Wetterdienst, Berlin, pp
139–149
13
X. Zhang, X. Yan
Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ
Psychol Meas 20:37–46
Cordero EC, Forster PDF (2006) Stratospheric variability and
trends in models used for the IPCC AR4. Atmos Chem Phys
6:5369–5380
Cramer WP, Solomon AM (1993) Climatic classification and future
global redistribution of agricultural land. Clim Res 3:97–110
De Castro M, Gallardo C, Jylha K, Tuomenvirta H (2007) The use of
a climate-type classification for assessing climate change effects
in Europe from an ensemble of nine regional climate models.
Clim Change 81:329–341
Duchesne J, Magnan P (1997) The use of climate classification
parameters to investigate geographical variations in the life his-
tory traits of ectotherms, with special reference to the white
sucker (Catostomus commersoni). Ecoscience 4:140–150
(Sainte-Foy)
Feng S, Ho C, Hu Q, Oglesby RJ, Jeong S, Kim B (2012) Evaluat-
ing observed and projected future climate changes for the Arctic
using the Köppen-Trewartha climate classification. Clim Dyn
38:1359–1373
Fraedrich K, Gerstengarbe FW, Werner PC (2001) Climate shifts dur-
ing the last century. Clim Change 50:405–417
Gates WL, Boyle JS, Covey C, Dease CG, Doutriaux CM, Drach
RS, Fiorino M, Gleckler PJ, Hnilo JJ, Marlais SM (1999) An
Deficiencies in the simulation of the geographic distribution of climate types by global…
overview of the results of the Atmospheric Model Intercompari-
son Project (AMIP I). Bull Am Meteorol Soc 80:29–55
Gnanadesikan A, Stouffer RJ (2006) Diagnosing atmosphere-ocean
general circulation model errors relevant to the terrestrial bio-
sphere using the Köppen climate classification. Geophys Res
Lett 33:L22701. doi:10.1029/2006GL028098
Guetter PJ, Kutzbach JE (1990) A modified Koppen classification
applied to model simulations of glacial and interglacial climates.
Clim Change 16:193–215
Hanf F, Korper J, Spangehl T, Cubasch U (2012) Shifts of climate
zones in multi-model climate change experiments using the Kop-
pen climate classification. Meteorol Z 21:111–123
Hansen J, Russell G, Rind D, Stone P, Lacis A, Lebedeff S, Ruedy
R, Travis L (1983) Efficient three-dimensional global models for
climate studies: models I and II. Mon Weather Rev 111:609–662
Kharin VV, Zwiers FW (2002) Climate predictions with multimodel
ensembles. J Climate 15:793–799
Kim H, Wang B, Ding Q, Chung I (2008) Changes in arid climate
over North China detected by the Koppen climate classification.
J Meteorol Soc Jpn 86:981–990
Knutti R, Sedláček J (2013) Robustness and uncertainties in the new
CMIP5 climate model projections. Nat Clim Change 3:369–373
Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B, Rubel F (2006) World map of
the Kppen-Geiger climate classification. Meteorol Z 15:259–263
Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement
for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174
Mahlstein I, Knutti R (2010) Regional climate change patterns identi-
fied by cluster analysis. Clim Dyn 35:587–600
Mahlstein I, Daniel JS, Solomon S (2013) Pace of shifts in climate
regions increases with global temperature. Nat Clim Change
3:739–743
Monserud RA, Leemans R (1992) Comparing global vegetation maps
with the Kappa statistic. Ecol Model 62:275–293
Papadakis J (1975) Climates of the world and their agricultural poten-
tialities. Edición Argentina, Buenos Aires, p 200
2757
Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA (2007) Updated world map of
the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci
Discuss 4:439–473
Pincus R, Batstone CP, Hofmann RJP, Taylor KE, Glecker PJ (2008)
Evaluating the present-day simulation of clouds, precipitation,
and radiation in climate models. J Geophys Res 113:D14209. doi
:10.1029/2007JD009334
Räisänen J (2007) How reliable are climate models? Tellus A 59:2–29
Reichler T, Kim J (2008) How well do coupled models simulate
today’s climate? B Am Meteorol Soc 89:303–311
Reifen C, Toumi R (2009) Climate projections: past performance no
guarantee of future skill. Geophys Res Lett 36:L13704. doi:10.1
029/2009GL038082
Rubel F, Kottek M (2010) Observed and projected climate shifts
19012100 depicted by world maps of the Koppen-Geiger climate
classification. Meteorol Z 19:135–141
Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J,
Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex B, Midgley BM (2013) Climate change
2013: the physical science basis intergovernmental panel on
climate change, working group I contribution to the IPCC fifth
assessment report (AR5). Cambridge University Press, New York
Taylor KE (2001) Summarizing multiple aspects of model perfor-
mance in a single diagram. J Geophys Res 106:7183–7192
Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5
and the experiment design. B Am Meteorol Soc 93:485–498
Whetton P, Macadam I, Bathols J, O’Grady J (2007) Assessment of
the use of current climate patterns to evaluate regional enhanced
greenhouse response patterns of climate models. Geophys Res
Lett. doi:10.1029/2007GL030025
Zhang X, Yan X (2014a) Spatiotemporal change in geographical dis-
tribution of global climate types in the context of climate warm-
ing. Clim Dyn 43:595–605
Zhang X, Yan X (2014b) Temporal change of climate zones in
China in the context of climate warming. Theor Appl Climatol
115:167–175
13