A huge swath of the planet could turn into a desert if the international community doesn’t meet the goals of the Paris climate change agreement, climate researchers claim in their newest warning about global warming.
The new report, published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, holds that an increase of 2 degrees Celsius in the Earth’s temperature by 2050 would plunge more than 25 percent of the world’s population into a perpetual state of drought and growing desertification, as reported by the Washington Examiner.
The answer, according to the researchers, is to stop the planet’s temperature from rising by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, which they say would significantly reduce the number of regions affected by the drying of the planet, or “aridification.”
“Our research predicts that aridification would emerge over about 20-30 percent of the world’s land surface by the time the global mean temperature change reaches 2 degrees Celsius,” said Manoj Joshi, lead researcher from the U.K.’s University of East Anglia. “But two-thirds of the affected regions could avoid significant aridification if warming is limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”
The University of East Anglia has been a center of activism on the issue of “global warming” for many years, repeatedly issuing reports that the earth’s temperatures are rising, and humans are to blame, and the results will be catastrophic.
Most climate scientists blame the burning of fossil fuels for causing manmade climate change. The Paris climate change accord calls for countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels to avoid a 2 degrees Celsius rise in the Earth’s temperature. However, President Trump decided in June to pull the U.S. out of this agreement, arguing it benefited China and India and put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage.
“The world has already warmed by 1 degree Celsius,” said Su-Jong Jeong, a participant in the study from China’s Southern University of Science and Technology. “But by reducing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere in order to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius or 2 degrees Celsius could reduce the likelihood of significant aridification emerging in many parts of the world.”
This study comes in the midst of a cold spell that has caused record-breaking low temperatures across most of the United States. The East coast, South, Midwest and Great Plains have all been blasted by this cold air, with daily low temperatures falling below 0 degrees Fahrenheit in many areas.
However, the new climate study claims increased drought and desertification would be most likely to impact Southern Europe, Southeast Asia, Southern Africa, Southern Australia and much of Central America. Those regions make up more than one-fifth of the world’s population, according to the study, and some of them are expected to receive money from the Paris accord’s Green Climate Fund to help them adapt to the effects of a changing climate.
Contributing countries, which include developed nations such as France, Germany and Canada, are expected to give a total of at least $120 billion each year to the green fund through 2020. This price tag was one of the major factors that spurred Trump to pull the U.S. out of the agreement.
Richard compiled a list of multiple studies from the past few years drawing the same conclusion: It’s the sun’s activities that have a huge influence on whether earth’s temperatures vary. Thirteen forecast global cooling.
Richard explained: “It has been increasingly established that low solar activity (few sunspots) and increased cloud cover (as modulated by cosmic rays) are highly associated with a cooling climate. In recent years, the earth has unfortunately left a period of very high solar activity, the Modern Grand Maximum. Periods of high solar activity correspond to multi-decadal- to centennial-scale warming.”
He said solar scientists are now increasingly forecasting a period of very low activity that will commence in the next few years, by around 2020 to 2025. The result? Cooling.
“This will lead to climate cooling, even Little Ice Age conditions.”
As U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, an expert on the politicization of “climate change,” has pointed out, “for more than 100 years, journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age.”
In fact, over the last century America’s major media have predicted an impending global climate crisis four different times – each prediction warning that entire countries would be wiped out or that lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.” In 1895, the panic was over an imminent ice age. Later, in the late 1920s, when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, the media jumped on a new threat – global warming, which continued into the late 1950s. Then in 1975, the New York Times’ headline blared, “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.” Then in 1981 it was back to global warming, with the Times quoting seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”
Today, to cover all their bases, much of the press has changed its terminology from “global warming” to “climate change” or “climate catastrophe.” That way they’re covered either way.
WND reported in 2017 when Al Gore used the extreme results of “Superstorm Sandy” to support his contention that sea waters are rising significantly.
The claim is in the sequel to his 2006 movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
The original movie wasn’t without controversy, as a judge in the United Kingdom said it could be shown to schools only if they alert students to nine statements “that are not supported by current mainstream scientific consensus.”
Now promotions for “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” include what critics say is yet another misstatement by Gore.
According to the Media Research Center’s Newsbusters, Gore claims in his films that the flooding caused by Superstorm Sandy at the site of the Twin Towers memorial in New York City is a fulfillment of his prediction in his original movie that a rise in the ocean level would flood the site.
But that isn’t what happened.
In his 2006 film, he said, illustrated by an animation, “If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida.”
Then he showed animations of what he believed would happen to San Francisco, the Netherlands, Beijing and other places.
Turning to Manhattan, he said, “This is what would happen to Manhattan; they can measure this precisely.”
The animation shows water reaching the 9/11 memorial.
But Newsbusters argued Gore has twisted his original words to make it appear his prediction about Manhattan came true.
In a newly released clip from the movie, he said: “Ten years ago when the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ came out, the single most criticized scene was an animated scene showing that the combination of sea level rise and storm surge would put the ocean water into the 9/11 memorial site, which was then under construction. And people said, ‘That’s ridiculous. What a terrible exaggeration.'”
The movie then shows news footage of Superstorm Sandy water reaching the memorial site.
Newsbusters pointed out the original prediction “was not about extenuating circumstances of a storm like Sandy slamming into New York or any ‘storm surge’ at all.”
“It was about the sea level rise that would be generated as (he predicted) ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica escalated dramatically.”
The report noted the latest maps show that Greenland still has ice 11 years after Gore’s prediction of catastrophic melt.
Gore also told an audience in 2009, for example, that “the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”
He also predicted increasing temperatures would cause Earth’s oceans to rise by 20 feet, a claim many scientists say is utterly without rational basis.
Just last month President Trump announced Monday a new national security strategy for the United States, focusing on protecting the homeland and the American way of life, promoting American prosperity, preserving peace through strength and advancing the influence of America.
There was hardly a whisper about climate change, which had become a focal point for President Obama.
Obama once told Coast Guard personnel “climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to national security.”
“We need to act and we need to act now,” he declared. “Isn’t that the true hallmark of leadership. When you’re on deck, you stay vigilant, you plan for every contingency. If you see storm clouds gathering … you don’t sit back and do nothing. You take action. Anything less is negligence. It is a dereliction of duty.
“So, too, with climate change,” he continued. “Denying it or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security.”
Trump, however, referenced climate change only briefly, when he said, climate policies “will continue to shape the global energy system.”
“U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests,” he said. “Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty.”