DMSP F-17 and F-18 satellites have a story to tell, are we listening?

[PB666]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36303046

As everyone here is probably aware 2016 has really broken temperature records for just about every month this year.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2016/05/10/climate-spiral-rising-global-temperatures/84185746/

but the real problem is not this, the arctic this year is melting at an unprecidented rate, and we run into the basic problem that sea ice is thinner than it has ever been.

https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/arctic-sets-yet-another-record-low-maximum-extent

The models are conflicted at present.

Quote

“The Arctic is in crisis. Year by year, it’s slipping into a new state, and it’s hard to see how that won’t have an effect on weather throughout the Northern Hemisphere,” said Ted Scambos, NSIDC lead scientist.

This is not an exaggeration, Ice most quickly erodes from the bering sea inward, as of yet is has never eroded the all the ice around Greenland. This year could be exceptional.

One model suggest climate oscillation in the arctic, year one year with markedly different climate conditions. Another risk is that the buffering effect of ice on Greenland is lost and Greenland begins a highly accelerated melting.

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

 

 

[YNM]

So, when will the water rise by 5 meters ? That'd cause quite a sight and a relief that people realize what's happening.

[PB666]

33 minutes ago, YNM said:

So, when will the water rise by 5 meters ? That'd cause quite a sight and a relief that people realize what's happening.

It is a concern for arctic ecology, for example 5 years of warming trend puts alot of trees at stress due to the survival of pests through winter, again sea Ice is the abode of polar bears and seals, not the fluffy snow from a season of heavy snow, but year over year ice. The arctic is rather important for the climate of Canada and North Eastern US, such events can cause freekish winter weather, a few years of unprecedented warm (insect problems, crop failures, depleted reservoirs) followed by years of unprecedented snowfall and icestorms (power failures, road closures, airport closures). This year for example there are the Albertan Ft. McMurry fires which have suffered from unusually warm dry air this year. Fires this early that far north are very unusual, of course year in and year out unusual things will happen, but this happened during a year of extremely unusual high temperatures in that region of North America, with extremely high temperatures averaging across the world. This may, in the grand scheme of things, be how prairies begin, the removal of trees by fire, the culturing of soils by fire resistent plants. So if there is an increased fire tendency across the NW N. America, the consequence is the alteration of the ecology.

[YNM]

Yeah, but proponents of melting polar ice have cited increased arable-ness of the far north to be a great thing, and also the opening of northern passage.

That's why increasing sea level would be the only thing to break their mind.

[PB666]

8 hours ago, YNM said:

Yeah, but proponents of melting polar ice have cited increased arable-ness of the far north to be a great thing, and also the opening of northern passage.

That's why increasing sea level would be the only thing to break their mind.

You mean northwest passage for a couple of weeks every other year. The growing season in the arctic can never be more than half a year, but which year, the one with 8 feet of snow or the one with a  horrific drought.. 

Btw, even a half meter of water would not be a welcome site in some areas . . . . Miami, west galveston, I woukd add cameroon louisiana, but is already underwater. 

[Darnok]

Tell Chinese and Arabs about this, they are "building" lots of islands that will be underwater when this ice melts

[PB666]

Before that everyone else will pay the price

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/16/climate-change-puts-13bn-people-and-158tn-at-risk-says-world-bank?utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=384b6804a0-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-384b6804a0-303423917

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-36299541

Edited May 17, 2016 by PB666

[Scotius]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene

In a nutshell. Medium temperature was 2,5 degree (Celsius) higher than now. There was no ice in Arctic. Water level was higher. LIFE THRIVED! There were snakes and lizards living in freaking Greenland, and continents were covered in thick, lush forests. Biodensity was highest since the golden age of dinosaurs.

And if you want to toot "Climate is changing! We are all DOOMED!" horn, may i remind you that Homo sapiens survived freaking Ice Age just fine? Having only stone tools and leather garments at his disposal. In my humble opinion, 7 billions of fairly well educated humans with global communication means and access to nuclear energy sources will do just fine too.

[PB666]

7 minutes ago, Scotius said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene

In a nutshell. Medium temperature was 2,5 degree (Celsius) higher than now. There was no ice in Arctic. Water level was higher. LIFE THRIVED! There were snakes and lizards living in freaking Greenland, and continents were covered in thick, lush forests. Biodensity was highest since the golden age of dinosaurs.

And if you want to toot "Climate is changing! We are all DOOMED!" horn, may i remind you that Homo sapiens survived freaking Ice Age just fine? Having only stone tools and leather garments at his disposal. In my humble opinion, 7 billions of fairly well educated humans with global communication means and access to nuclear energy sources will do just fine too.

During the eocene we were a species that wanted to be the king of the mountain, we own the mountain now, so change in the status quo does not favor us, it favors snakes desert plants and green lush things, kelp growing on submarine buildings. 

BTW, catastrophic damage to 1 billion homes is not doom to homo sapiens, unless of course you live in one of those homes, then your words burn ears. 

Have you studied the habitation patterns of northwestern Europe during the last ice age, Even a wolvering might have found normany a challenge at the LGM to Younger dryas. The period was characterized by highly episodic and repeated changes of climate, from almost normal europe like temperatures to periods best characterized by superarctic cold and dry. 

[Nibb31]

27 minutes ago, Scotius said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene

In a nutshell. Medium temperature was 2,5 degree (Celsius) higher than now. There was no ice in Arctic. Water level was higher. LIFE THRIVED! There were snakes and lizards living in freaking Greenland, and continents were covered in thick, lush forests. Biodensity was highest since the golden age of dinosaurs.

During the Eocene, there were no humans modifying the environment with chemicals and domestication. Biodiversity is at its lowest now because we are killing off any species that doesn't provide a direct economical interest. There are very few ecological niches where biodiversity still has a place to thrive.

Quote

And if you want to toot "Climate is changing! We are all DOOMED!" horn, may i remind you that Homo sapiens survived freaking Ice Age just fine? Having only stone tools and leather garments at his disposal. In my humble opinion, 7 billions of fairly well educated humans with global communication means and access to nuclear energy sources will do just fine too.

Vast areas becoming uninhabitable and running low on resources while others become fertile will only exacerbate the blating imbalances between poor and rich countries. Some areas will be fine, while others will see billions of people die or forced to leave their homes. It will create unavoidable political and economical tension, shortages, droughts, destruction, famine, massive immigration. Those symptomes are extremely likely to translate directly or indirectly into invasions and wars. 

Nobody claims that we won't survive as a species. It's not the direct threat of climate change that threatens our existence, especially in rich countries. It's the social and political instability caused by its consequences.

During the Ice Age, the world's population of humans was probably only a few million. As you say, biodiversity was much higher than it is today, so it was easier for life in general to adapt (because it was easier to find crops or animals that were fit for the new conditions). If our population has to be culled to 2 billion instead of 7 to get through the crisis, it's not going to be pretty. We will certainly adapt, but it will definitely be brutal. 

Edited May 17, 2016 by Nibb31

[YNM]

Yeah, we might not be that doomed. We handle fast changes, sure.

But it kills everything else in the process.

That being said, facing the Ice Age would be different with facing the Heat Age. Getting rid of clothes ?

@ PB666 what's normany and wolvering ?

[PB666]

1 minute ago, YNM said:

Yeah, we might not be that doomed. We handle fast changes, sure.

But it kills everything else in the process.

That being said, facing the Ice Age would be different with facing the Heat Age. Getting rid of clothes ?

@ PB666 what's normany and wolvering ?

Its IPAD engrish. 

[Darnok]

17 minutes ago, PB666 said:

During the eocene we were a species that wanted to be the king of the mountain, we own the mountain now, so change in the status quo does not favor us, it favors snakes desert plants and green lush things, kelp growing on submarine buildings. 

BTW, catastrophic damage to 1 billion homes is not doom to homo sapiens, unless of course you live in one of those homes, then your words burn ears. 

 

Evolution... all we can do is to adapt, we should invest money into adaptation process not into "fighting against forces of nature".

Some places will become less habitable for us, but other will get better. On some spots farming will be impossible, on other farms will produce more crops than they do today. It is natural process, environment is changing so every healthy organism should try to adapt, some people are not healthy or just stupid thinking that money can change natural process. Are we going back to dark ages when making sacrifice with animals would cure plague?

Of course this change leads to problems on country level... since countries that currently have lots of habitable space and lots of farm-lands will try to avoid being dominated by other countries, that incoming change would help grow.

About economy, if we put money on fighting against nature instead of developing new technologies, expanding and adaptation we are going to lose. We have limited amount of money and limited amount of time, so it is either fast progress and little more pollutions in short time OR slow progress, little pollutions over long time (with growing population this is not going to end well).

We shouldn't limit developing countries, we should help them develop faster, even if it means more pollution over short time, because more highly developed countries means more competition in race for new technologies. And this will lead to faster progress in science and search for new energy sources.

Of course this would lead to losing high position by developed countries, so they are trying to "sell agreements" for how fast you can develop and they are using "climate change tax" for that.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Darnok

[Nibb31]

11 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Evolution... all we can do is to adapt, we should invest money into adaptation process not into "fighting against forces of nature".

Unfortunately, as a species, we are not very good at dealing rapidly with changes that are not imminent. Climate change is a lot like the infamous frog in boiling water. It's easier for us to deal with an imminent catastrophe than a major change that is going to have dire consequences in 20 or 30 years.

What can we do?

1. Get the UN to agree to move the entire population of Africa to Canada, Greenland, and Siberia ? Good luck with that.
2. Convince people to abandon their coastal cities and homes and build new ones inland? Who is going to pay for that?
3. Work to reduce emissions so that we can buy a bit more time to handle 1 and 2? That's pretty much all we can do really.

Quote

We shouldn't limit developing countries, we should help them develop faster, even if it means more pollution over short time, because more highly developed countries means more competition in race for new technologies. And this will lead to faster progress in science and search for new energy sources.

Maybe. But does technological progress advance faster than pollution? At want point do the social/political/economical symptoms of climate change prevent us from investing in scientific research? What if we don't find new energy sources before we run out of our current cheap ones? Are you sure that it's a race we can win? 

Edited May 17, 2016 by Nibb31

[Darnok]

3 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Unfortunately, as a species, we are not very good at dealing rapidly with changes that are not imminent. Climate change is a lot like the infamous frog in boiling water. It's easier for us to deal with an imminent catastrophe than a major change that is going to have dire consequences in 20 or 30 years.

What can we do?

1. Get the UN to agree to move the entire population of Africa to Canada, Greenland, and Siberia ? Good luck with that.
2. Convince people to abandon their coastal cities and homes and build new ones inland? Who is going to pay for that?
3. Work to reduce emissions so that we can buy a bit more time to handle 1 and 2? That's pretty much all we can do really.

 

1. Some organization are trying to harm independent countries refusing to pay "climate tax", so no, we shouldn't go this way. Each country should do whatever its people wants to do, if one wants to try to reduce emissions that is fine, but if other wouldn't want to do that... that is those people right to do what they want on their land.

2. Educate them about adaptation and natural processes, instead of "pay money - it will be good" education we have today.

3. No, that is not all we can do. And no, we are not reducing emissions since population is growing and it is population of poor people.

 

3 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Maybe. But does technological progress advance faster than pollution? At want point do the social/political/economical symptoms of climate change prevent us from investing in scientific research? What if we don't find new energy sources before we run out of our current cheap ones? Are you sure that it's a race we can win? 

It doesn't matter what advance faster, once we jump to next level of energy sources and industry we are going to clean it up. One thing you can be sure, the more money you spend on emissions reduction the less money you have for science, space exploration and development.

We as species must expand our territory to survive, just like any leaving organism we know does the same. Species that were unable to expand were replaced.

 

[PB666]

7 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Unfortunately, as a species, we are not very good at dealing rapidly with changes that are not imminent. Climate change is a lot like the infamous frog in boiling water. It's easier for us to deal with an imminent catastrophe than a major change that is going to have dire consequences in 20 or 30 years.

What can we do?

1. Get the UN to agree to move the entire population of Africa to Canada, Greenland, and Siberia ? Good luck with that.
2. Convince people to abandon their coastal cities and homes and build new ones inland? Who is going to pay for that?
3. Work to reduce emissions so that we can buy a bit more time to handle 1 and 2? That's pretty much all we can do really.

Maybe. But does technological progress advance faster than pollution? At want point do the social/political/economical symptoms of climate change prevent us from investing in scientific research? What if we don't find new energy sources before we run out of our current cheap ones? Are you sure that it's a race we can win? 

Well china uses alot of coal to energize the production of solar panels.

The easiest solution is to conserve, it also makes economic sense. And impliment carbon reducing technologies make sense. IMHO, dirty coal use in a mature economy is senseless and cost more than its worth, but it required in the steel industry, so even that policy has its bounds. 

I dont want to discuss carbon reduction, i think recognizing that orchestrated remediation will differentiate the successors versus the failures. 

Sea level rise is not just about ice melt, its often more about thermoclines, surface salinity and surface tempertures in the tropics. If you live in the Solomon Islands you are much more familiar with this than ice water flowing into the atlantic. We have another set of satellites that are tracking this. 

http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/lsa/SeaLevelRise/

TOPEX, Jason-1 and Jason-2 have tracked sea level rise in the northern Solomon islands of almost a foot since 1993. The average is about  8 cm. 

 

 

[WinkAllKerb'']

might be, 'again', the difference between year 2016 and 46 ,again, 'sigh' ... anyway calendar transition are always a matter ...

but well i ll stick to 46 not 2016 old warmongering legacy and related mess and ugly olds habits from tribes fightting tribes next for women, money, and teritory , reproduced over generations
...
wich make me enjoy a lot earth photography from the iss

#OvumGenocideWolrdFirst
#SpermatozoidSpreadWorldFirst
#Wµhman
#LotOfBooksAndStorieMixedTogetherForTheBestNotTheCrap

this post include, politics, religion, sex, but that's fact to date up, feel free to delete. Don't whine afterward if you do ...

Edited May 17, 2016 by WinkAllKerb''

[Nibb31]

31 minutes ago, Darnok said:

1. Some organization are trying to harm independent countries refusing to pay "climate tax", so no, we shouldn't go this way. Each country should do whatever its people wants to do, if one wants to try to reduce emissions that is fine, but if other wouldn't want to do that... that is those people right to do what they want on their land.

Which is pretty much why we are screwed.

Quote

2. Educate them about adaptation and natural processes, instead of "pay money - it will be good" education we have today.

Good luck with that.

Quote

3. No, that is not all we can do. And no, we are not reducing emissions since population is growing and it is population of poor people.

Populations of poor people with smartphones and motor vehicles, who (understandably) aspire to the same standard of living as in North America and Europe.

Quote

It doesn't matter what advance faster, once we jump to next level of energy sources and industry we are going to clean it up. One thing you can be sure, the more money you spend on emissions reduction the less money you have for science, space exploration and development.

But it's not a question of "once we jump". It's a matter of "if". We have been working on fusion for decades. Since the 1950's, it has always been "only 20 years away", but we haven't got it to produce any practical power yet. So, if we run out of cheap oil before we can build a fusion (or whatever) powered economy, we are SOL. One of those things is happening faster than the other. It's a race that we are already losing.

Spending money on reducing emissions is spending money on not burning stuff, which actually is spending money on alternative energy. So not only it buys us time, but it also lays the foundations of an economy based on diversified energy.

Dunno what space exploration has to do with it. Going to Mars is not going to save our backsides.

Quote

We as species must expand our territory to survive, just like any leaving organism we know does the same. Species that were unable to expand were replaced.

We already have plenty of room to expand. It's not the territory that's the problem here. It's about our incapacity to adapt to a changing environment (which is illustrated by our disagreements on the matter). The crisis is inevitable because we are changing the environment faster than we can adapt.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Nibb31

[cantab]

1 hour ago, Scotius said:

In a nutshell. Medium temperature was 2,5 degree (Celsius) higher than now. There was no ice in Arctic. Water level was higher. LIFE THRIVED!

And the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was also a time of mass extinctions, ocean basins devoid of oxygen, increased erosion on land, shifts in ocean currents and consequently local and regional climate, and sea level rise and consequent flooding of coastal areas.

The end result is of less concern than the transition. And just because "life" might do well, doesn't mean it's the life we care about - humans, crops, livestock, and other species of economic importance.

And the rate of CO2 rise during the PETM was far slower than it is today.

[Darnok]

1 hour ago, PB666 said:

Well china uses alot of coal to energize the production of solar panels.

 

China also burns lots of coal to power up US industry located in China.

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

Which is pretty much why we are screwed.
 

Explain please.

 

Quote

Good luck with that.

If education can't help them, that means they are too stupid to understand nature... so just let natural selection do its job. Also we still have 1-2 generations, so some people should change their minds during education, but we have to tell them now.

 

Quote

Populations of poor people with smartphones and motor vehicles, who (understandably) aspire to the same standard of living as in North America and Europe.

Everyone deserves to have same things. Why developed countries like US, UK, France or Germany were allowed to burn more coal in past and do not pay for that in "climate tax", but today developing countries has to pay? That is not fair.

The way how things are taxed should be more fair. People should pay taxes for what they own, not how much they earn per month. This would change their way of thinking and they wouldn't use many useless devices that use power (burn coal).

Countries should pay tax for how much they consume natural resources, not for emissions during production, because production is progress and consumption over some limit is harmful.

 

Quote

But it's not a question of "once we jump". It's a matter of "if". We have been working on fusion for decades. Since the 1950's, it has always been "only 20 years away", but we haven't got it to produce any practical power yet. So, if we run out of cheap oil before we can build a fusion (or whatever) powered economy, we are SOL. One of those things is happening faster than the other. It's a race that we are already losing.

 

Well yes, but how many countries were trying to invent fusion reactors? Two, three? Once "climate change tax" economical limits would be gone, more countries would try to invent it.

Now you can't have fusion, since some countries main income is from exporting natural resources like oil or coal. And those countries are using their position in negotiations, which is slowing down new technologies, by cutting down investments in that sector.
Imagine what would happen if German fusion reactor would work today? In next 10-15 years half of Europe would buy less oil, gas and coal from Russia... what would lead to economical collapse of Russian market, since 60-70% of their export is from those resources.
You have to consider such dependencies when it comes to "why we still don't have X technology?" question.

It is only matter of time, so I would say when, not if.

 

Quote

Spending money on reducing emissions is spending money on not burning stuff, which actually is spending money on alternative energy. So not only it buys us time, but it also lays the foundations of an economy based on diversified energy.

Not really, if alternative energy sources would be so profitable we wouldn't had to pay for them extra money from taxes. And if those technologies are not profitable means we are wasting money on things that are slowing down our economy. Since spending money in stupid ways that will not return the investment costs... is slowing down our progress.

 

Quote

Dunno what space exploration has to do with it. Going to Mars is not going to save our backsides.

We already have plenty of room to expand. It's not the territory that's the problem here. It's about our incapacity to adapt to a changing environment (which is illustrated by our disagreements on the matter). The crisis is inevitable because we are changing the environment faster than we can adapt.

So why cities have so limited space? Why we have to build so high? Lots of lands belongs to very rich people and they want to keep it that way?

Crisis is inevitable, because rich people wants their profits on same or even higher level than they have now. Which means even if we would have fusion today, they would have to tax us with something... like drinkable water? or air? In western economical model society can't have free air, free water and free energy at same time. Because that would lead us, common people, to be able to produce whatever we want to in amounts that would satisfy our needs... so we wouldn't need corporations any more. That is why we are going to have free, or at least super cheap, energy once we start to pay new taxes for water or air.

 

Edited May 17, 2016 by Darnok

[PB666]

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

It doesn't matter what advance faster, once we jump to next level of energy sources and industry we are going to clean it up. One thing you can be sure, the more money you spend on emissions reduction the less money you have for science, space exploration and development.

We as species must expand our territory to survive, just like any leaving organism we know does the same. Species that were unable to expand were replaced.

From this weeks news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-aad46fca-734a-45f9-8721-61404cc12a39

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36311845

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36299778

Technology is driving the poor to the parts of the country with the least resources to support expanding populations. As a consequence vital resources are being taxed to the limit and poisoned.

Overpopulation, technological misuse and misdirection, climate change, global warming . . . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/36159366

Climate change = no water when you need it, too much water when you don't. Remediation means planning for water shortages and protecting against floods. It may also include impetus to move folks from unsustainable levels in the most affected areas.

[Darnok]

5 minutes ago, PB666 said:

From this weeks news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-aad46fca-734a-45f9-8721-61404cc12a39

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36311845

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36299778

Technology is driving the poor to the parts of the country with the least resources to support expanding populations. As a consequence vital resources are being taxed to the limit and poisoned.

Overpopulation, technological misuse and misdirection, climate change, global warming . . . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/36159366

Climate change = no water when you need it, too much water when you don't. Remediation means planning for water shortages and protecting against floods. It may also include impetus to move folks from unsustainable levels in the most affected areas.

But that is not overpopulation issue, that is the problem of overcrowding. Which is caused by taking/buying lands from common people, after that those people are going to cities to search jobs, because they have no other options. Give them (each person) land and problem will be solved.

 

 

[WinkAllKerb'']

sector - before - after

sector 1 farmer - farmer with sometime locally lot of stock

sector 2 artisan - industry with most of the time evil lobbiesque exchange market tendencies

sector 3 king/emperor/queen and their court - well sector 3 a mix of really dedicated people and a large part of freakin little feodal a**hole

1700 2016 population + science and tek evolve (thks to sector 2 mostly and sector expansion consumer 3 support)

well lately sector 2 and 3 for a large part push it a bit too far

 

#socio-geopol'-psycho-science over time, ( notice it apply to large range of topics over here and the internet in general not specifically this one ...)

Edited May 17, 2016 by WinkAllKerb''

[PB666]

29 minutes ago, Darnok said:

But that is not overpopulation issue, that is the problem of overcrowding. Which is caused by taking/buying lands from common people, after that those people are going to cities to search jobs, because they have no other options. Give them (each person) land and problem will be solved.

If you confine the population to a common state or nation then it is an overpopulation issue. At least technology is driving people to the big cities were employment may be easier to find, that is a technological problem of sorts. Giving each person land does not work if that land cannot support them and if they lack the skills to exploit, and if overpopulating that land means lower fertility. Couple that to climate change and risk goes up markedly.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/asia/india-heat-wave-drought/index.html

This is not a new theory, the very first papers published on where global warming was likely to 'raise its head' in the 90s basically said, if we look at the changes of rainfall as temperatures have risen what we see is an increased unpredictability of rainfall in regions which have pre-existing high annual variation of rainfall. And pretty much to the T we have seen increased droughts and floods in those regions. This idea has held up now for 20 years, suffice it to say its a good predictor of the future and those peoples in those areas badly affected in 2016, with increased population and increasing amplitudes in the cycle and only expect risk will increase.

Flood and rain cycles don't have thirst or drown, and humans are not camels. Thus there is no systemic feedback to protect humans other than natural selection and we know how that works.

 

Edited May 17, 2016 by PB666

[Kerbart]

6 minutes ago, Darnok said:

But that is not overpopulation issue, that is the problem of overcrowding. Which is caused by taking/buying lands from common people, after that those people are going to cities to search jobs, because they have no other options. Give them (each person) land and problem will be solved.

It's not just land. Farmers don't get a fair price. And it's not that we're not willing to pay for it either. Doubling or tripling the income of farmers would have a neglible effect on what we'd pay for our Big Mac, cup of Starbucks coffee or the food in the supermarket in general. And it's not a third-world problem either.

(And yes, the cartoonist who made this cartoon did get fired “after complaints from our advertisers”)

People go to the cities because they can make more money there. That part is definitely true. And we can’t blame them for that, or expect them to stop it. But it's impossible to revert that unless the companies that control the agricultural trade are willing to reduce their profits (even if it’s just by a tiny margin).

And that brings us back to the original problem. The climate is a “tragedy of the commons” problem. If everyone made their contribution we can solve it. But if everyone made their contribution except ME, we'd still solve it, and I would make more profit.

There is good news though; life on earth will thrive, whether we solve this problem or not. So we don't need to solve the climate problem for Earth's sake. We only need to solve this problem if we want to be a part of life on this planet in the future. Hopefully that will sink in before we pass the point of no return; the future will tell us if we already did.