I'm still struck by the rhetoric around "climate change". Both sides (and there are sides which in itself is odd to me) engage in hyperbole and massive exaggeration of what will happen. "We" really don't KNOW for sure. The models can only be based on what happened up until now. The single variable impact of increasing CO2 levels on mean temperature is very small. The rest is "feedback", things like less ice cover meaning a lower albedo and warming, etc. There are a LOT of variables at play, which is why we have 5 or 6 major models, all predicting roughly the same end result, but using rather different parameters to get there, and those parameters get adjusted to better fit what has happened over the last century.
And it's difficult to measure mean global temperatures. The satellite readings apparently are not useful. Ideally, one would have a weather station every 100 miles or so outside "heat islands" and collect the data, but we never have had that. We get adjustments to readings for heat island effects, because most weather reports are from urban areas. Nobody really knows how much heat the oceans are sucking up because a very very small change in temperature there would be an enormous amount of heat.
And then there of course is the practicable matter that there isn't much we can do but reduce projected changes by tenths of a degree, at best. China and India won't be helping that obviously. The US might reduce any increase by a tenth or so with GREAT effort and expense. It doesn't look good if the models are close to being right.
