I am living in a pretty cold place and away from the shore so I don't see why I should be scared.
Migrations and property destructions will matter too. If New York gets a even bigger Sandy a few times every year, the rest of USA will too suffer economically.
Global temperatures have a long-term cycle of about 12 degrees C. We're at a peak, so indeed it seems temperatures have been going up for a while. Now it's time for them to come back down. http://ctdonath.blogspot.com/2012/02/global-climate-change-i...
Climate changes. Cope.
I'm sure your argument is that: well, on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years, you can see temperatures vary on that scale! Sure. But we are talking about anthropogenic climate change. Even the worst case scenario--which everyone agrees would be bad and people spend a whole lot of effort arguing it can't happen because of that--would barely show up on the graphs you linked.
So they're of little value, and I recommend you take them down because of how they might be construed to mislead.
Indeed we are. I put those graphs up precisely to show that the anthropogenic changes are mere noise in the natural order of climate change, regardless of scale. I contend that the dismissal of such historical context is intended to mislead.
Sure, but to the transition will take money (effort) and time. And already food supply if a finely tuned system with not much margin for error.
Even if the average temperature is the same, the amount of food you can produce can vary a lot.
Even at a relatively low population density equivalent to that of Los Angeles, you could fit the entire population of the world 3.4 times over in the contiguous United States.
Agriculture is a potential problem, but technological advances are improving the situation. If everyone switched to vastly more efficient plant-based diets, it wouldn't be a problem at all.
An LA without water is just a desert. Whatever combination of desalination, increased air conditioning, and migration ends up being done to mitigate the effects of climate change is expensive. Really expensive.
Unfortunately, many people who are loathe to interfere with the economy via the government are all too happy to decide that they know enough about Caribbean fisheries, rice paddy cultivation in Burma, and civil infrastructure in Doha to say that a government policy that will likely significantly and adversely affect all of them is fine.
I guess that if there's no war and the infrastructure is intact (just inadequate), you can do that in even less time.
Let's give an analogy: if you push a button, you have a 50% chance of losing your house. Do you do it, since "just as well, nothing might happen"? 30%?
Often, stability has a lot of value by itself.
In reality it's like 50%, nothing happens; 25%, climate becomes slightly better (why won't it?); 25%, climate becomes slightly worse. So why bother a lot now? We could be dead in dozens of fun ways even without climate change.