It's far faster than what any agriculturally supported human civilization has ever adjusted to in the past.
Even if it would be correct, it would not matter. Comparison with climate changes in the past is not the appropriate one, what matters for the costs is comparison with the time scale of infrastructure investments.
The costs involved in the ameliorating infrastructure - such as setting up systems of heavy taxation on the rich without launching war in their interest - would also be unprecedented in kind (in amount they would of course be a net gain, rather than a cost).
At least the US has enough money without any need of taxation of the rich, their military budget is much higher than they would need for a serious improvement of their infrastructure.
But there is a direct and increasingly significant threat to modern industrial civilization, and a lesser but still notably significant threat to agriculture-based population levels.
No. The threats to modern industrial civilization are purely political. (Ok, climate hysteria becoming extreme can seriously harm some industrial civilizations, but not industrial civilization in itself.)
They're about equivalent to a creationist website's "arguments" addressing evolution.
From the weird stupidity of an "optimal temperature" to the notion of employing global nuclear winters to combat regional temperature spikes, probably the most important information available there is the depths of intellectual degradation - the sheer and spectacular folly - that opponents of representative government will accept in defense of private corporate power.
Namecalling is not an argument. An optimal temperature for a given technological level is a simple and well-defined concept. We can use such data like those in
https://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/greening.php as some approximation, with the rough approximation that a larger leaf area is good. Then the last decades have improved the conditions, which shows that we are yet below the optimal temperature. Then, learn to read. I do not propose to use what is named "nuclear winter", because the nuclear winter is based on different effects (large fires). And I do not propose to use some global effects to combat something local. So, this proves only your own intellectual degradation.
In the global efforts to deal with AGW, no one with that political agenda can be relied upon for even minimal sanity, let alone aid and information.
Don't worry, nobody relies upon you.
Where about are you living in Europe?
Did you hear about the latest stats for Europe's and Russia's last Winter temps?
What do you think is going to happen during your coming summer regarding max temps?
I'm not living in Europe. The max temps there will be anyway much lower than where I'm living now, so there is no reason to worry.
Russia does not have a big problem with warming, similar to Canada it will be among the winners. Some costs for infrastructure if the permafrost soil thaws, but hardly decisive in comparison with the gains in forests and agricultural land. Europe will be neutral.
