Only if we chose to impose such a solution.  Which would really suck if it were unnecessary. 

Mind you, the only people who would suffer a drop in wealth are those currently without much.

There is at least a possibility that mild warming would expand the amount of productive land and enable an end to hunger.

It's 'possibilities' that we're arguing about after all.

It's reddit.  As much as I enjoy browsing for interesting news or cat memes, reddit is the biggest hive mind on the internet.  There is only one correct opinion and it is that of the collective which sets about karma-lashing you into obscurity if you don't agree. 

It was  about 2 degrees warmer during the height of the Roman Empire and they weren't under water. They did get to wear togas, however.

And Ephesus was a bustling seaport then - thanks to subsequent cooling it's now ~5 miles from any water.  If only we'd had effective 'global cooling alarmists' back then, it might still be thriving.

There's always opportunity in any 'change'.  But AGW alarmists refuse to consider the possibility of any potentially beneficial/offsetting aspects of warming.

5 miles in 2000 years?

If the 'tectonics' are moving that fast we're all screwed.  You can forget about GW...with or without 'A'....

Just watched a program on the weather channel about the melting of Greenland's glacier (and glaciers everywhere)...that will cause two things: Sea level rise of one foot and decline in the amount of fresh water.

It's happening and the burning of fossil fuels is the culprit. Wouldn't advise buying land in coastal areas.

There's a video available (relating to the Tibetan Glacier) if you want to see it: http://www.weather.com/video/melting-glaciers-38749

I think you're overstating this. One meter won't make much of a difference except for extremely low-lying areas, but world-wide it won't make much of a difference.

But the melting is an unstoppable process and the real problems start a few centuries later, when the sea level rises 2 meters, then 3 meters, etcetera. The only way to stop such a process would be to remove trillions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, but I don't think people will be prepared to invest lots and lots of money just to save some houses of people who were dumb enough to live in the new coastal areas. After all, it's not like you didn't see it coming centuries in advance...

You might want to take a trip to Venice some time....the real one...not that silly bit of Vegas.

There are entire Countries that will disappear under 1 meter... but you might have to look at an Atlas some time to notice.

Arbitrary imaginations.... "I think..."....  Are you really doing so?   Much appears to be random musings peppered with links to 'stuff' found on the net.

The sole purpose seems to be to prolong this thread.   You'd be far better served educating yourself directly.

Guess it was too indirect, but my point was that any effort to preserve an idealized status quo is a fool's errand.  You're/we're up against myriad forces we don't understand and over which we have negligible influence.

It's 400ppm, that's 0.4 parts per thousand, that's 0.04 parts per hundred, so that's 0.04% isn't it ?

And how does 2 meters in 2,000 years even come close to (worst case scenario of) 1 meter in 100 years?

It's probably going to be 1 meter, because the rate of CO2 production/year will only increase in the coming century, and the oceans still have a lot of catching up to do with China's huge CO2 input of the last decade.

I'm not even sure if it's really 2 meters in the last 2,000 years, this plot shows 0 meters, and about 2 meters in the last 6,000 years.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Sea_Level.png

It seems that you do not know science.  Denialist is not a scientific or even a descriptive term.  It is a pejorative term used by those lacking a scientific background to end a debate because they do not know how to debate the issue.  The root of the pejorative comes from the Holocaust deniers.  Skeptics do not deny science.  They in fact are using science to question hysterical and unsubstantiated claims.  But since those claims cannot be substantiated, the non-scientists then resort to terms like denialists.

If you want to discuss the science, that is fine.  If you want to get into name calling, that is your prerogative.  But it is not science.

I don't get why otherwise intelligent people think it is intelligent to use senseless insults instead of debating the issue.  Denialist is not descriptive nor is it scientific.  It is pure hysterics.  But that is just me