But it doesn't and won't. E.g. the sea level may creep up slowly, and then all of a sudden you get a giant flood or hurricane that makes a huge portion of the coast unlivable.

And regardless, if you think moving a third of humanity to vastly different lands will be hunky dory smooth sailing, you should study history.

Not just that, but the places we currently grow our food have been primed to fertility over thousands of years of relatively stable climates. If many of those areas become substantially less useful for growing crops (because of storms, temperature changes, drought, whatever have you), it's foolish to assume that we will see just as many places that haven't had millennia of vegetation growing on them become fertile.

We've known about it for over 50 years and have done basically nothing. Why would you expect another 100 to matter?

US CO2 per capita is down 1/3 from peak. Europe is way down. China is peaking out. It's a start.

Much of this decrease in CO2 per capita in 1st world countries is just because we have outsourced much of our CO2 production to 3rd world countries

This is the graph that counts, and there is no discernible improvement in the curve: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_me...

That depends. Migrations and wars are the responses we can expect if its not handled in an organized way.

Yes, and we should start responding.

Sea level has to actually start rising enough that the rich folks who live waterfront are affected and then we will see some geoengineering efforts or at the very least some solid seawalls.

I'm waiting for someone to figure out how to use solar + hotter temperatures + seawater to give us desalinated water

You say that, but its effecting Florida now and they're still just denying AGW

Hundreds of years starting in 1800s gives us until about 2100. 80 years will be within our childrens lifetimes for us millennials.