Although it is warming, I'm not sure if we can predict disaster as much as some folks want to believe. In some cases, (like here) the warming means more agricultural diversity, and more food. With larger surface area of water, there is more rain. Rising water levels for high population cities is a concern, but the Netherlands solved that problem centuries ago. I don't know. Wait and see.
It's more complex than this, and we can't build dykes around whole continents.
Q: How will today's normal sea life continue if "acidification" and warming removes the base of the food chain? How will it continue without the shorwline mangrove nurseries so many marine creatures depend on? You have to look beyond your own region.
Global warming ramifies into multifarious effects throughout the biosphere -- including your own backyard. What will happen to your Canadian forests if this nutrient poor region isn't fertilized by yearly salmon runs?; salmon that depend on fish that depend on zooplankton and phytoplankton that warming and acidification would kill? For that matter, consider the atmospheric changes if the tropical forest belt and pelagic phytoplankton -- "lungs of the planet" -- are disrupted. "More food" won't help you if you can't breathe.
There's also the politics to consider. The billions of people inhabiting the tropics are not going to calmly sit down and die when (as) their regions become uninhabitable. Look at the geopolitical effects of the Arab Spring -- initiated by a regional drought. All of Europe is moving to the Right, putting up fences and becoming more militant -- because of a small drought in the middle East.
The biosphere is a World Wide, interactive, Web; a Rube Goldberg. A small change anywhere can ramify into big changes everywhere.
People don't do rapid change well. More specialized life forms do still worse.
There's a reason people are talking about the Sixth Extinction.
