Most of the 1C rise are natural, but there's no question that the world has warmed. So let's carefully examine your individual claims as to why this is frightening.
It's really hard for me to imagine a less productive place on this planet than a glacier. No food is grown there. Almost no animals or plants live there. In short, there is nothing frightening about glaciers melting and disappearing per se.
Glaciers are created mostly by snowfall. If the planet warms up and the snow becomes rain the water will still fall and it will still provide water to the people downstream. All the glacier does is slow it down. Humans do the same thing, but more efficiently, with dams. And the world is building thousands of dams. These dams also provide hydroelectricity.
(1) Malaria is not now, and never has been, a disease only of tropical climates. Here's a chart showing the regions in Europe effected by the malaria epidemic during the 1st world war (1.5 million soldiers caught the disease):
Malaria’s contribution to World War One – the unexpected adversary
Bernard J Brabin
Malaria Journal 2014, 13:497 (16 December 2014)
http://www.malariajournal.com/content/pdf/1475-2875-13-497.pdf
(1) Only a few species of mosquito carry malaria.
(2) World reduction in malaria are associated with pesticide use and improving standards of living, not changes in temperature.
Not true. Drought has been present throughout human history. For example, in the US, the worst droughts in recent memory were in the 1930s, far before CO2 reached its current high levels.
And yet, somehow, food production continues to set annual all-time records despite the fact that the amount of land under cultivation is decreasing, LOL.
Sea levels have been rising for about 300 years. They started when the climate turned at the Little Ice Age and have been rising ever since. This is all far before the present high levels of CO2.
The present level of sea level rise is about 3.3 mm/year. There are 85 years between now and 2100. If sea level continues to rise at the same rate, the increase in sea level will be about 280mm which is a little less than a foot.
Predictions that sea level rise is going to be "several meters" would require significant acceleration in sea level rise that is not seen in the modern data.
The EPA is widely quoted in the alarmist literature as saying that a sea level rise of 0.66 meters will inundate 26,000 square km of land. I haven't found the original source at the EPA. If you have figures for how many km^2 of land will be inundated by various sea level rises, do share.
But let's see how much land will be lost with those 26,000 km^2. Total land surface area of the earth is 148,940,000 km^2. So we're talking about an inundation of 0.017% over a time period of about 100 years. The land area loss will be about 0.00017% per year. The planet as a whole will hardly notice it. (This is the data from the alarmists!) And the increasing temperatures will open up vast areas now locked in permafrost. The reason we know you're pushing a political agenda is that you never mention any positive consequences of having more CO2.
LOL! I guess you didn't see the latest news from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Now they're one of your government funded alarmist strongholds so of course they give a good scary slant on it, but the news is that coral is not, in fact, dying:
Diverse Corals Persist, But Bioerosion Escalates in Palau's Low-pH Waters
News Release, Woods Hole Oceanographic, June 5, 2015
...
A new study led by scientists at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) found that the coral reefs there seem to be defying the odds, showing none of the predicted responses to low pH except for an increase in bioerosion—the physical breakdown of coral skeletons by boring organisms such as mollusks and worms. The paper is published June 5, 2015, in the journal Science Advances.
"Based on lab experiments and studies of other naturally low-pH reef systems, this is the opposite of what we expected," says lead author Hannah Barkley, a graduate student in the WHOI-MIT Joint Program in Oceanography.
Experiments measuring corals' responses to a variety of low pH conditions have shown a range of negative impacts, such as fewer varieties of corals, more algae growth, lower rates of calcium carbonate production (growth), and juvenile corals that have difficulty constructing skeletons.
"Surprisingly, in Palau where the pH is lowest, we see a coral community that hosts more species, and has greater coral cover than in the sites where pH is normal," says Anne Cohen, a coauthor on the study and Barkley's advisor at WHOI. "That's not to say the coral community is thriving because of the low pH, rather it is thriving despite the low pH, and we need to understand how."
...
http://www.whoi.edu/news-release/PalauCorals
Here. Let me share some biological facts with you and the idiots at Woods Hole. Most corals obtain the majority of their energy and nutrients from photosynthesis. As any dope smoking reefer fiend knows, a marijuana garden grows best when you provide it with a lot of CO2 (which is usually obtained by burning fossil fuels). The same thing applies to plants in the ocean. You have to be an idiot to be surprised when coral does better with high levels of CO2. Just like trees and algae, coral is made out of CO2. Increasing the CO2 levels decreases the cost of extracting it from the environment.
Extreme weather is driven by temperature differences. In a warming world, most of the warming occurs at the poles. This decreases the temperature difference between the equator and poles and consequently decreases the amount of extreme weather.
The bad science on this subject was mostly due to a few hurricanes that flooded some US cities. With weather on the news, the climate alarmists naturally tried to say that these things were a consequence of man's action. So they wrote up a series of articles on the subject.
Here's what a recent peer reviewed article says about the subject:
7000 years of paleostorm activity in the NW Mediterranean Sea in response to Holocene climate events
Sabatier, Dezileau, Colin, Briqueu, Bouchette, Martinez, Siani, Raynal and Grafenstein
Quaternary Research, Volume 77, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 1-11
A high-resolution record of paleostorm events along the French Mediterranean coast over the past 7000 years was established from a lagoonal sediment core in the Gulf of Lions. Integrating grain size, faunal analysis, clay mineralogy and geochemistry data with a chronology derived from radiocarbon dating, we recorded seven periods of increased storm activity at 6300–6100, 5650–5400, 4400–4050, 3650–3200, 2800–2600, 1950–1400 and 400–50 cal yr BP (in the Little Ice Age). In contrast, our results show that the Medieval Climate Anomaly (1150–650 cal yr BP) was characterised by low storm activity.
The evidence for high storm activity in the NW Mediterranean Sea is in agreement with the changes in coastal hydrodynamics observed over the Eastern North Atlantic and seems to correspond to Holocene cooling in the North Atlantic. Periods of low SSTs there may have led to a stronger meridional temperature gradient and a southward migration of the westerlies. We hypothesise that the increase in storm activity during Holocene cold events over the North Atlantic and Mediterranean regions was probably due to an increase in the thermal gradient that led to an enhanced lower tropospheric baroclinicity over a large Central Atlantic–European domain.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003358941100113X
