I learned a new term this morning: "climate departure":
A city hits "climate departure" when the average temperature of its coolest year from then on is projected to be warmer than the average temperature of its hottest year between 1960 and 2005.
Assuming the data is right the article doesn't explain why climate departure in any particular city is a particularly worrisome thing. Of course the cities that will be hardest hit are in the equatorial regions -- they'll get even hotter than they are now. That sucks, but they're already too hot for me to want to live there. On the other hand...
Temperate cities in Europe and the United States look a bit better, but we're talking about a difference of maybe 20 years separating Western capitals from Kingston or Lagos. In the long run, 20 years is not much of a difference. The study published in Nature projects 2047 for Washington, D.C., and New York City -- just 34 years from now. Los Angeles will hit the mark the next year and San Francisco the year after. Even the best-off cities, such as Moscow and Oslo, have just 50 years before passing the milestone. That feels like a long time right now, but in historical terms it's not.
Do you think Moscow and Oslo will complain if they get warmer? I doubt it. Even aside from the cities, huge tracts of northern North America and Asia will thaw and become quite attractive.
The universe is not a static place. We humans need to continue to adapt to our planet, just as it adapts to us.