Without getting into the science and the differences between weather and climate there are major issues with interpreting 1.5 degrees C as the ending of the world or falling off some precipice that means more tragedy than was already expected. There is no doubt that the current human-induced global change is going to kill people. There is no-doubt that it already has. There is no doubt that temperatures will continue to rise even if we shut off the carbon faucet completely 10 years ago (not arguing that we shouldn't now) but the world is not ending if we don't either.
The temperature regime humans evolved in is over and we need to adapt. There is no going back and there is no stopping what has already been done (again that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop fossil fuel usage etc.) Atmospheric Carbon and its relationship to global temperatures, weather, ocean circulation is not a perfect 1 to 1 relationship, and a completely ice free earth is not necessarily uninhabitable. A lot of places where we now live would be, but it will still be a livable planet. That being said, the people that get to exist in that world whenever it happens (and that's much further than 10 years out) are the people who have enough privilege to do so. Those who can afford to do so. There will be climate refugees, not just in far off island nations, but here in the U.S. as well. The most vulnerable people will pay a much steeper price.
I just think the notion that the world is ending is a very dangerous way to put it because it suggests there is only one path forward. There isn't. Plus the scare tactic titles of those articles imply that global warming hasn't already been destructive - like there is some new evidence. It's getting warmer, we new this was going to happen. We knew it would be destructive 20 or 30 years ago and atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 440 or 450 ppm is not a surprise. The globe isn't going to decouple from fossil fuels or become carbon neutral in the next decade. The will doesn't exist and the technology doesn't exist. But through a combination of decoupling, innovation, and adaptation we will be able to exist.
We should all be concerned. We should all do our part and we should all be engaged in policies that help us to adapt and help our lives to become C-neutral, but there is no flipping a switch to shut it all down and scaring people about the future does more harm than good. Hope has to be a part of the equation if people are going to be motivated at the individual level to engage with threats that will outlive their great-grandchildren. Realism is necessary but so is hope.