As an example, we could see an end to seafood in our lifetime. It’s not outside the realm of possible - ocean acidification is one of the consequences of increased co2, and it’s already killing off shellfish. It’s unclear how far out into the food web a lack of shellfish would cascade. Ocean scientists talk about a world where the oceans are full of jellyfish and not much else. I’ve eaten jellyfish - it’s not good.
> As an example, we could see an end to seafood in our lifetime.
[citation needed]
As for your snarky “citation needed” - this is all easily googlable stuff. I’d start with understanding what “trophic collapse” means.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification's+im...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/03/...
https://medium.com/predict/the-jellyfish-apocalypse-4f77770e...
My body is ready.
> I’d start with understanding what “trophic collapse” means.
I understand what it means. What I'm asking for is a credible source that predicts how this would happen. None of your sources come close. Let's see...
> https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification's+im...
A dire revenue warning for the non-farmed shellfish industry:
"Sarah Cooley studies the socioeconomic impacts of altered oceans at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. She and other researchers project acidification could reduce U.S. shellfish harvests by as much as 25 percent over the next 50 years."
> https://medium.com/predict/the-jellyfish-apocalypse-4f77770e...
Jellyfish Apocalypse? Postponed until further notice:
"Many citations of this paper assume that she found conclusive proof that the jelly apocalypse was happening. This dangerously bad science got so out of hand that during a conference in 2011, over half the scientists in attendance said that the jelly apocalypse is happening. Mills herself was at the event, and she voted no. Since then, many scientists have gone over the data with a fine toothcomb and concluded that the data could be misinterpreted as an increase in jelly numbers. Marina Sanz-Martin was one of these scientists, and she concluded that others had manipulated the data to get funding."
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/03/...
There's no mention of the climate in this article, at all. Rather...
"The oceans are stretched, and certain fish species are approaching depletion. Leading scientists project that if we continue to fish this way, without allowing our oceans time to recover, our oceans could become virtual deserts by 2050"
A quote:
For a long time the scientific consensus was that we are causing a jelly Armageddon and that we need to stop it before our oceans’ ecosystems collapse. Scientists have suggested we change our eating habits and start fishing and eating jellies. Some even thought we should geoengineer the ocean to have more nutrients and oxygen so that the jelly’s predators could grow in number to fight off the hordes of these squishy devils. In his incredible documentary ‘Blue Planet II’, David Attenborough suggested that we should set aside a third of the world’s oceans as marine reserves, where human activity is banned, to help fish stocks recover and to rebalance the ecosystems.
So, an interesting article, but obviously alarmist.
edit: upon closer reading, they meant 17% will have to relocate eventually. "Only" 3 to 10 million internal migrants in Bangladesh over the next 40 years. Still seems pretty bad.
[1] https://www.un.org/ldc5/sites/www.un.org.ldc5/files/revised_...
But there are many other effects to expect. Wet bulb too high, temperatures too high for crops to survive (only needs to be a few days a year), droughts that destroy crops, floods that destroy crops and wash away top soil, reduction in glaciers drying up rivers that provide water to ... crops.
If you salt the earth where the majority of food for a species grows. Then you can expect a large reduction in the population of that species.