>>714952085We'll eat each other before that happens and it's all behind probabilities. Usually people chart to 2100, an number that fits in our heads.
The arab spring that made refugees a buzzword was 1 million people in 2011. We expect 200-millions to a billion by 2050.
Sea rise of 130 feet is something relatively easily understood by drowning monkeys (Major cities are mostly costal), but you don't need rise that high for flooding - infrastructure already needs upgrades today. It's still a possibility (I've read 30%, sometime less/more) for 2100.
Arable land will be gutted by conditions to less than half of today. What still operate would have reduced yield - crops grow at certain temperature. They grow worse the further you get. Grain is nearly half global food and would be cut by over half in a world with more people (for a while yet).
Historically, if you starve the population, they revolt. Works every time. Just this time it'd happen in countries with nukes.
Which is why people don't really chart past 2100. Also, a bunch of cascading factors (gas trapped in melting ice, ocean acidification, rainforests being unable to cope and kicking off more heating down the line) are harder estimates yet.
One way it's been put it is, life will survive. The species probably will. XBOX pass as we know it today, I wouldn't put your backlog off too much.