There is little need for metaphors here, the situation is easy to visualize directly. Some ecosystems will adjust, some will not and will be replaced by other ecosystems. Unless you are very attached to the particulars of the status quo why is this horrible?
Some ecosystems will be replaced by other ecosystems, but total biological and ecosystem diversity is likely not to rebound for millions of years (judging by comparable past climactic changes and mass extinction events.)
Some ecosystems are liable to collapse and be replaced by dramatically impoverished systems, not just in terms of diversity, but in terms of total biological productivity. Reef ecosystems, for instance, are extremely biologically productive, but this productivity relies on highly sophisticated recycling of limited resources between species. If certain species die out, not only does that particular ecosystem die out, it takes millions of years for the level of species mutualism necessary to sustain such a productive ecosystem to evolve again. The same is true of a number of other ecosystems (although reef systems are particularly close to the edge right now.)
When mass extinction events occur, it doesn't just result in other species immediately stepping in and adequately filling the niches that are now vacated. There's a time lag in which niches are left unfilled, or are filled by species which perform the roles in a substantially inferior way until they can adequately adapt to their niches.
total biological and ecosystem diversity is likely not to rebound for millions of years
Why are you assuming that the "total biological and ecosystem diversity" will diminish and what metric are you using for it?
Some ecosystems are liable to collapse and be replaced by dramatically impoverished systems, not just in terms of diversity, but in terms of total biological productivity.
Wouldn't the reverse also happen -- some "impoverished" systems will get replaced by highly productive ones?
Besides, is having a low-biological-productiv...
Note: Please see this post of mine for more on the project, my sources, and potential sources for bias.
I have written a couple of blog posts on my understanding of climate forecasting, climate change, and the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis (here and here). I also laid down the sources I was using to inform myself here.
I think one question that a number of readers may have had is: given my lack of knowledge (and unwillingness to undertake extensive study) of the subject, why am I investigating it at all, rather than relying on the expert consensus, as documented by the IPCC that, even if we're not sure is correct, is still the best bet humanity has for getting things right? I intend to elaborate on the reasons for taking a closer look at the matter, while still refraining from making the study of atmospheric science a full-time goal, in a future post.
Right now, I'm curious to hear how you formed your views on climate change. In particular, I'm interested in answers to questions such as these (not necessarily answers to all of them, or even to only these questions).