johnhemming2 wrote:Clearly there is no consensus on die off. I don't myself think that in the short term (this century) climate change will cause masses of deaths. (masses being say 1% of the global population).
This is a fantastic bit of work which hasn't received the attention dissevered in my opinion. It's basically a literature review of climate impacts, presented in a very accessible way.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-gui ... rojections
It's a poster, an ambitious attempt to visualise a lot of pretty solid science (all published) in an approach both systematic and consistent across variables. The idea was to describe the current situation (population, food production, water stress, global trade etc...) and the end of century climate impacts on key variables (warm day temperature, area of increased/decreased flood hazard, number of days in drought, water run-off, water demand for irrigation, wheat yield, maize yield, rice yield, soybean yield).
I'm not sure how well the poster format works for this much information, but in association with detailed maps in the technical documentation, the project does provide a clear overview of our current understanding of some of physical impacts of the climate problem, with the associated population change projections.
One key take home is that much of Africa sees deterioration across the board, whilst doubling to quadrupling population
I think it's more likely than not for a 1% dieoff, 100 million people, the vast majority in Africa and Middle East, to occur in the 2nd half of the 20th C. For this to be avoided one has to have a pretty controversial view of climate impacts.
Which aspects of this work do you think are overly pessimistic?