From a review of the economic impacts of climate change,

The impacts of climate change are many and diverse. Determining whether these impacts are beneficial or detrimental, small or large, depends on the sector, location, and time being considered. Unfortunately, a reading of the literature on the impacts of climate change (Field and Canziani 2014) is likely to leave a lay reader confused. It is very difficult to make sense of the many and different effects: crops hit by worsening drought, crops growing faster because of carbon dioxide fertilization, heat stress increasing, cold stress decreasing, sea levels rising, increasing energy demand for cooling, decreasing energy demand for heating, infectious disease spreading, species going extinct. Thus we need aggregate indicators to assess whether climate change is, on balance, a good thing or a bad thing and whether the climate problem is small or large relative to the many other problems that society faces.

A common aggregate measure economists have given is the impact of climate change on GDP by the end of the century. From a 2015 survey of climate economists,

On average, these experts predicted losses of between 5% and 10% of GDP [by 2090], though there was considerable variation. The mean and median estimates were GDP losses of 10.2% and 5.5%, respectively, with a variance of 133%.

Here I will define damage incurred by climate change as the time-integral of the difference in non-discounted value of world GDP on a path with warming-inducing emissions as a percentage of total GDP along the path without emissions.

This question asks, what will be the total damage incurred by climate change during the 21st century, as given by the definition of damage above? The resolution will be determined by a credible estimate from economists in, or after the year 2101.

Metaculus admins will determine, in consultation with the community, which estimate is most credible. In general, a robust meta-analysis which aggregates estimates from high-quality studies is the best source for resolution. Barring the availability of such a meta-analysis, a survey of experts is preferred. Barring the availability of either source, a high quality study will determine resolution. If none of these sources are available, this question resolves ambiguously.