There was a study a few years ago, which comes very close to explicitly stating an existential risk for at least the majority of the human population on Earth, if global-mean warming exceeds 11-12 deg. C. The authors argue, if global-mean warming reaches and exceeds this magnitude the parts of the planet where the majority of the human population lives will likely become uninhabitable for humans. The wet-bulb temperature will exceed a threshold value of about 35 deg. C in these regions, i.e., it will become too hot and too humid for humans. Conditions like this would induce hyperthermia in humans (and other mammals), since the heat produced by the human body can't dissipate. According to the authors, a larger area of the planet would be affected by this for such a warming magnitude than the area affected by sea-level rise.

Steven C. Sherwood and Matthew Huber, An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress, PNAS, 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913352107

I doubt that you will find any papers stating that global climate change poses any risk to human civilization, let alone extinction.  Climate change is not that dangerous.  It may cause 10,000's - millions of deaths due to crop failures, famines, and the spread of disease, but not billions.  To wipe out the human race it would take a surprise visit from an asteroid  between 10 km - 50 km in size. Even then, I'd gives humans even odds of surviving.

The current global climate change does not have a potential to cause human extinction. Past severe climate changes were critical for many ancient civilizations, yet our existence proofs that they were not potent enough to cause entire termination of the humankind. The projected changes, even in the worst case scenarios, can cause many dramatic  local changes. Fore example, change in rainfall patterns in agricultural countries may lead to possible famine and other dramatic events. However, any imaginable climate changes based on modern climate science can not generate existential risks for the entire human civilization. In my view, a paper predicting such a catastrophe in any foreseeable future, at least on the time scale of human civilization, that is, thousands of years, has no chance of being published in any serious research journal.

Hansen, James. Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity. London: Bloomsbury Paperbacks, 2011.   Lovelock, James. The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back and How We Can Still Save Humanity. Paperback / softcover edition. London: Penguin, 2007.   Lynas, Mark. Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet. London: Harper Perennial, 2008.

Since Wally Broecker published his article "What If the Conveyor Were to Shut Down? Reflections on a Possible Outcome of the Great Global Experiment" in 1999, as far as I know there have been no papers produced warning of climate catastrophe.

http://acces.ens-lyon.fr/acces/terre/paleo/systemclim/gulf-stream/images-gulf-stream/fichiers-telechargement/Broecker1999.pdf

The reason for that is that scientist are conservative and don't like to be told they are alarmist, and as Dan writes they would have "no chance of being published in any serious research journal."

However they can get their books published, e.g.

Alastair is right. A number of books that predicted different degree of catastrophic climate-related disasters were indeed published, and some are quite interesting to read. I am not sure if all or some of them predict total extermination of humankind, but I guess the question was if there are peer-reviewed research papers predicting imminent extinction of humans caused by climate change. The answer regarding the peer-reviewed papers is still no -- there are no such papers, at least to my knowledge.

Thank for your responses.

Yes, climate scientists are conservative - some evidence and explanation is here (1).

There is no controversy that we are already experiencing one of greatest extinctions ever (2).

Global climate change can trigger further mass extinction.

http://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2007/mass-extinction/

It was even stated that current extinction could become the greatest of all (3).

Several papers link current trends to (carbon release driven) Permian extinction (4) (5) (6).

Lets connect the dots! To me this evidence is sufficient to state that Homo sapiens is at risk of extinction. Considering changes in East Siberian Arctic Shelf, the risk is already high and increasing every year.

I am just and wondering: Would humans survive K-T extinction? Maybe. Would humans survive P-Tr extinction? No way. Although we are quite adaptable, K-species mammals with big body size have a little chance to survive such severe extinctions. We might shrink to cat size to resist extreme climatic conditions, but how can we adapt to breathing H2S and to increased UV radiation?

1. Brysse K, Oreskes N, O’Reilly J, Oppenheimer M. Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Glob Environ Change [Internet]. nor 2013 [cited May 27, 2014];23(1):327–37. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001215

2. Barnosky AD, Matzke N, Tomiya S, Wogan GOU, Swartz B, Quental TB, et al. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature [Internet]. March 3, 2011 [cited March 24, 2013];471(7336):51–7. Retrieved from: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature09678

3. Şengör AMC, Atayman S, Özeren S. A scale of greatness and causal classification of mass extinctions: Implications for mechanisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci [Internet]. September 16, 2008 [cited November 7, 2014];105(37):13736–40. Retrieved from: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/37/13736

4. Payne JL, Clapham ME. End-Permian Mass Extinction in the Oceans: An Ancient Analog for the Twenty-First Century? Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci [Internet]. 2012 [cited October 4, 2014];40(1):89–111. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105329

5. Burgess SD, Bowring S, Shen S. High-precision timeline for Earth’s most severe extinction. Proc Natl Acad Sci [Internet]. April 3, 2014 [cited October 4, 2014];111(9):3316–21. Retrieved from: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3316

6. Benton MJ, Twitchett RJ. How to kill (almost) all life: the end-Permian extinction event. Trends Ecol Evol [Internet]. ervenec 2003 [cited November 7, 2014];18(7):358–65. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534703000934

Thomas,

the paper referred to in your ref. (2) is here:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1630/47.short

It has been cited 97 times according to Google Scholar, but most of these citations refer to past events not future ones.

Jim Hansen has a Ted Talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWInyaMWBY8

and a list of his pubs. is here http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/presentations.shtml

As I see it, the problem is that scientists refuse to accept that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is possible. This makes it inevitable! No action will be taken until the public fear the future and this requires scientists to spell out what could and already is happening. At the current atmospheric level of CO2, the Arctic sea-ice and the Greenland ice sheet are already melting. Both will accelerate because of positive feed-backs even if we stabilize CO2 at today's levels. A 7 m rise from Greenland will destabilize the West Antarctic ice shelf adding another 4 m to sea level rise. The land area of the planet will decrease at a time when the population is increasing. Moreover, loss of these ice sheets will decrease planetary albedo leading to even higher temperatures, expanding deserts and more intense rainfall in the regions which do not become arid. We can see this happening already in California and Texas, with heavier precipitation in other regions of the USA, and the same is happening world wide. 

We can see how the public respond to attempts to curb emissions. Both the Australian Labour Party and the Obama's Democrats have been thrown out of power by electorates who resent the effects of those measures.  IPCC reports aimed at "policy makers" is a waste of time if the electorate won't support them. Until scientists accept that catastrophe is inevitable with BAU, then their warnings will not be clear enough to persuade the public that action is imperative.

My paper comes fairly close, though it had to be toned down to be acceptable: Charlesworth M & Okereke C (2010) Policy responses to rapid climate change: An epistemological critique of dominant approaches, Global Environ. Change, 20:121-129, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.09.001. I can imagine that climate change on its own could cause human extinction if one tipping point being crossed caused a succession of others to be crossed in short succession which possible and likely though not inevitably an existential risk. For me a more likely existential risk is tipping points in multiple systems in the biosphere being crossed in short succession because of inertia in the Earth System. I still suspect that small numbers of humans could just about scratch an existence. The Earth System is sufficiently complex and unpredictable that if some tipping points were crossed other systems may compensate to bring things back more in line - especially if there were less humans to stress the Earth System and/or we finally lived up our name and became wise rather hedonist sapiens.

My view point is the result of 40 years studies in Soil Science, Soil Physics and Paleopedology:

The recent global warming is the last period of seven main climate phases consisting of warming and cooling stages in Holocene. It does not exceeds temperatures of earlier Holocene warm stages. The Holocene (= recent interglacial) mean temperature is by 3 Celsius below average temperature of the last (Eem) and last but one interglacial. The last interglacial was the period of existence Homo sapiens. And we were developing our life level in spite of higher temperature in Eem and in warm stages of Holocene. Assumption about Homo dominant role in recent climate change is false and means neglecting geology, paleopedology and other branches of geo-sciences. More and in detail in the book: Miroslav Kutilek and Donald R. Nielsen (2010). Facts About Global Warming. (Rational or Emotional Issue? Essays in GeoEcology). Catena Verlag GMBH, Reiskirchen, D-35447, Armelgasse 11, Germany. 2010 ISBN 978-3-923381-58-6. US ISBN 1-59326-262-0.

- I am really looking for peer-reviewed scientific papers, not for books going beyond or contradicting robust climate science.

- Thanks to Dr. Charlesworth for link to his paper – that is a very useful source.

- I have found papers linking current global changes to PETM episode:

“The PETM represents one of the best natural analogues in the geologic record to the current rise in atmospheric CO2 due to burning of fossil fuel. “ (1)

“The PETM is relevant for considering both causes and consequences of global greenhouse warming. We live now in a phase of global warming, and one concern is the threshold at which warming begins to mobilize seabed methane. Reaching this threshold would initiate the kind of runaway feedback warming that characterized the beginning of the Eocene. No one knows what the threshold is, but we know that there is one. We also know that runaway warming is possible and, probably, at that stage, uncontrollable.

What might be the consequences? One is the possible mammalian (and human?) dwarfing that might result from oxidation of methane to produce an atmosphere enriched in CO2. A 4–7°C rise in mean annual temperature would melt polar icecaps and raise sea levels substantially, flooding many densely populated parts of the world and challenging our ability to adapt agriculturally. We still do not understand why PETM warming caused extinction of benthic forams and, at the same time, resulted in the diversification of continental mammals; many consequences of PETM-like global warming are as yet simply unpredictable.” (2)

- That expression is very close to stating existential risk for humanity, but did not reach there...

“Concerns arise with the very high probabilities of continued rapid warming rates through the rest of this century and beyond. Within a few decades, we can expect the rate of global temperature change to have exceeded the norm for mammalian history, even when interval length of measurement is taken into account. As Jackson and Overpeck (2000:193) astutely noted, this will present ‘unique challenges to the biota of the planet.’ When that threshold is crossed, we predict that the 2nd-order response to climate change—extinction and dramatic geographic range changes leading to very different taxonomic compositions relative to what now exists in given localities—will accelerate rapidly.” (3)

- How can it be that all mammals are at existential risk excluding Homo sapiens? Why would a scientific journal reject a paper stating an existential risk explicitly?

1. Higgins JA, Schrag DP. Beyond methane: Towards a theory for the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Earth Planet Sci Lett [Internet]. May 30, 2006 [cited November 9, 2014];245(3–4):523–37. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X06002147

2. Gingerich PD. Environment and evolution through the Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum. Trends Ecol Evol [Internet]. May 2006 [cited November 9, 2014];21(5):246–53. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534706000930

3. Barnosky AD, Hadly EA, Bell CJ. Mammalian response to global warming on varied temporal scales. J Mammal [Internet]. May 1, 2003 [cited November 8, 2014];84(2):354–68. Retrieved from: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1644/1545-1542%282003%29084%3C0354%3AMRTGWO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

There were three major abrupt climate changes in the recent past which affected the NH, where the vast majority of humans live. There were rapid warmings at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, and at the end of the Younger Dryas stadia, and a rapid cooling at teh entry into the younger Dryas which has attracted most attention including the film "The Dy After Tomorrow."However, IMHO, a rapid warming is more likely when a tipping point in CO2 levels is passed.

There is an abstract from the last EGU conference which goes close to warning of disaster. The book referred to in the abstract,  Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change:

Anticipating Surprises (2013) ,  is here:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10136

"Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises

White, James W. C.; Alley, Richard B.; Archer, David E.; Barnosky, Anthony D.; Dunlea, Edward; Foley, Jonathan; Fu, Rong; Holland, Marika M.; Lozier, M. Susan; Schmitt, Johanna; Smith, Laurence C.; Sugihara, George; Thompson, David W. J.; Weaver, Andrew J.; Wofsy, Steven C.

EGU General Assembly 2014, held 27 April - 2 May, 2014 in Vienna, Austria, id.17028

Levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are exceeding levels recorded in the past millions of years, and thus climate is being forced beyond the range of the recent geological era. Lacking concerted action by the world's nations, it is clear that the future climate will be warmer, sea levels will rise, global rainfall patterns will change, and ecosystems will be altered. However, there is still uncertainty about how we will arrive at that future climate state. Although many projections of future climatic conditions have predicted steadily changing conditions giving the impression that communities have time to gradually adapt, the scientific community has been paying increasing attention to the possibility that at least some changes will be abrupt, perhaps crossing a threshold or "tipping point" to change so quickly that there will be little time to react. This presentation will synopsize the new US National Research Council Report, Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises, highlighting areas of increased and decreased concern, as well as areas of new concern. Emphasis is placed on not only abrupt change in physical climate, but on abrupt changes in human and natural systems that can occur as a result of a slowly changing climate. The report calls for action now on an abrupt change early warning system (ACEWS) if societies are to be resilient to climate change."

There is an earlier report here which is in a similar vein:

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA469325

No, because is a question very hard to answer from the point of view of research. In order to answer this question you need two ingredients: a model of future climate (we have this already) and a model of human extinction linked to environmental change (that we lack; we have a model of human extinction in terms of nuclear warfare, astronomical body impact, or pandemics, all of them spiced with a lot of Sci-Fi stuff). 

What you can find is an analysis of the potential collapse of our modern society as a result of climate change and other environmental factors. You can start with the essay from Jared Diamond "Collapse"

I know of a book:

A guide to the end of the Word

Bill McGuire

Oxford University Press, 2002

Thanks to Alistair McDonald for letting us know that there is a 2013 update on the 2003 NAS abrupt climate change book - I think that both can be treated as being equivalent to a peer reviewed article. For me both have too much 'faith' in science to predict the unpredictable. I have a publication coming out next year with more depth than my Global Environmental Change paper, which will raise more questions about the approach that the NAS take.

There is a related item here, in the Science mag blog

http://membercentral.aaas.org/blogs/qualia/global-hyperwarming-conversation-ed-landing

In the comments doubts are expressed about how much sea level will rise. During the Cretaceous central North America was below sea level but this Wikipedia article seems to suggest that it was due to tectonic effects, not thermal expansion of the oceans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway

Another important paper:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.12144/abstract

Quote from abstract: "Our results are striking: matching projected changes for 2100 would require rates of niche evolution that are > 10 000 times faster than rates typically observed among species..."

There was a study a few years ago, which comes very close to explicitly stating an existential risk for at least the majority of the human population on Earth, if global-mean warming exceeds 11-12 deg. C. The authors argue, if global-mean warming reaches and exceeds this magnitude the parts of the planet where the majority of the human population lives will likely become uninhabitable for humans. The wet-bulb temperature will exceed a threshold value of about 35 deg. C in these regions, i.e., it will become too hot and too humid for humans. Conditions like this would induce hyperthermia in humans (and other mammals), since the heat produced by the human body can't dissipate. According to the authors, a larger area of the planet would be affected by this for such a warming magnitude than the area affected by sea-level rise.

Steven C. Sherwood and Matthew Huber, An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress, PNAS, 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913352107

I fear my link to the Science blog is only accessible to AAAS members. However, it led me to a NewScientist article on the same subject which I think is freely available here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228392.300-hyperwarming-climate-could-turn-earths-poles-green.html?full=true#.VGiGKxZqxdM

Although it is not peer reviewed it does in turn have links to peer reviewed papers and  this meeting at the Royal Society:

https://royalsociety.org/events/2011/warm-climates/

The proceedings of the meeting were published in the Transactions of the Royal Society - a peer reviewed journal. The links to the papers, some of which are open access, are here:

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001.toc

Probably the most relevant is Hansen et al. (2012)  http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294.full

where the abstract ends::

"Burning all fossil fuels, we conclude, would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans, thus calling into question strategies that emphasize adaptation to climate change."

Jim Hansen's talk can be heard here:

http://downloads.royalsociety.org/audio/DM/DM2011-08/Hansen.mp3

What is not included in the paper is the Q&A at the end of the talk where there is a realistic (no toning down to placate the editor) discussion of how bad a state we are in now!

Thanks Dr. Perlwitz for his tip to the article "An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress".

Seeking further I found that the same issue of PNAS brought also this article: Anthony J. McMichael and Keith B. G. Dear, Climate change: Heat, health, and longer horizons, PNAS, 2010, http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9483.full

Authors commented the work of Sherwood and Huber this way:

"Climate change, ultimately, is a threat to our biological health and survival."