I agree that the first 40 years decline may be off. We have climatic events that will affect the population from the decades of reduced temperatures. If we assume the Little Ice Age (LIA) is approximately the severity of temperature decline, then we have some numbers to look at. Global populations numbers from the Population Reference Bureau for 1600, the approximate start of the LIA, is 660 million. The number for 1650, the approximate end of the LIA, is 500 million. The decline was from crop failures, famine, disease and the extra warfare for resources. This puts the 50 year decline at 24%. Your decline for 40 years is 48%. If we assume the temperature drop from the smoke is more severe over the central US, as models do seem to show, then your numbers seem good.
But there is a problem with such a comparison. In the 1600s, the majority of the population was engaged in the growing of food. In the late 20th and early 21st century, that task is now taken on by specialist we call farmers that move their products vast distances to feed people. Plus the seeds largely are F1 hybrid for many crops, which do not produce good yields when you try to reseed them, further reducing crop yields.
With most of the arable land too cool for a proper growing season, seeds that produce a less viable and less predictable product, a specialist class that can only overcome part of the problems growing crops and you probably have an extremely high rate of starvation and increased violence to horde or acquire preserved stocks, somehow I feel that the population decline over the first 40 years should be closer to 60% with a most of that happening in the first 15 year.
|