Not just the food chain but the natural environment as well. Animals can migrate (theoretically, if they have somewhere to migrate to), but trees that sprouted in the right climate a hundred years ago might be in the wrong climate now. And animals that depend on those forests are going to be in trouble if they aren't healthy.

When changes happen on timescales that are slower than forests and ecosystems can naturally grow and spread that's not such a problem because you at least have a mostly-stable ecosystem at any given point in time.

> You incorrectly assess the risk by ignoring the fact that it took tens of thousands of years to move those numbers.

We have no evidence of prior exiting of ice ages. Also, The sun and magnetosphere play a much larger role in earth temps than anything we do.

Higher CO2 and slight (<4C) should increase overall yields, local production will be the primary issue.

> The sun and magnetosphere play a much larger role in earth temps than anything we do

If by "earth temps" you mean contributors to global warming, no, that is not correct: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...

I mean, if the sun increases it’s energy output by 1% or 2% that would dramatically change our temperatures. Much much more than CO2..

Think of how much the earths tilt impacts weather of the seasons.

That being said, 1880 - 2020 is an almost meaningless range of time. Temperatures are seasonal and that’s only 140 data points per season. It may not even be statistically significant and our historic measurements weren’t necessarily super accurate.

We have had a lot ice melt during that timeframe (but it’s been melting for thousands of years). we are exiting an ice age, we should expect the temperatures to naturally increase. The sun could have increased output 10k years ago, but it’s taken this long for all the ice to melt.

I’m not claiming certain things such as CO2 don’t make an impact. I’m saying what you linked isn’t proof, it’s evidence. There’s still many unknowns and we can’t make absolute determinations.

For reference, I’ve worked on weather models.

Your assertions are at odds with the data and an entire field of professionals who dedicate their lives to analyzing it. What makes you think you know more than them?

I’ve implemented models for two well cited published papers. While I didn’t develop the model I implemented it. I’m familiar with those “professionals”.

These models are notoriously bad at generating predictions historically. Today, we have better modeling, BUT they rerun the models over and over again tweaking them to get the results they want. Then they don’t do corrections such as Bonferroni correction.

At the end of the day, the data isn’t there.

Finally, the funding and scientific community have a bias. Good luck trying to come out with a paper showing the community is not taking everything into account or has made a mistake.. you can only do that with new data, which takes years or decades

So I guess it's just a coincidence that the predictions about global temperature rise that the models have been making for decades are coming true? And, if anything, it's turning out that they have been too conservative in their estimates of the rate of warming?