I don't mean that they don't show this on the charts.
I mean that they don't explain, how can it be that the modern centimeters are a disastrous event caused necessary by humans, while a (by-orders of magnitude) greater climatic changes and ocean level and global temperature changes don't need the human as The Greatest Evil and didn't cause the planet-wide devastation.
Maybe, the puny human efforts are overestimated compared to what happens besides?
In biological terms, some species had gone (mostly those ones which were requiring just a control headshot), while the human-adopted ones have spreaded around like they never could themselves.
Bisons have been replaced by greater amount of cows on the same place.
Compare the population of dogs and wolves, sheep/goat and antilopes, etc.
Compare the human population to other species.
Do you know that many 70-kg heavy species counted in billions, populating every climatic zone, and still increasing both lifespan and population?
Maybe you don't like the speaking bipedal monkeys as much as sabretooths or rhinos, but they still are a part of fauna, and are much more perfect than either of them.
So, it's anything but extinction. It's a Darwinistic optimisation.
It still looks like something comparable to the nowadays changes. And a half-thousand long.
The 500-years drought of 5600 BC was half-thousand long.
Maybe it makes sense to compare 500-year-long cycles, rather than cut out the 30 years?
***
https://www-window2baku-com.translate.goog/Caspian/caspianlevel.htm?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=nui