Let's see if I can readdress the OP in light of the comments by
@Bandersnatch.
It's somewhat difficult to address the notion of "consensus" because that's not part of the science of climate change.
I can find examples of the basis for a claimed "consensus" on the web - and the arguments are good - but they do not meet the criteria for citing articles on this subject in this forum.
But the key is "climate model" and it is discussed in that link I provided to "AR5".
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf
That document is kind of the "top of the tree", with citations down to another level of IPCC documents, with citations to the actual science papers.
There are important terms on page 26 ("certainty", "likely", "very likely") that are used throughout the document to describe how well the assertions are supported by the research.
I am trying to be apolitical, but I think it is safe to say that there is a consensus among working climate models that the global warming that has been observed over the past three or four decades can be explained by rising CO2 levels alone and cannot be explained without considering those rising CO2 levels. I would not conclude from that that "rising concentrations [are] the sole driver of the recent global temperature increase". In fact, methane and N2O are certainly significant contributors (see figure 1.3 in AR5). I would conclude that rising CO2 is the primary contributor. I would also not discount agricultural water usage and contrails as potential noteworthy contributors.
Here is an article that describes the contrail issue. I am not citing it to support a claim that it is right - only that it is a "potential noteworthy contributor".
https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/...ge-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/
The OP also asked if these temperature changes are significant. This is a very policy-oriented question. Why else would you ask about the significance?
The AR5 document does describe projected consequences of global warming for the coming decades - and I think it does a passable job in defending those projections. But I think the reader needs to be very aware that there is a qualitative difference between a "very likely" estimate of historical trends based on collected data and a "very likely" projection based on a set of models - even though both are identified as "90-100%". Also, these are projections based on a modelling of all anthropogenic factors, not just CO2.
That said, you are more likely to find something that you consider "significant" in AR5 section 2 (projections) than in section 1. For example, the summary at the start of section 2 reads "Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise.".
Section 2.3 gets into "impacts", for example:
Climate change over the 21st century is projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources in most dry subtropical regions (robust evidence, high agreement), intensifying competition for water among sectors (limited evidence, medium agreement). In presently dry regions, the frequency of droughts will likely increase by the end of the 21st century under RCP8.5 (medium confidence). In contrast, water resources are projected to increase at high latitudes (robust evidence, high agreement). The interaction of increased temperature; increased sediment, nutrient and pollutant loadings from heavy rainfall; increased concentrations of pollutants during droughts; and disruption of treatment facilities during floods will reduce raw water quality and pose risks to drinking water quality (medium evidence, high agreement).
But I agree, nothing suggests that humanity will go extinct. Civilization collapsus or regression, is a possibility but not extinction.