You've presumably studied the subject in depth before deciding the consensus opinions of those who've spent their lifetimes studying the subject in detail is wrong?
unlikely, but if you were to take a huge core drill & drill a
3.2km core out of the deepest bits of the Antarctic ice sheets, then painstakingly analyse the minute air bubbles trapped in each years snow layers, you'd be able to accurately work out what the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 800,000 years ago.
Or rather you would if you were a scientist trained in that sort of thing and prepared to spend years working in Antarctica in the most extreme conditions on the planet to get this data
only to find it then dismissed by numpties on the internet who know nothing about the subject.
yes, and solar output has decreased slightly since precise satellite measurements of the total solar irradiation reaching the outer atmosphere began 35 years ago, which categorically proves that it's not the sun what dunnit. In fact the reductions in solar output mean that they've actually helped mask the impact from the increased greenhouse gas concentrations.
come again?
brief eclipses of the sun on all the planets, probably hippies will bang on about it quite a bit, then nothing much else. What were you thinking might happen?
I'd imagine many did get worried about it and rightly so, although there was nobody back then to predict it, and nothing they could do to prevent it.
It was responsible for the mass migration of a huge proportion of the human and animal population, likely caused the eventual demise of neanderthal man, led to most of northern Europe and America being uninhabitable for several millenia, then being rapidly repopulated once the ice started to thaw.
you might not, but the totality of science actually has a huge amount of data relating to the historic climate of the planet gathered from a wide variety of proxy sources.
The only reason for the process being mostly referred to as climate change as opposed to global warming is down to the perception that stemmed from the global warming name, that 'well we wouldn't mind it being a bit warmer in the UK anyway, so what's the problem'.
The name 'climate change' more accurately reflects the fact that it's not about some average level of warming across the globe, but about the huge and varied impacts this will have on all aspects of the climate all over the planet.
I've no idea what you're meaning when referring to the rest of the solar system tbh.