lots of different ways.
one is ice cores. ice ((( bergs ))) basically keep a history within the ice. If you dig out a rod of ice that goes down 500 ft, you can look at what the ice contains and make A GUESS as to the climate x number of years ago.
smarter people track solar activity to determine climate shift.
but ultimately, the wizards don't know for certain. they mostly just extrapolate and jerk themselves off
Neither one makes sense
>but ultimately, the wizards don't know for certain. they mostly just extrapolate and jerk themselves off
AT LAST A GRANULE OF TRUTH
There is a difference between knowledge and belief and further still is the difference between tested data and 'agreed upon phenomenon"
Here is a good example: "You must wear the mask, because EVERYONE KNOWS.... abc xyz..."
Dont ask for stats, dont ask at all, just comply or be browbeaten with unknowable quotations.
How old the ice is that you’re sampling is also a GUESS. Almost every “scientific fact” is based on an assumption that was never proven and can never be.
An example is, the distance from earth to the sun. Calculating this depends on knowing the size of the sun, which they can’t, by calculating something based on the size of Venus, which they also can’t prove or know. It’s all built on a house of cards little of which is based on observation.
Just because you're too ignorant or stupid to know how a figure is derived doesn't invalidate that figure, it invalidates your education.
The implication being that you totally understand all of these things and can independently prove the age of the earth, the distance of the sun, the size of Venus, etc.
Idiot.
Did you know, if just one of the axioms (assumptions) of Einstein's theory of relatively is incorrect, namely the assumption that space in unbounded, then the speed of light constant changes. In particular, the speed of light if the universe is bounded is far faster, meaning ALL of our clauclations based on parallax (distance, trigonometry) would be incorrect.
You, like many, seem to not understand that ALL of science is based on axioms. Axioms are assumptions held to be true. Hence, they are not "proven" they are simply agreed to be true.
Your below comment about using "enough math" and "navigational tools" is incorrect. These tools and the underlying mathematical principles on which they operate, are fundamentally built upon assumptions we hold to be true (like the speed of light constant) because it works well enough to help us "understand" reality.
It's not magic, it's belief.
You believe in god?
An example is, the distance from earth to the sun. Calculating this depends on knowing the size of the sun
Wut?
No it doesn't. It just requires geometry. If two people in different locations observe the location of the Sun at the same time, they can precisely calculate the distance by comparing their observations. Two lines on the same plane that aren't parallel have to intersect eventually. You can even just draw it on paper to scale and measure the distance.
they can precisely calculate the distance by comparing their observations
You realize you didn’t explain the process, at all.
smarter people track solar activity to determine climate shift.
This channel is good. This particular video is very good.
(post is archived)