Climate change

>>9163279
You should probably kill yourself OP.

>1. How do we know the climate is changing faster than previous warming cycles if we didnt have reliable ways of recording those temperatures.
the problem with temperature proxy records is increases in variance. that means we might have a hard time pinning any given year down to a single average temperature, but it doesn't mean we can't examine trends. if we see global average temperatures take 100k years to move ten degrees, we dont need to know what every single individual annual measurement was to know that it took a long time
>2. Why is it that every article on google about climate change feels like the author is explaing the concept to pre school children.
because most of them are explaining the topic to an intended audience of people with no training in science whatsoever
>3. How accurate of the current models, and how do we know they are accurate. (Weather forcasters have a hard time predicting the weather a few days in advance where I live. Based on the accuracy of those models, how do we accept the accuracy of climate change models. Or are they entirely different)
the latter. the difference between climate models and weather models is something like the difference between dropping a dart out of an airplane and asking what specific square foot of ground it will hit and which state it might land in. no single model of climate is perfect, either. what scientists do is look at the output of many models each run with different inputs and assumptions about future carbon use and examine what trends the models project

>>9163289
Honestly I thought about it, but that just takes way too much effort.

>>9163279
2. Because the Fox News audience is the most important demographic to convince.
Everyone else with all their brain functions intact is already on board.

File: welcome to sci.png (304KB, 527x308px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 527x308px

1. we have reliable ways of reconstructing those temperatures.
2. because the people who think it's fake are at about that cognitive level
3. they're reasonably accurate. they tend to miss a lot of year-to-year variation, but they're pretty good when it comes to the decade-scale trends. we know this because we've had decades to test a lot of them, and they stand up fairly well.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90