And religion can’t predict anything except by accident.

Both are estimates but the percentage tolerances normal in the natural-sciences calculations give wider error-bands the larger the value calculated.

Meteorologists can't give precise forecasts more than a few days ahead, because they are forecasting gigantic, very dynamic systems covering huge regions. They can't be expected to give to-the-hour all-correct estimates for very small areas whose local weather is affected by what are really very minor perturbations in the overall system's air-flow, pressure, humidity and temperature; further modified by ground conditions like low ranges of hills.

My county can have forecasts of frost, possibly snow, but a ridge rising to about 200m altitude on one side and the sea on the other, means my little patch of it is usually slightly warmer than that inland, over the ridge. The hills will also affect local rainfall but in different ways I don't know.

A typical Atlantic weather system is nearly 1000 miles in diameter, with fronts that are radial features, so will cover much of the British Isles in one go. For the UK, the most accurate forecasts are probably the Shipping Forecasts because these are for sea areas, over which the weather is a lot steadier over huge areas than over land with all its hills etc.

So both meterorology and palaeontology are as accurate as can be sensibly calculated, but sensible calculations always have sensible tolerances and Nature does not work to strict numbers!

There is a difference. Weather keeps happening every minute. Fossils are pretty much closed permanently.

Can model weather patterns 1000s of years ago too 😉

There are a LOT of clocks out there that we can correlate and cross reference.

[sep][sep][center]CLOCKS[/center][sep][sep]
Visit any limestone cave. Stalactites grow at a rate of about 1mm per 10 years. So a 10 meter stalactite has been growing about 100,000 years. And close examination of cross sections shows the year by year layering (where rainfall is seasonal). These stalactites can be found all over the world. The ages are corroborated by radiometric carbon dating.

Tree rings are clocks. The oldest living tree goes back about 4800 years. But wood from dead trees can contain records of volcanic events, thus extending the record back much farther.
[quote] Originally developed for climate science, the method is now an invaluable tool for archaeologists, who can track up to 13,000 years of history using tree ring chronologies for over 4,000 sites on six continents.[/quote]The ages are corroborated by radiometric carbon dating (establishing age by measuring ratios of radioactive vs stable isotopes).

Seasonal snowfall on glaciers accumulates to form countable layers. Greenland ice sheet layers can be counted back about 110,000 years. The ages are corroborated by radiometric dating. Other glaciers go back as far as 700,000 years, but on those the older data is mostly radiometric dating.

Salt flows from rocks into lakes and the ocean. If no salt left the ocean, that would give an age of 50 million to 70 million years. However, various geologic processes cause salt to leave the ocean at about the rate it's entering, so 50 million to 70 million years becomes a minimum estimate of the age of the earth.

Layering of sedimentary rocks - such as in the Grand Canyon - forms a series of clocks. These layers correspond to different stages in the evolution of life on the planet. The layers can be dated by positional order (bottom layer formed first), sedimentation rate, age of fossils found in the layer, and of course, radiometric dating. There are five main isotope pairs used for dating sedimentary rocks as well as the 'fissile track' method; you can read about it all here:
https://australian.museum/learn/minerals/shaping-earth/radioactive-dating/


Then there's all the fossils of extinct animals found in the rock layers. They're not exactly a clock, but they are an indicator of the vast amounts of time over which evolution occurs.

Of course outer space offers many clocks. Accumulation of craters on airless bodies like the Moon forms a clock. Shells of glowing gas left over from novas and supernovas form clocks (the Lambda Orionis Ring is about 1 million years old). The redshift of light from galaxies billions of light years away form clocks. The Hubble expansion of the universe forms a clock. The frequency shift of big bang radiation to form the cosmic microwave background is a clock.

No one clock is perfect, but they all corroborate each other pretty well.

"Don't know which one is more accurate."

No, you don´t.

And out come the keyboard scientist that will "prove" you wrong with shit someone else said and they don't really understand.

Weather is a highly complex thing - affected by lots more than the fabled 'global warming' etc. attributed to humans. That's just a minute part.

The variables at play in weather predictions are so much more complicated than measuring the age of something. You can not honestly compare the two

Have you ever heard of the Butterfly Effect, or a butterfly flapping its wings, can cause a tornado years later?

Weather prediction is one of the most complex areas of computer modeling. We've come a long way, but yes, better than 90% accuracy, can only be done 4 days in advance. With quantum computing, it's expected that this will be extend to 10 days.

As to aging fossils, there are multiple accurate methods, depending on how old the fossils, and the kind of terrain they're buried in.