Drawing conclusions from fossils is difficult, he adds.
Not exact matches
Its similarities to
conclusions drawn from studies of comparative anatomy / the
fossil record are staggering.
It's a hard process, because a lot of different
conclusions can be
drawn from the same
fossils.
(Fingerprint studies
draw conclusions about human causation that can be deduced
from: (a) how the Earth warms in the upper and lower atmosphere, (b) warming in the oceans, (c) night - time vs day - time temperature increases, (d) energy escaping
from the upper atmosphere versus energy trapped, (e) isotopes of CO2 in the atmosphere and coral that distinguish
fossil CO2
from non-
fossil CO2, (f) the height of the boundary between the lower and upper atmosphere, and (g) atmospheric oxygen levels decrease as CO2 levels increase.
This is the stark
conclusion drawn by Anderson and Bows: «The logic of such studies suggests (extremely) dangerous climate change can only be avoided if economic growth is exchanged, at least temporarily, for a period of planned austerity within Annex 1 nations and a rapid transition away
from fossil - fuelled development within non-Annex 1 nations.»
Example research papers on the impact of
fossil fuel emissions on tropical cyclones, on sea level rise, and on the carbon cycle demonstrate that the
conclusions drawn by researchers about their anthropogenic cause derive
from circular reasoning.