It would be interesting to see a full life
cycle analysis instead of taking this all at face value.
Not exact matches
Life
cycle analyses of diapers done by Franklin Associates in the U.S. and the UK's Environment Agency found that using cloth diapers
instead of disposables would decrease landfill waste but increase water use and greenhouse gas emissions.
Instead, the model results for, say, the mean climate, or the change in recent decades or the seasonal
cycle or response to El Niño events, are compared to the equivalent
analyses in the gridded observations.
Consider this: Suppose that the
analysis was of sunspots
instead of global temperature, and that only a couple of
cycles were available.
Life
cycle analysis is considered the best tool because it examines the full range of impacts over all the phases of a building's useful life
instead of focusing on any particular stage.
If the U.S. were
instead to use that natural gas to generate electricity as part of a portfolio with renewable sources of electricity, the
analysis shows that «if the entire vehicle fleet were converted to electric vehicles and high efficiency natural gas combined -
cycle power plants were used to generate all the additional electricity required, the increase in natural gas demand would be significantly less» than if the entire fleet was burning natural gas in its combustion engines — roughly a decrease in natural gas usage of 19 billion cubic feet per day.
Instead of assuming every peak in a frequency
analysis constitutes sufficient evidence for the existence of a
cycle, I only consider those where abundant evidence exists in the scientific literature that solar
cycles match the climate evidence precisely.
Even if she's never studied the carbon
cycle in depth, I dare say she knows more about it than Andrew Bolt and Jo Nova combined, but for some reason she's directing her readers to their commentary
instead of making any statements of her own on the merit of Salby's
analysis.