Sentences with phrase «for sake of argument»

But for the sake of argument, say there are merely 15 variables involved in predicting global climate change, and assume that climatologists have mastered each one to a near - perfect accuracy of 95 percent.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you are correct — that any melting in the Arctic is a lagging indicator of past warming.

Let me grant for the sake of argument that all your stupid arguments actually have merit.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is more scientific uncertainty about human causation of warming than that recognized by the mainstream scientific view, as we have explained in Ethicsandclimate.org before in numerous articles (See.

For the sake of argument, lets say those additional three countries add another 3,500,000 people and make it an estimated total in 1919 of 7,00,000 people in the region surrounding Lake Tanganyika.

But just for the sake of argument, I would say the Argo data is probably the better set.

Assuming for the sake of argument that «the pause» is not an instrument error and the troposphere hasn't gotten any warmer in 16 years then this raises the question of how ocean heat content could be rising which, according to ARGO, at least the upper half of the ocean is accumulating thermal energy.

But while I'm happy to be educated Robert, let's assume for the sake of this argument it were as simple as that so we can get to my question: so what?

Many scientists disagree Ronald, but FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT, let's assume all the increase in CO2 is man made, where do you go from there?

For the sake of argument, it seems plausible that the late Holocene accumulation near B221v was less than the 135 other sites and has wasted away more quickly during the modern warm period, so that we're now seeing ice in this area more or less as it was in the later Holocene, when over 100 meters had eroded, but there was still something left.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the recent reduction to Arctic ice is evidence of AGW (it is not such evidence but I am conceding that it is as a method to demonstrate your failure to think).

However — and I know this may be a difficult step, but give it a try just for the sake of argument — if it turns out all these scientists are right and it's you wot's wrong, and we've followed your prescription and done absolutely nothing about reducing emissions for another decade or two, then the measures we'll need to take then will be much much more expensive and economically damaging for those poor people you're lying awake at night worrying about.

But for the sake of the argument, assuming his assertion about the tree decades was true, the following conclusion he draws from this,

I'll adopt the FTAs» estimates for the sake of argument, despite some flaws in their analyses, noted here.

I accepted YOUR assertion for sake of argument and addressed its implications.

The pervasiveness of warlike formats and language grows out of, but also gives rise to, an ethic of aggression: We come to value aggressive tactics for their own sake — for the sake of argument.

That's called «accepting for the sake of argument.»

Allowing CO2 to have that property for the sake of argument, normal ice ages last for tens of thousands of years.

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that you're right, that the denialists, the fossil fuel lobby are trying to gin up uncertainty in order to paralyze the legislative process and to stop anything from happening in this regard.

Even if we grant — for the sake of argument — that Parncutt's argument proceeds logically, it proceeds from a basis where something like consequentialism has been presupposed.

Note, that I for the sake of the argument, am looking at it from Lindzens premises (natural variation + some role for CO2), call it «moderate warming» and conclude that even that is alarming, because the resilience of the socioecological earth system is very low in respect to additional warming.

That ACO2 has harmful impact irrespective of any potentially harmful influence on climate change (and I'll even throw in geo - political negative externalities as an exclusion for the sake of argument), is completely obvious are obvious to anyone who is serious about this issue and is even remotely interested in a good faith discussion.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that what you have proposed would reduce US emissions by 20 %.

Suppose for the sake of the argument that higher global temperatures cause more precipitation globally, which in winter would be snow.

If you «pause» it means warming may resume at some time in the future (or perhaps even cooling... but let's not go there for the sake of this argument).

For the sake of argument, lets assume that the word most is associated with a range (maybe as large as 51 - 95 %).

I'm not 100 % sure that I got the sequence right here, but suppose for the sake of argument that's what happened.

VP: «Suppose for the sake of argument that ENSO and SOL and all those higher - frequency components don't exist at all in HadCRUT3 − SAW and that it is exactly tracking my AGW model.

Please imagine, just for the sake of the argument try to imagine for a moment what would happen, if in the long run climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere turns out to be much lower than implicated by some current computational climate models.

For the sake of argument, if that form is assumed to be sufficiently accurate, the question becomes — How should lambda be determined?

Suppose for the sake of argument that ENSO and SOL and all those higher - frequency components don't exist at all in HadCRUT3 − SAW and that it is exactly tracking my AGW model.

If we accept that global warming will be a net negative impact for the global economy and human well - being (I don't accept that, but will proceed on that assumption for the sake of argument here), policies will have to be sustainable for many decades to a century.

If there are 1000 stations in Europe with an average temperature of 15C, and 10 stations in North Africa with an average temperature of 25C, then if you calculate the average as T = (15 * 1000 + 25 * 10) / (1000 +10) = 15.099 C you run into Simpson's paradox, but if you do it correctly [assuming for the sake of the argument that Europe and North Africa have the same area], then you get the correct T = (15 +25) / 2 = 20C.

But, for the sake of argument, let us assume that the AGW hypothesis were true.

There is no significant human effect before that, according to the consensus (I am not buying any of it, but for the sake of the argument).

Lets say for the sake of argument that post # 89 is of some significance and there is something for us to learn from this (I am reserving judgment on this, I simply have no idea).

And then you write: «For the sake of argument, assume that atmospheric temperature rises as CO2 rises (and falls at CO2 falls).

Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that LGM climate sensitivity was ~ 1.7 C.

Suppose for the sake of argument that a 0.2 C increase in mean surface temp, starting with the climate as it is now, produced a 2 % increase in cloud cover, in the conditions that produce lightning strikes.

iii) assuming for the sake of argument that there is a serious error in the paper: should a paper be withdrawn from a journal, after it has already been heavily cited?

«But», you could now say to me, «granting, for the sake of argument only, that Miliband and others may be going rather too far, surely there is clear scientific evidence that human - induced global warming presents a serious problem which has to be dealt with.

Your (I'm supposing this for the sake of argument, so don't take it personally!)

I'm just speculating here, but assuming for the sake of argument that there is some contradiction between the 2002 Science papers and the new Soden Science paper, did it occur to you that maybe the science has advanced a bit in the 3-1/2 years between their publication dates?

Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that we have been in a significant warming trend over at least the last quarter of a century, and even that this is largely anthropogenically caused.

(Let's say for the sake of argument that winds overnight will be very light, the skies are clear and other sources for «noise» during the relevant period are low)

But let's suppose, for the sake of argument and hopemongering, that Hurricane Zelda pounds sense into the awestruck masses of Congressional refugees and their paid informers escaping a storm - raised Potomac, and this becomes reality.

If he's right (and yes, I noticed the link to research that he isn't, but this is for sake of argument), then his method should, or at least plausible could, absent other mitigating factors, lead to increases in carbon storage in those grasslands — not necessarily at the scale he claimed on TED, but conceivably pointed in the right direction.

But assume you are right, only for the sake of argument.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that is the «truth».

But for the sake of argument let's assume that all measurements are accurate.