1. You keep misusing the definition of climate sensitivity. The amount of energy added to the atmosphere by the greenhouse effect is a very well-known quantity and it has absolutely nothing to do with climate sensitivity. Rather, it is called radiative forcing. This is basic undergraduate thermodynamics. There is no "climate sensitivity" involved.

2. Climate sensitivity is how much the temperature will change in a certain part of the climate in response to the net change in energy equilibrium in the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with this discussion, despite your repeated attempts to use it. This discussion purely is related to the net change in energy of the Earth-sun system. Not the net change in temperature of a certain part of the Earth.

3. We know that there are only three major factors that affect the net thermal energy of the Earth and we know that the non greenhouse effect factors are pretty close to flat in relation to greenhouse gasses. Claiming that there is some mysterious fourth force that explains the net change in energy is really just a pathetic attempt at denialism. In physics, it is called "not even wrong", because there is no way to disprove it. You might as well say that global warming is caused by invisible faerie farts. It is just unscientific.

You either have the data or you do not have the data. If you do not have the data (which you obviously don't), then you have no argument because you have no valid theory.

4. I'm not going to explain cherry picked temperature data, because it is irrelevant to the discussion.

5. Oceanographers believe that the amounts of heat absorbed and released by the oceans play a strong role in year-to-year variations of climate. It is very likely that during La Niña years, the oceans are absorbing a lot of the heat. It is also important to remember that the sun goes through natural cycles, which is ultimately where a lot of the noise probably comes from. Even though these natural cycles have become overwhelmed by CO2, they are still strong enough to create a lot of noise (i.e. year-to-year peaks and valleys). The amount of CO2 we add on a year-by-year basis creates less radiative forcing than the natural fluctuations of solar irradiance. However, in the long term (the century-to-century data), CO2 dominates and overwhelms solar fluctuations.

The 97% number, within a reasonable margin of error, has been evidenced by a lot more than 2 studies.

Meteorologists are not climate scientists and most do not study climate change, so I am unsure what the consensus of meteorologists has to do with the consensus among those who actively research climate change.

Also, even if the number were only (91%), I would call it an "overwhelming" consensus, as per the definition of overwhelming [very great amount]. 95% or higher is probably best described as unanimous.

We can measure to a pretty high degree of certainty how much net energy the greenhouse effect adds to the earth. We also know, to a very high degree of certainty, how much net energy a metric ton of CO2 increases the greenhouse effect by.

This is simple thermodynamics.

The "little ice age" was not a global, long-term temperature change. As far as we know, it was a local phenomena. We simply do not have accurate data for that period. It is irrelevant to the discussion as we do not have any good records of the three main radiative forcing factors from that period.

The rest of your questions represent further irrelevant cherry picking of noise out of the overall warming trend.

We know that the "natural factors" are not driving warming because no natural factors exist that can explain the warming. As per my original statement, there are only three major factors that can add or remove net energy from the Earth and we know that neither solar irradience nor albedo is responsible because the net change in radiative forcing from those factors is dwarfed by the net change in the greenhouse effect since we began careful monitoring around the late 1800's.

And we know that the major increase in the greenhouse effect's radiative forcing is drive by the buildup of CO2, and we know the buildup is due to human industry because we know how much extra CO2 we add to the atmosphere every year.

The noise in the trend is caused either by a temporary aberration in one of the three major sources of radiative forcing, or it is caused by changes in how the energy on earth is distributed (like, for instances, how much atmospheric heat is being absorbed by the oceans). None of these have any long-term effect on the warming trend, because they are not actually adding or removing heat from the earth. They are only moving heat from one part of the earth to another.

The short answer is, noise is absolutely irrelevant. You might as well ask why it's so cold in January in Alaska when the average temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere is a balmy 61 degrees.

You keep talking about "natural factors", but you cannot provide any actual evidence of current sources of increased radiative forcing over the past 100 years which are on the same net energy level as the increase in the greenhouse effect. Either show the amount of Joules added by these unnamed "natural factors" over the past 100 years or concede that there is no evidence for their existence.

Again, you do not need to factor in "climate sensitivity" to determine what is responsible for net changes in radiative forcing.

It is like taking a fluid and putting it on the stove. You can put a thermometer in and figure out whether or not the fluid is warming. If the fluid is warming, then the fluid must be gaining net energy.

You measure how much net energy is gained or lost to the environment and you measure how much net energy is being added or removed by the stove. You don't have to know the sensitivity of the fluid to temperature change (i.e. specific heat) to figure out that the stove is the dominant factor in heating up the fluid.

It is exactly the same with Earth's atmosphere. There are a lot of factors which effect sensitivity (i.e. how much adding one Joule of energy to the Earth will heat up the lower atmosphere). There are not a lot of major factors that effect net energy gain or loss.

You can figure out what is driving the temperature change without figuring out the details of the internal workings of the system.

I understand perfectly. Climate sensitivity is just completely irrelevant to my thesis, which was about the driving force behind climate change (i.e. what is actually adding or removing net energy from the Earth).

Predicting the mean temperature increase of the lower atmosphere is a much more complicated subject which is irrelevant to what I was discussing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Onboard sound is noticeably bad. The DAC chips are typically on the motherboard and pick up a lot of noise. But unless you are plugging in high-end, noise-isolating headphones, you might not notice it. Sometimes the EM noise can be pretty bad with integrated audio.

It's good enough for your standard computer speakers in a noisy environment though. If I want good quality sound, I use my HTPC which outputs using fiber optic TOSLINK and HDMI.

If you are capturing or producing analog audio in the computer, things like the SNR, latency, et cetera are of parmount importance and high quality hardware can be essential. An example of this would be someone doing home or professional studio recording or some kind of scientific or technical solution.

But, if the issue is just the quality of the playback sound for music, video, gaming and the usual home uses, I do not see much benefit. Modern CPU's are fast enough that the overhead of integrated sound is not that great. If you have speakers good enough to benefit from the higher quality audio, then you probably have a receiver with an excellent DAC built in. Even the lowest-end integrated audio device can output pure digital magic to your receiver.

You'll benefit a lot more by buying a receiver with a good DAC and some good speakers to go with it. Then, for normal home use, the advantages of high end sound cards are virtually non-existent.

There is other data which suggest the 95% number is accurate to within about a 5% margin of error.

Carbon sensitivity makes absolutely no difference to the overall picture of climate change, because CO2 keeps building up in the atmosphere and the amount of heat added by the greenhouse effect keeps increasing.

CO2 sensitivity may determine how fast certain parts of the earth, such as the oceans and lower atmosphere warm up, but it has no bearing on the question of:

1) What has become the primary driver of global warming?

2) Will the temperature of the atmosphere keep increasing?

Now, if you want to ask the questions: will the California coast be drier or wetter in 2100? Is the ground temperature more likely to increase by an average 2K or 5K by 2100? Then, you need the sophisticated models.

However, you do not need a sophisticated model to answer the questions: What source of radiative forcing is primarily responsible for adding the extra heat to our atmosphere that is driving global warming? Baring some unforeseen catastrophe, will the Earth continue warming at rates unprecedented in natural history (with the exception of major worldwide natural disasters) if we continue causing a massive buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere?

And that is why climate change denial is so ridiculous, because while climate science on a microscopic level is very nuanced, difficult to understand, and scientifically controversial, on a macroscopic level, the big questions are easy to understand (at least for someone with a basic science education) and not scientifically controversial (although the deniers try to convince the public otherwise).

We know the earth is warming. We know that the buildup of greenhouse gasses caused by human industry have become the primary driver of the long-term trend towards global warming. We know that if we keep building up these gases in the atmosphere, the earth will keep warming (baring some unforeseen natural or man-made worldwide disaster). We know the effects will be devastating on human civilization, which has been built up over 5,000 years reliant upon a relatively stable climate. We know that reducing the buildup of greenhouse gasses will mitigate global warming.

"Carbon sensitivity" has no bearing on the underlying cause of the warming. It is completely irrelevant to the overarching question of what are the driving forces behind climate change. There are only a very small number of major forces that have a long-term net effect of adding or removing energy from Earth, as I already pointed out. Those are the only things that could ultimately be driving the long-term and rapid worldwide global warming trend.

Now, if you want to predict exactly how much global temperatures will increase in the next 100 years or the next ten years, then yes, you need very complex models. If you want to understand what forces are behind those trends, you do not need complex models at all. We know exactly how much extra heat a metric ton of CO2 traps. We know exactly how much heat a 1% increase in our albedo removes. We know exactly how much heat a change in 1 w/m^2 of flux from the sun adds or removes.

The 97% is based on scientific polling of actual climate scientists. It is fair to say that about 19 out of 20 people actually doing research and publishing papers in the field of climatology have concluded that the buildup of greenhouse gas caused by human activity is becoming the driving force behind global warming.

On the other hand, your claim is based on anecdotes about "physicists" and "biologists" who very well may not even do active research in climatology being "skeptical". But the fact is, denialism is not skepticism and genuine climate skeptics are few and far between. One would suppose that some of the 5% minority of climate scientists are genuine skeptics while the rest are paid by industry to pretend to be.

Also, the idea that climate scientists rely on computer models to reach their conclusions is simply untrue. The conclusion would be valid even based on back of the hand calculations that any undergraduate scientist could do. There are only three major factors that affect the total retained heat of the planet:

1) Solar radiance.
2) Albedo
3) The Greenhouse Effect

You don't need a supercomputer to calculate the change in solar irradiance in the past 100 years and how much heat it has added or removed from the planet. Overall, it is a pretty null force.

And, you don't need a supercomputer to calculate how much extra heat the small reduction in the albedo has retained due to us cleaning up our atmosphere.

And finally, you don't need a supercomputer to calculate the large increase in heat energy added to the atmosphere by the increasing greenhouse effect.

What you do need a supercomputer for is to predict how all this extra heat is going to effect the climate on a year-to-year basis. Which parts of the earth are going to get wetter, how much energy will be siphoned off by the oceans, how much less rain will Phoenix get.

But none of these supercomputer models are necessary to figuring out what the primary cause of the temperature increase is, and that is the buildup of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

A university is an ISP for students and faculty and university email accounts are little different than for-profit ISP email accounts.

Most universities have a privacy policy that protects the contents of the email of students and faculty and only allows viewing of contents for reasons similar to why an ISP would be allowed to view customers' email, like in compliance with a court order. Students, professors, and people who send them email have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

And, in this case, it is irrelevant. If something is subject to the FOIA or the State equivalent, it is going to be subject to disclosure regardless of whether it was sent from a personal or government email account. Likewise, if something is not subject to the FOIA, then it will not be subject regardless of whether it was sent from a personal or government account.

Privileged information is privileged information and public information is public information. The email account used is irrelevant. Most universities hold their faculty and students responsible for policing their own email.

No, national security letters are just used to investigate. In the US, the first amendment protects you if you publish classified information so long as you were not the one with privileged access and you do not impede the investigation into how the information was leaked.

See: Pentagon Papers.

Don't get me wrong, the US is not perfect, but it is one of the few western democracies that does not have hate speech laws or a state secret's act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...