  We revisit a recent claim that the Earth's climate system is characterized by
sensitive dependence to parameters; in particular, that the system exhibits an
asymmetric, large-amplitude response to normally distributed feedback forcing.
Such a response would imply irreducible uncertainty in climate change
predictions and thus have notable implications for climate science and
climate-related policy making. We show that equilibrium climate sensitivity in
all generality does not support such an intrinsic indeterminacy; the latter
appears only in essentially linear systems. The main flaw in the analysis that
led to this claim is inappropriate linearization of an intrinsically nonlinear
model; there is no room for physical interpretations or policy conclusions
based on this mathematical error. Sensitive dependence nonetheless does exist
in the climate system, as well as in climate models -- albeit in a very
different sense from the one claimed in the linear work under scrutiny -- and
we illustrate it using a classical energy balance model (EBM) with nonlinear
feedbacks. EBMs exhibit two saddle-node bifurcations, more recently called
"tipping points", which give rise to three distinct steady-state climates, two
of which are stable. Such bistable behavior is, furthermore, supported by
results from more realistic, nonequilibrium climate models. In a truly
nonlinear setting, indeterminacy in the size of the response is observed only
in the vicinity of tipping points. We show, in fact, that small disturbances
cannot result in a large-amplitude response, unless the system is at or near
such a point. We discuss briefly how the distance to the bifurcation may be
related to the strength of Earth's ice-albedo feedback.
