Cohenite, thanks for so clearly making my point above. How could mere empiricism and rationality hope to compete with such certainty?

For those who are interested (obviously you needn't bother, cohenite), a good paper on the underlying concepts of metastability in dynamic systems, including pseudo-equilibria is

http://wt.iam.uni-bonn.de/fileadmin/WT/Inhalt/people/Anton_Bovier/lecture-notes/prague.pdf

"a phenomenon called metastability. Basically this refers to
the existence of two or more time-scales over which the system shows
very different behaviour: on the short time scale, the systems reaches
quickly a “pseudo-equilibrium” and remains effectively in a restricted
subset of the available phase space; the particular pseudo-equilibrium
that is reached will depend on the initial conditions. However, when
observed on the longer time scale, one will occasionally observe
transitions from one such pseudo-equilibrium to another one."

It is obvious from the historical record that this describes the behaviour of our climate quite well. Long periods in which the climatic conditions are limited to a small range, followed by a relatively sudden transition to a different set of conditions, which are also maintained within a small range, but which will also transition in time.

What it doesn't do is tell us anything about what those ranges will be. It may be that AGW is incapable of changing the dynamics sufficiently to do more than extend the range of the current pseudo-equilibrium state, which would be inconvenient, but should be able to be dealt with. On the other hand, it may be enough to provoke a transition to a new range entirely, which could be catastrophic.

We need better information. At least, some of us do...

"pseudo-equilibrium" in AGW is descibed in the difference between Equilibrium climate sensitivity [T2x] and Transient climate sensitivity [TCR]; see:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/345.htm

For the sensitive souls this is what it says:

“Global mean temperature change for 1%/yr CO2 increase with subsequent stabilisation at 2xCO2 and 4cCO2. The red curves are from a coupled AOGCM simulation (GFDL_R15_a) while the green curves are from a simple illustrative model with no exchange of energy with the deep ocean. The transient climate response, TCR, is the temperature change at the time of CO2 doubling and the equilibrium climate sensitivity, T2x, is the temperature change after the system has reached a new equilibrium for doubled CO2, i.e., after the additional warming commitment has been realised.
The temperature change at any time during a climate change integration depends on the competing effects of all of the processes that affect energy input, output, and storage in the ocean”

Where is the heat to explain the difference, or "metastability" between T2x and TCR being secreted? According to AGW, at the bottom of the ocean; Trenberth's latest paper attempts to explain that; it is number 1 of the dud [sic] papers listed here:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/05/ten-of-the-worst-climate-research-papers-5-years-on/?cp=all

Lags, delays, or the pretentious term 'metastability' exist in the climate system, just not the way AGW 'science' would have us believe; all that is left is the pretension

hahahaha

2 x pffft

It's always good to come to a meeting of minds.

The point about metastable systems is that very small systemic inputs can produce large changes in the pseudo-equilibrium ("the butterfly effect"), or in some cases that the system can oscillate within the range that maintains that pseudo-equilibrium for some time before some combination of internal factors causes it to exceed that range, at which point it tends to oscillate chaotically for a time before again settling into a pseudo-equilibrium state. In other words, the question "where's the heat?" is of little import - the climate is an emergent property of the interactions of many factors, some of them also metastable or subject to oscillations. It may be that if some of those cyclic factors reach a coincident peak or trough in their cycle that they will have a combined effect that is sufficient to exceed the pseudo-equilibrium range and start a transition. We are directly influencing some of those factors by our existence as an industrial society, so the historic data is not especially useful as a predictor.

The problem for us is that we know very little about the parameters that define the current state and we know nothing at all about what parameters might obtain in the transition, how long that might last and what the new pseudo-equilibrium might be, nor do we know the buffering capacity of the system.

We're trying to balance an inverted pendulum on our finger while running blindfolded across rocky ground. The only sensible course of action is to stop running headlong, take the blindfold off and hope that the pendulum hasn't already gone past its tipping point.

antiseptic,

".....or in some cases that the system can oscillate within the range that maintains that pseudo-equilibrium for some time before some combination of internal factors causes it to exceed its range, at which point it tends to oscillate chaotically for a time before again settling into a pseudo-equilibrium state...."

A bit like this then?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Quote Antiseptic
The three biggest empirical questions, it seems to me, are:
"what is the likely range of warming?"
"at what rate will that change occur?"
and, as this is a pseudo-equilibrium, "what is the latency (lag) in the system".
End Quote

Very true except that following is well have established.

The best estimate for the warming is 3 Deg C for a doubling of the the CO2 level with an error range of +or- 1.5 deg C. That is as after the lag has caught up and the climate has stabilised.

The rate at which this will occur depends on how fast we increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The lag in the system is primarily due to the fact that it takes some 350 times more energy to heat up the oceans than it does to heat up the atmosphere.

I would argue the science was clear enough 30 years ago and since that time the evidence has become even more convincing, increasing levels of co2 will raise global temperatures provided everything else remains constant. Obviously everything else is not going to remain constant therefore we are gambling that something will come along to negate the effects of global warming, unfortunately it is just as likely that some change might occur which further increases temperatures. The prudent thing to do of course is to make a planed transition to a low CO2 emitting economy.

Politically the the biggest problem is the current value of fossil fuels in the ground is so enormous that the temptation to dig it up and sell it is overwhelming. The people who own these assets will obviously downplay the effect of rising CO2 levels. This is further complicated by the fears that tackling the problem will seriously reduce peoples standard of living. The current state of play in Australia is the left wing fears that any action will cost jobs and the right wing fears it will reduce profits. No wonder there is a lack of enthusiasm to actually tackle the problem.