A chaotic system is generally defined to mean one in which small changes to the inputs lead to large variations in the outputs. So your reply noting that it’s only a 1% change doesn’t contradict the previous statements.

>A chaotic system is generally defined to mean on in which small changes to the inputs lead to large variations in the outputs.

A large variation, yes. A direct relationship between a small increase in input and a corresponding large increase in a specific output, no.

It depends on the system, I’m not familiar enough with climate science to state anything about the particular case at hand, but chaotic systems can be deterministic.

>It depends on the system

Sure, which makes the blanket statement the GP made incorrect:

>Putting more energy into a meta-stable chaotic system will greatly increase the number of extremes across the board

I think you’re being a bit pedantic, in context GP was clearly referring to the climate, not making blanket statements about all chaotic systems.

In either case, a 1% change in energy input is always going to be a big deal with regards to an energy dependent chaotic system.

You're being pedantic.

Chaotic systems, in essence, are known for its unpredictability. Watch this to get an idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEjZd-AvPco