I see I was wrong about what Swanson wrote when I posted here:
“…all else being equal, climate variability and climate sensitivity are flip sides of the same coin.” is what Kyle Swanson wrote. Which I now think means when climate sensitivity is high, so is natural variability. I had thought that when one was high the other was low. If the climate is sensitive to solar changes for instance, it would seem reasonable it also would be sensitive to the warming effects of CO2. Same goes for land use changes, and volcanoes I suppose. This would also seem to mean that low climate sensitivity means low natural variability. Perhaps it is saying, if we can change something a lot it naturally has high natural variability. (To use a comparison, fighter planes have high variability because their designed stability approaches neutral. They can change direction quickly.) It is so easy to change it is the opposite of stable. I have argued that the Earth has a stable climate because of the vast thermal reserves of its oceans. It would have low natural variability and I suppose have low sensitivity to the effects of CO2. What would change my thoughts about it being stable? Temperature excursions, but not so much in just the global surface temperature. Something big would have to occur with the oceans.
I’ve tried to find if there has been disagreement about this:
“A climate that is highly sensitive to radiative forcing (i.e., responds very strongly to increasing greenhouse gas forcing) by definition will be unable to quickly dissipate global mean temperature anomalies arising from either purely natural dynamical processes or stochastic radiative forcing, and hence will have significant internal variability. The opposite also holds”
There doesn’t seem to be much except a bit about the climate having higher sensitivity to some things.