> I'm not sure why you clamped onto "climate" vs "weather" in chaos. Because you (falsely) said that Lorenz was studying climate when he discovered chaos; inst

> I'm not sure why you clamped onto "climate" vs "weather" in chaos. Because you (falsely) said that Lorenz was studying climate when he discovered chaos; instead, he was studying medium-term weather forecasting. > That's a very bold statement with no way to falsify it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system#/media/File:A_Trajectory_Through_Phase_Space_in_a_Lorenz_Attractor.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system#/media/File:A_Tr... If we look at Lorenz attractors, which is where you're pointing... note that the overall means, typical period, etc, of this system are stable. But predicting exactly where we'll be a moderate number of timesteps out is hard. That's what chaos does-- it's all about dense periodic orbits in state, and that's where the sensitivity in initial conditions comes from. > I think it's better stated "we currently don't possess enough computing power to accurately predict climate long term". We have enough computing power to produce pretty good climate predictions: predictions of long term averages. Chaos means we don't have enough sensing, nor could we ever have enough sensing, to predict weather in the intermediate term. These are different things.