...You got to learn more about chaotic systems, Lambert.
Not me. That quote was from the IPCC.
My explanation was to help you get a better understanding of exactly what they meant.
Here is a video that AOC and her cohorts tried to block, because they are science deniers: https://youtu.be/gcIWrFHcTDw
Here is the Powerpoint presentation that AOC tried to block: http://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/LibertyCon-Rossiter-Presentation-final_6-16-20.pptx)
Oooh. A statistician explains to climatologists why all their models are "damned lies." Because statisticians are so much smarter and knowledgeable about climatology than actual climatologists! And he's the head of an organization of a whole 50 scientists! And will soon be replaced by a geologist, who also is smarter and more knowledgeable about climatology than actual climatologists! Amazing!

Sorry, but that is about as far as I got on that video.

BTW, he did acknowledge that climate models are to
disprove AGW, right? Because the basic facts are undeniable (except by denialists): CO2 is a greenhouse gas; CO2 levels are rising; higher concentrations of greenhouse gases cause more heat to be retained on Earth. So without looking at anything else, we can say that the rising CO2 levels should be warming the Earth,
unless there are some other mechanisms that counteract it.
By creating models, we have a chance of identifying these mechanisms and seeing how well they work.
By comparing the models to past temperatures, we check our work.
But the models don't "prove" global warming. They only help our understanding of the basic science, and see if there is something more complex that mitigates or modifies the basic science. And, so far, we haven't found a model that shows that something is mitigating global warming.
He can mess around with the graphs and statistics all he wants. But here's one for you to check: when was the last 10 hottest days where you live? When was the last 10 hottest months? And why aren't those evenly distributed over the last 150 years, but instead have mostly occurred in the last 20 years? What are the odds of that happening by chance?

...if you knew the precise initial conditions, you could make exact predictions.
But the precise initial conditions have been dishonestly reported. Moreover, attractor states are also moot. When political operators pay bureaucrats to pretend to be scientists, all bets are off. Math does not save corruption of facts.
Anyone who reports the precise initial condition is a despicable liar.
Likewise, anyone who reports that the IIPC or any major climate model works from the precise initial conditions is a despicable liar, too!

Because NO ONE know the initial conditions. I'm surprised you didn't realize that. Those are lost in the annals of time, and probably were unmeasurable in the first place, since it would have taken a gargantuan effort to get all the data (if anyone was there at the time, which they weren't).

This is one of the reasons climate models run multiple runs. They start the runs with different initial conditions, to see how it varies the models. That gives them a range of possible temperatures the actual climate would be in. I'm sure they also try different values for other factors, within the reasonable ranges for those factors, to see how those also vary the output. But any good climate model must take the different possible initial conditions into account.
Yes, when political operative try to corrupt facts, all bets are off. But that is what climate change deniers are doing far, far, far more than those who acknowledge that CO2 and other greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere are changing our climate.