Most researchers now think Earth's moon was created the same way, but their ideas depend
heavily on computer models.
Although meteorologists now rely
heavily on computer models (numerical weather prediction), it is still relatively common to use techniques and conceptual models that were developed before computers were powerful enough to make predictions accurately or efficiently.
Not exact matches
Over the last three decades, five IPCC «assessment reports,» dozens of
computer models, scores of conferences and thousands of papers focused
heavily on human fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions, as being responsible for «dangerous» global warming, climate change, climate «disruption,» and almost every «extreme» weather or climate event.
However, given that the CAGW position doesn't rest
on specific numbers, but is instead an unorganized collection of anecdotal evidence, coupled with
heavily - tweaked
computer models, unfounded assumptions about positive feedbacks, and a healthy imagination about possible future disasters, a lower warming number for the 20th century will simply be brushed over with claims about aerosols being stronger than previously thought, more warming still waiting in the «pipeline» or similar ad hoc «explanations» that keep the overall story alive.
The path to improvement in the
models relies
heavily on better numerics and
computers.
«Limits» is one of the other pillars of my «suspect all
computer models» mantra... It was
heavily promoted in the»70s based
on the notion that their
computer predictions had to be right, they were computerized!