AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

No, you could do the computation yourself if the problem involves other planets gravitation force. It's too complex then. In fact newtonian mechanics become very hard to calculate as soon as more than 2 bodies are considered. Google "3 bodies problem".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem

Opposing view[edit]
Others have asserted that there were no, or very few, critical problems to begin with. They also asserted that there would be only a few minor mistakes and that a "fix on failure" approach, would have been the most efficient and cost-effective way to solve these problems as they occurred. However, no credible evidence was offered to support these assertions. This opposing view relied on observations based on small users, rather than those large users most seriously affected.
The lack of Y2K-related problems in schools, many of which undertook little or no remediation effort. By 1 September 1999, only 28% of U.S. schools had achieved compliance for mission critical systems, and a government report predicted that "Y2K failures could very well plague the computers used by schools to manage payrolls, student records, online curricula, and building safety systems".[49]
The lack of Y2K-related problems in an estimated 1.5 million small businesses that undertook no remediation effort. On 3 January 2000 (the first weekday of the year), the Small Business Administration received an estimated 40 calls from businesses with computer problems, similar to the average. None of the problems were critical.[50]
The absence of Y2K-related problems occurring before 1 January 2000, even though the 2000 financial year commenced in 1999 in many jurisdictions, and a wide range of forward-looking calculations involved dates in 2000 and later years. Estimates undertaken in the leadup to 2000 suggested that around 25% of all problems should have occurred before 2000.[51] Critics of large-scale remediation argued during 1999 that the absence of significant reported problems in non-compliant small firms was evidence that there were had been, and would be, no serious problems needing to be fixed in any firm, and that the scale of the problem had therefore been severely overestimated.1999.[45]

n other words you need a computer model. The exact same thing you criticize in climatology... There's no essential difference between the asteroid metaphor and climate change.

I had not look at the code of the current climate models but my bet is they fall way short of the needed details and understanding to made meaningful predictions.

It seems you never studied macroeconomics.

I don't have a math background, but studied macroeconomics, statistics, and accounting

I am kind of amaze that anyone would take on the task with any feeling that they could product useful results.

In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. [Who knew?] The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable..There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.

Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. ...we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate. But we need them. Indeed it is an imperative! So the science is just beginning.

Kevin Trenberth

Climate Analysis Section, NCAR

There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.