A strange phenomenon was then reported: several straight lines seemed to appear all over the surface of the planet. Similarly god botherers are often at odds with their stated belief. Publication date.
In , it is km. So, will we ever be able to describe and predict the climate? The combined efforts of all Martian civilizations were necessary to build those canals, which facilitated the transportation of water from the poles to irrigate the whole planet.
Benoît Rittaud. Albrecht Heeffer. Benoît Rittaud. Papers. Notes on the History of the Pigeonhole Theorem/opho.be By Pat Ballew. Récréations Mathématiques (): A Study on Its Authorship, Sources and Influence. By Albrecht Heeffer. Identifying adequate models in physico-mathematics: Descartes analysis of the rainbow. By Albrecht Heeffer. Dirichlet .
Benoît Rittaud. Albrecht Heeffer. Benoît Rittaud. Related Papers. Notes on the History of the Pigeonhole Theorem/notes-on-history-of-pigeonhole-theorem.html. By Pat Ballew. Récréations Mathématiques (1624): A Study on Its Authorship, Sources and Influence. By Albrecht Heeffer. Identifying adequate models in physico-mathematics: Descartes analysis of the rainbow. By Albrecht Heeffer. Dirichlet …
Benoît RITTAUD - Works in pure mathematics
Benoît Rittaud, "Medietic numeration systems and combinatorics of Rosen continued fractions", en préparation pour le second volume de CANT: Combinatorics, Automata and Number Theory. Benoît Rittaud, "On subsequences of convergents to a quadratic irrational given by some numerical schemes", Journal de Théorie des Nombres de Bordeaux 22 n°2 (2010), 449-474. Ryuji Abe & Benoît Rittaud, …
Benoît Rittaud, "Medietic numeration systems and combinatorics of Rosen continued fractions", en préparation pour le second volume de CANT: Combinatorics, Automata and Number Theory. Benoît Rittaud, "On subsequences of convergents to a quadratic irrational given by some numerical schemes", Journal de Théorie des Nombres de Bordeaux 22 n°2 (),
Lowell can hardly be regarded as a philanthropist with a passion for astronomy. His authoritarian behaviour is well-established. For example, he forced some of his employees to support his affirmation that canals were also present on the surface of Venus. One of his employees was Andrew Douglass, eventually fired because of his doubts. It is not intended to prove anything.
It is only meaning is to stimulate thinking. Yes, scientists sometimes make mistakes. Yes, their personal beliefs can sometimes alter their views.
And when science and morality are mixed up, when confusion appears between science and politics or philosophy of life, then science loses itself. Now, we live in a world of postmodernity : we consider that we possess the world, but that we are unworthy of our power over it.
It is this general philosophy of life, shared by so many intellectuals, that explains why the doubtful theory of anthropogenic global warming could gain so much credence. The idea that our planet is a living body, some kind of a goddess who demands repentence and sobriety, makes some climate alarmists not all of them of course examples of postmodern pseudoscientists.
As I see it, the climate affair is the newest avatar of what I call the exponential fear — the fear that humanity is growing exponentially fast — in the mathematic sense of the word — and that the world is fundamentally finite, so we will soon crash into our ultimate limits.
Let me quote James Hansen to illustrate my point. As a quantitative example, let us say that the ice sheet contribution is 1 cm for the decade and that it doubles each decade until the West Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted. That time constant yields a sea level rise of the order of 5 m this century. So, in a sense, the climate fear is the newest avatar of the irrational exponential fear. It is not the first one. And it is probably not the last. Hence, we should be concerned by the fact that, sooner or later, it will be replaced by another one.
Possibly the « Anthropocene ». James Hansen obtained a B. Hard to believe that a person of director rank trained in physics and mathematics could publish such a deceptive example.
Yet this man was not only employed by the US government, but he was director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Like Liked by 1 person. Here is the text of the Hansen paper that Benoit refers to, complete with typo.
Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control.
I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue. Like Like. The analogy in the story is weak. The canals theory rested solely upon low resolution images from millions of miles away and a good imagination.
Whereas the CAGW theory relies on low resolution images from the future and a complete lack of self-awareness. TinyCO2, how does opinion come in to it? Is there any evidence beyond telescopic observations of Mars? As for climate science there is a large literature available dating back a century. Geoff, where does self awareness come into it?
Like Liked by 2 people. IPCC reports contain predictions. The IPCC FAR predictions are old enough to allow a comparison with what happened. The predicted temperature trends are two or three times what they should have been if carbon dioxide was a major player.
Serious revisions to the initial theory should be considered. Delay is dangerous … future sea level changes out of our control … future disasters…. Geoff, global temperatures are rising at about 2C per century, in parts the rise is faster. There is plenty of evidence for the effect of CO2.
What you seem to want to do is throw out the science in favour of chicken entrails i. So who needs to up their game? And what significance does that have to whether the science is correct or not? Whose science? Both consensus-believing and sceptical people have their own bits of science that they believe and bits they ignore or refute.
Both claim the high ground and try to trash the position of their opponents. In normal science the situation would be resolved without much rancor, but too much is at stake with CAGW for this to happen, and both sides have dug so far in that it resembles trench warfare.
This whole thread is a typical example of conflict on multiple fronts. The evidence for what people believe is in what they do. They are looking at the evidence of CO2 danger as filtered down to the public and the benefits of cheap fossil fuel and voting with their feet. Evolution sceptics are never tasked to prove their belief.
Alan Kendall, their own view of whatever science that has come their way. It always comes down to individual minds. A lot of people say that they believe in ghosts but rarely act as if they do. Similarly god botherers are often at odds with their stated belief. They say what they think they should say. Tiny CO2. My experience is different. They accepted CAGW because they had never been exposed to contrary evidence or argument.
A few the best were often concerned because they had detected problems with what they had been told. When presented with evidence and argument used by sceptics many were appreciative. Mature students were confirmed sceptics or warmists long before they arrived at university. But do they give up on flying or consumerism? Do they plan to use public transport for the rest of their lives or do they dream of a fast car?
Only when their own actions are called into question do they begin to shift uneasily in their green seats. Grownups realise that fine political ideals cost THEM money. Personally I blame the Catholics for introducing the concept of being forgiven for your sins, just because you were penitent.
There was a big drive for kids to nag parents to get behind the AGW bandwagon. Someone made a comment that their kid was on their case.
I said that there was a simple solution — make the kid live by low CO2 rules. Turn the heating off in their room and give them a second hand woolly clothes instead. Feed them locally sourced, in season food, like lots of cabbage. Make them walk to school. Today in France, a small minority of skeptics supported by a part of the public opinion, are coming out in the open after years of hiding—considerably later than their American counterparts.
A staunch Stalinist agronomist, Lysenko declared a relentless war against the findings of the Austrian monk Johann Gregor Mendel, who was earlier considered and since then as the founding father of genetics and theoretician of the formation of hybrid plants.
The s were ripe for a pseudo scientific show of force in so much as they served the interests of the dictatorships. In , we hope that such is not the case. The reality—which is easier for scientists to accept than for politicians—is that in , we still do not know many things.
This is particularly true when it comes to climate behavior at the planetary scale. At the moment, the concept of average temperature is the only option available to describe climate behavior at the global level with a single parameter. But, determining change in average temperature over a period of time is not an easy task. But to have the elements of its long-term evolution—say a few decades—calls for a minute calibration of the captors used.
The slightest change in the captor on a satellite disturbs the measurements. The real challenge is to obtain a coherent series. The graphic solution was proposed in then in by three scientists: Michael Mann, professor at Pennsylvania State University, Raymond Bradley, professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Malcolm Hughes, professor of dendrochronology at the University of Arizona.
The hockey stick, and the implicit accusations it carried against economic growth, has quickly become the argument of choice of proponents of the catastrophic global warming theory—with its origins in the Industrial Revolution. The Intergovernmental Panel of Experts on Climate Change IPCC , a group set up by the United Nations to gauge the risks of global warming, has in fact used this argument extensively in numerous reports and in its communications with political authorities and the media.
However, this graph was quickly discredited and discarded after serious errors in its statistical methodology false data and incorrect choice of variance were pointed out and proved in by Richard Muller , professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley. But curiously enough, the controversy has not died down.
The war of hypotheses is still raging on in The first question being considered is whether or not we can attribute global warming observed between the s and s to human activity.
A large number of scientists concur that humans are indeed responsible for climate change. They rely on two proven facts: carbon dioxide CO2 is a greenhouse gas of human origin and its concentration in the atmosphere is increasing.
However, it remains to be proved that the observed increase in the concentration of CO2 is behind global warming. In fact, the sensitivity of climate to this type of stimulus is not known with certainty and no mathematical model is currently available to dispel the hesitation. On the other side of the debate, a few dissidents believe that the desert will become green again.
Among them is Farouk El Baz, director of the Center for Remote Sensing, University of Boston, who uses satellite images to evaluate the origin and evolution of desert landform. An explosion in the growth of plants in the region was predicted by certain climatologists. So, will we ever be able to describe and predict the climate? Will math and physics offer a reliable instrument for this purpose?
Thus, there are a large number of good models, capable of taking into consideration the observations available, even though they are based on different explanatory theories and lead to distinctive or even opposing predictions. This is because we are in a situation where we underdetermine theories by facts, when the amount of data cannot be multiplied as much as necessary during repeated and reproducible experiments.
The same goes for the predictions inferred from them. However, it is true that they remain deficient in their regional or local approach to climate change. The models of the s had a resolution of km i. In , it is km. As and when we gain in resolution, the empirical theories necessary for representing the different phenomenon can be replaced by real observations.
Japan possesses computers capable of carrying out climatic simulations with a resolution of 3 km. This will enable us to reproduce the diversity of the atmospheric scales, mainly those prevailing in a cloud.
Climate, Science, and the Loathing of the Unpredictable It is not only in the financial sector that mathematical models are contested.
Paris Innovation Review. They are not mutually exclusive: - Multi-decennial oceanic variability: it can be superimposed over other causes in order to amplify them or reduce them - The solar hypothesis: the eruptions on the surface of the sun trigger a radiation flux that can interact with the atmosphere.
Stormy weather: how extreme will it get? Can we adapt? The extreme weather events in have shifted the debate from asking is the weather changing to what will happen next. The controversies over the carbon tax.
Where are we in the theoretical debate?
Mythes, Mancies & Mathématiques Pensées d'un mathématicien …
17/09/2021 · Publié le 11 septembre 2021 par Benoît Rittaud. 8. Rien n’arrête Joël ! Une fois de plus, il a porté les couleurs climato-réalistes lors de la nouvelle épreuve du Championnat de la montagne, à Turkheim-3 épis les 4 et 5 septembre. Avec Joël, on ne peut pas perdre ! Lire la suite → Publié dans Non classé 8 Réponses COP26 : sur la route de l’échec. Publié le 10 septembre 2021 par Benoît …
Jusqu'à l'infini [Rittaud, Benoît] on opho.be *FREE* shipping on eligible orders. Jusqu'à l'infiniReviews: 3. ↑ Ouverture de la Contre-Cop 22 par Benoit Rittaud, président des climato-réalistes; Liens externes (fr) personnelle sur le site de l'université Paris XIII (fr) Le Mythe climatique (fr) Blog "Mythes, Mancies & Mathématiques - Pensées d'un mathématicien sur le temps qu'il fait dans nos têtes" (fr) Un point de vue sceptique sur la thèse «carbocentriste» (fr) [video] "Mythe climatique et peur exponentielle" par . For the mathematician Benoit Rittaud, author of the Climatic Myth, the climate war has become the biggest scientific controversy since Trofim Denisovitch Lysenko’s experimental in improved crop yields during the s. A staunch Stalinist agronomist, Lysenko declared a relentless war against the findings of the Austrian monk Johann Gregor Mendel, who was earlier considered (and since then) as .
Magnifiques logarithmes (Benoit Rittaud)
Reviews of by: Benoit Rittaud