I accept that we really do not have 2 Earths to perform.It shpuld have been happened in controlled manner.However this discovery may help us to create 100 thousand s of earths.I am speechless to imagine this.Thanks everyone. Regards,Uday Pallapolu, Andhrapradesh, pandillapalli.
When there is real verification by several independent tests by objective scientists for the Higgs boson, then the joy of its discovery will be justified. It seems excitement is premature.
I agree with your early statement that the climate is, and always has been, changing. My difficulty is in "believing" the software models that can accurately model a system as complex as the earth. If we had a perfect simulation of the earth, it would be data to consider.
Is our "footprint" evidence enough to act upon? Remember, our footprint can both damage and preserve earth systems. Since we do not yet have a perfect model of the earth and the effects of human activity, lets let common sense and good stewardship rule the day.
you all are going to hate me for saying this, I read this with great interest, but no one ever mentions that the sun has a role in our weather, the earth has been warmer than it is now, without man, and in 2012 and 2013 we are at a solar sunspot peak, and everyone is hollering global warming, in the 1970s, it was the next ice age was coming.
Is it not possible, that when we pass 2013 and we pass the solar maximum and head toward a solar minimum, a major minimum in 2030, I believe, the I bet the weather gets cooler summer and winter after 2013, what will people say then. Man is just a blip on the screen of earth and galaxies, we give ourselves too much power.
There are a lot more forces at work here than what we are doing. Why do people that discuss this never mention the sun, there are other forces at work besides us for the hot weather. A few years ago, we had more snow than I have ever seen in my 58 years, 2012 is a third hot summer in a row, but remember that 1930, 1931, 1934, 1936, 1938, 1939 are still among the 20 hottest summers in the Baltimore area as is 1872 and 1876. No one was talking global warming then, we did not even know it existed. Is man to blame for changing the earth? Sure, that is logical, but we are not the sole 100% cause, the sun's activity has a lot to do with this hot summer, and probably a brutal winter this year and another torrid summer in 2013.
I know this won't be popular, but I have been around and studied weather with great interest for a long time. As a long time observer and seeing a lot of weather patterns this area, I would state that we need to look at the sun's role too, not just man.
Robert, we can do nothing about the sun, but we can do something about the amount of global warming that comes from the heat emitted by our energy consumption. The most verifiable contribution is the fact that heat emissions of 16 terrawatts (2008) can raise the temperature of the atmosphere (530x10E16 kilograms) by 0.17*F. Actual rise was about one fourth due to melting glaciers, cooling by photosynthesis, and heating earth and water. Some believe this is too small an amount of heat, as compared to the sun, to be of significance, but this heat doesn't magically disappear without consequence.
"What will our grandchildren live to see verified? A Higgs Boson . . .or something much bigger and maybe even more important?"
Maybe an alien invasion and therefore the need to introduce an alien invasion tax so we can build a star wars program?
Here is something basic that alarmist never tell us: what is the criteria for falsifying this theory which no one can repeat or predict? how do you falsify global warming? What next year is cool or normal? What if the year after that is even less warm? Does that mean global warming is not as alarmist as they make it sound to be? If its hot- global warning. Cold- global warming. Hurricane- global warming (less hurricanes this year so no global warming?) Tornado? Global warming? Bugs? Avalanche? Global warming. Mud slide? Global warming. Coral reef? Global warming. Mosquitos? Global warming. Less sunlight? Global warming. Gas problems? Global warming (people drink and eat more). Obesity? Global warming. War? Global warming. Racism? Global warming (makes you tan more). Illegal immigration? Global warming. Better batting in baseball? Global warming.
You think this sounds stupid? It does but this is the kind of stuff that alarmists are linking to global warming.
What a convenient theory to blame everything on it so we can derive a new tax.
You gave yourself away in your last sentence.. You are apparently one who denies the existense of any problem that might require government involvement (ie - taxes). You can't deny this problem (which virtually every earth-scientist accepts as real) because you don't like the solution.
You might want to rethink your approach to all this. Very few people (including you and me) can offer an informed, scientific opinion on this. Denying it based on some political philosophy isn't rational. Why not give the scientific community benefit of your doubt, at least for now?
The amount of sillyness in this article is beyond astounding. What the hell have the lightbulbs in the night have anything to do with global warming? Since when are models the equivalent of experimental evidence? Since when is calling something a "Theory" evidence of its truthiness? Since when is a graph of CO2 rising evidence of a catastrophe in future temperatures?
All I see here is bluster. Spam of disparaging facts that are utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand to hide the fact that the real evidence for catastrophe coming from global warming is in fact lacking (at least in this post).
The Higgs boson is verified when sensible scientists get confirmation at 99.9999999999% (sigma 7) probability of it being where they think it is. Don't you dare compare climatology "rigor" with this.
This is one of the worst science articles I've ever read. Your warning "Don’t ask me about the Higgs field it’s way beyond me," was completely unnecessary by that point. Almost every sentence contains an egregious error that highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of how basic science is done. The demonstrated level of aptitude makes me surprised that you were capable of using a computer to type your thoughts, much less intelligently discuss high energy particle physics. On second thought, you did fail to correctly make use of the spelling/grammar check feature so I'm too far off base.