It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

India heatwave kills 800 as capital's roads melt

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm not saying that. But if you are correct, then this would have happened long ago. Why now?


I don't know. Why is the volcano off the coast of Oregon just know erupting?




posted on May, 28 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You misunderstood. If volcano activity is responsible for the melting of the ice shelf, then why now? They've been active for ever.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

After looking at that picture, I wonder why the tires don't explode off the rim. I would think that the air inside the tires would really heat up and cause blowouts?



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: ketsuko

You misunderstood. If volcano activity is responsible for the melting of the ice shelf, then why now? They've been active for ever.


Good question. Maybe volcanoes plus the warming Earth.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
For those of you who want to know what a melting road looks like:



That would be unnerving.

~Tenth



That's some scary stuff...

My sympathies to the many victims and their families. 1400 deaths, this is VERY serious.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm not saying that. But if you are correct, then this would have happened long ago. Why now?


Climate has constantly changed well before man was even a speck of sand on a beach. We've gone through ice ages and periods of warming. Climate is changing constantly.

I always have a few simple question for global warming folks that they can never seem to answer. Maybe you can. What is the optimal temperature for earth? Why is an increase in temperature bad? Why is a decrease in temperature bad? There have always been areas on the earth where weather sucked. Who is to say those areas are static and don't change? Greenland used to be warm, it is now cold. The Sahara desert used to be lush with greenery.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Climate is supposed to change. All normal. Even if man wasn't here...it'd be changing. Ice ages, hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, earthquakes...normal.

Affected some by man? Of course. But take all the people on the planet, put em on a ship to space and look down over a few 100,000 years...there still will be changing climate down on Earth...normal.

Its how the Earth and continents formed...and reformed.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I know the optimal temp for people is a perfect 21 degrees Celsius. And yes, climate changed dramatically over the millions of years to allow for our puny species to survive the mere second of earth's 24 hour lifespan (speaking of time in relative terms) But it took 24 hours of climate change to get us where we are now. The perfect temperature. Yet, since we've been here, the time needed to change the climate has exponentially decreased. You asked:



Why is an increase in temperature bad? Why is a decrease in temperature bad?


It isn't, as long as it doesn't happen in the first minute of our existence, should be hours.
As for the Sahara, earth's orbit was slightly different to how it is today. The tilt changed from around 24.1 degrees to the present-day 23.5 degrees. As for Greenland, more false information to help propagate the lies. Greenland's ice sheet is estimated 400,000 years old. So it's reasonable to assume when the vikings landed there, it was just as cold as it is now.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
What people don't seem to get, or just don't know, is that the way weather patterns work is that where its hot in dry in one place, it's cool and wet in another. I has to do with ridging and troughs. A prime example is in the CONUS right now. You have ridging in the East, which is leading to the hot summer like temperatures there. Then you have a trough in the central U.S, which is causing the cool wet weather. Then it's ridging again once you get to the west coast. Here in the DFW metroplex we are about to go all of May with out reaching 90 degrees, which would be the first time in recorded history. A lot of this has to do with the El Nino, which has just gone moderate. El Ninos will cause drought and intense beat to areas like East Asia and Australia. Texas will probably take a break from the constant rain during the summer, I say probably because there have been El Nino years like 2004 and 2007 where there have been major flooding in June and July. When Fall arrives you will likely hear of flooding returning to Texas, but this time California will likely be included in that flooding.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I used to have a penpal in Chennai, I wonder if she still lives there? She always gripped about the summer heat in her letters. I asked her once why people lived in such a hot place, and she said people had always lived there because < insert economic-related reason I can't remember anymore > And that the oldest of the texts they have over there showed it was always a hot area prone to even higher heat waves. They've lived with it for god knows how long now. If this was in the US & A/Cs were removed from the homes, the death toll would be much higher. Indians are acclimated to this kind of thing (to a point within reason, anyway) Most Americans would be in the midst of heat exhaustion halfway through morning with Indian summer temps.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: lostbook

And the climate change deniers will defend their stance right up to the last singed hair on their head


Climate change deniers or man made climate change deniers.

I think you bandy your statements a little liberally, is it caused by man or is change just inevitable.

I am not making a statement just saying.

Does anybody deny the climate is changing?


That's funny you say that, cuz yes, a year ago, that was what you all said...the climate wasn't changing and it was a hoax. But now, you don't deny it's changing and your argument is that it's not man's fault.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: aboutface
a reply to: tothetenthpower

After looking at that picture, I wonder why the tires don't explode off the rim. I would think that the air inside the tires would really heat up and cause blowouts?



If we assumed they inflated their tires when it was around 70 F, and the temperature raised to 120, you're looking at a pressure increase of less than 10 PSI. Overinflated tires increase the chance of a blowout, but tires can easily take an extra 10 PSI (or more) over their rating and not blow up.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I worry that Vegas will see a prolonged heat wave of 122 and higher like India. That will suck.

We have models that help us predict future weather and Climate but they aren't perfect and they will change as the earth changes. So yeah drought in California one year and massive flooding the next, that's still climate change or since the earth is actually still getting warmer according to scientists...I still call it global warming. We can't ignore it just because Inhofe found a snowball and Republicans cut earth science from Nasa's budget. We should be studying it even more trying to perfect our models and understanding so that we can predict and mitigate these things. You know...actual Science.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Confused on how the roads are melting...we hit 120+ in AZ often without this problem. Wonder what they're using over there. It's 99 right now here and it's not really even started up yet...



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: borntowatch

Climate change deniers or man made climate change deniers.

I think you bandy your statements a little liberally, is it caused by man or is change just inevitable.

I am not making a statement just saying.

Does anybody deny the climate is changing?


That's funny you say that, cuz yes, a year ago, that was what you all said...the climate wasn't changing and it was a hoax. But now, you don't deny it's changing and your argument is that it's not man's fault.




I am of the opinion to a degree that man does cause an effect on the climate, I dont deny that.

I have an issue where some people in the scientific community blame humanity for everything.

I wasnt shocked when i read the East Anglia University climategate conspiracy ,that was proven, then quashed by the media
www.theguardian.com... Why lie like the scientists did in those circumstances

Now a year ago I was aware the climate was changing, I dont know why, havnt seen conclusive evidence yet. As I stated above, I was not making a statement just commenting.


Where did we all say one year ago that ...the climate wasn't changing and it was a hoax



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: lostbook

And the climate change deniers will defend their stance right up to the last singed hair on their head


Climate change deniers or man made climate change deniers.

I think you bandy your statements a little liberally, is it caused by man or is change just inevitable.

I am not making a statement just saying.

Does anybody deny the climate is changing?


Imagine there is a water tower without a top that supplies all of your street's drinking water. Frequent windstorms bring in debris and birds crap in it. On top of that, there is a group of local businessmen who piss in it because they believe it brings them financial luck.

Soon, it's determined that the water is too polluted to drink and something needs to be done about it before they all die of thirst. They ask the business men to stop pissing in the water tower but they refuse, saying that there's no way to prove that it's their piss that causing the pollution since storms also bring in contaminants. So they keep pissing in the water...

That is how that logic sounds to me when the last bastion of defense for deniers is "Well you can't prove that our pollution is causing all this pollution!" It's so aggravating that we accept that as a reasonable retort.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo




posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: borntowatch

Climate change deniers or man made climate change deniers.

I think you bandy your statements a little liberally, is it caused by man or is change just inevitable.

I am not making a statement just saying.

Does anybody deny the climate is changing?


That's funny you say that, cuz yes, a year ago, that was what you all said...the climate wasn't changing and it was a hoax. But now, you don't deny it's changing and your argument is that it's not man's fault.




I am of the opinion to a degree that man does cause an effect on the climate, I dont deny that.

I have an issue where some people in the scientific community blame humanity for everything.

I wasnt shocked when i read the East Anglia University climategate conspiracy ,that was proven, then quashed by the media
www.theguardian.com... Why lie like the scientists did in those circumstances

Now a year ago I was aware the climate was changing, I dont know why, havnt seen conclusive evidence yet. As I stated above, I was not making a statement just commenting.


Where did we all say one year ago that ...the climate wasn't changing and it was a hoax


Last year there were a couple of threads here at ATS where deniers were charging that data was fixed and rising temperatures were a hoax. I've noticed more and more this past year that many deniers aren't saying anymore that it's not changing but have changed the argument now to focus on the manmade issue. I, for one, try to avoid the argument of who is at fault and try to focus on the fact that ocean and air temperatures are rising and the climate is changing.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

As of yesterday (5/27/15) 1,100 had died.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cuervo

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: lostbook

And the climate change deniers will defend their stance right up to the last singed hair on their head


Climate change deniers or man made climate change deniers.

I think you bandy your statements a little liberally, is it caused by man or is change just inevitable.

I am not making a statement just saying.

Does anybody deny the climate is changing?


Imagine there is a water tower without a top that supplies all of your street's drinking water. Frequent windstorms bring in debris and birds crap in it. On top of that, there is a group of local businessmen who piss in it because they believe it brings them financial luck.

Soon, it's determined that the water is too polluted to drink and something needs to be done about it before they all die of thirst. They ask the business men to stop pissing in the water tower but they refuse, saying that there's no way to prove that it's their piss that causing the pollution since storms also bring in contaminants. So they keep pissing in the water...

That is how that logic sounds to me when the last bastion of defense for deniers is "Well you can't prove that our pollution is causing all this pollution!" It's so aggravating that we accept that as a reasonable retort.


Standard Business Practise. Can't prove smoking causes cancer, can't prove gmos cause any disease, can't prove radiation causes hard.... etc., etc....

The big lie in this is "Correlation don't prove causation" and it doesn't (never did) but it points to the smoking gun

Causation isn't a simple linear effect - the right conditions have to be present for a catalyst to work. Small inputs lead to huge changes (over time). Epigenetics.

Our linear simple cause - simple effect doesn't work today. It never did work, if you look at scientific history. Scientists just 'normalized' things. But I digress.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join