Approximately two
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
106 points (94.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43835 readers
709 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
This is the correct answer.
The dividing line is 2. You must be 2 away from a big fire.
Yes. 2 is it.
2 is really important because of the inverse square law. At a distance of 2, the power level youβre feeling is 1/4. However if you were using different units and were, by those units, 3 from your power source what youβd be feeling would be multiplied by 1/9.
Don't forget the number of pollutions is also a factor.
3 pollutions to be exact.
Shit, I knew it!
Formula: 2 away + 3 pollutions = counts
The scary temperatures you see in news headlines are basically unaffected by the fires. Wikipedia has a good overview:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surface_temperature
The overall issue with global warming is not that one place gets super hot once and sets a record. Otherwise I could make news headlines by setting my house on fire and getting "hottest temperature ever! (at my house)". Those local hotspots of fire will affect the average global temp only a tiny bit, because the earth is a big place and there's lots of places not currently on fire. The thing to worry about is the reverse actually: because the earth is warming, fires are increasing everywhere, and then everybody will be next to a fire on that blessed record-setting day.
Well, the record high temperatures are what cause the forest fires so we do have to take that into account. And the radiant heat that the fire gives off dissipates with the inverse square law so that limits it's contribution. Really it seems that the only major contributing factor to the increased heat, other than the effects of the already high ambient temperature and thus the decreased apparent humidity, are the excitation of the air molecules as they are transformed from elemental oxygen and plant matter into hydrogen hydroxide and carbon dioxide, along with other molecules due to incomplete combustion and contaminates. Overall I think a safe bet would be 2.
As soon as the thermometer stops going down and levels out while moving away from the fire I guess.
I'm going to say out of sight or someone will question it. That's not actually a tough requirement, most places aren't on fire at any given moment.
most places aren't on fire at any given moment.
[Citation Needed]
Well, assuming fire temperature to be 800C and temperature drop off close to 1/rΒ² - you need to be approximately 28 meters away from a point source to feel 1 degree Celsius increase in temperature. Forest fire is not a point source, it's a wall of fire, but give it or take - 100 m away it you shouldn't feel any heat coming from the first fire.
Other people are saying 2, is that close to 100m?
it's about 2 of 100m / 2
It's about 2 of 100m / m.
Are the fires out of the environment?
Nothings out there!
view more: next βΊ