There have been some impressive (and scary) temperature records set in the past couple weeks. That said, there are parts of Canada that are currently on fire that likely have a daily temperature in the hundreds of degrees. Clearly that doesn’t count for any sort of temperature record. What I’m wondering is: where’s the dividing line? How far away from a big fire do you have to be to record a valid daily temperature?

39 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
38 points

Approximately two

permalink
report
reply
27 points

This is the correct answer.

The dividing line is 2. You must be 2 away from a big fire.

Yes. 2 is it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

2 is really important because of the inverse square law. At a distance of 2, the power level you’re feeling is 1/4. However if you were using different units and were, by those units, 3 from your power source what you’d be feeling would be multiplied by 1/9.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

Don’t forget the number of pollutions is also a factor.

3 pollutions to be exact.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Shit, I knew it!

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

Formula: 2 away + 3 pollutions = counts

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points
*

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.

permalink
report
reply
11 points

As soon as the thermometer stops going down and levels out while moving away from the fire I guess.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

most places aren’t on fire at any given moment.

[Citation Needed]

permalink
report
parent
reply

Asklemmy

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Create post

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it’s welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de

Community stats

  • 10K

    Monthly active users

  • 5.9K

    Posts

  • 319K

    Comments