105
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
105 points (94.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43855 readers
1668 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
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
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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.