3 ms·

This hits a lil closer to home. This summer I lost my home when half our town burnt down in a 32,000 hectare forest fire. The other half is untouched and ther

This hits a lil closer to home. This summer I lost my home when half our town burnt down in a 32,000 hectare forest fire. The other half is untouched and there's not even soot on the town, nevermind into the atmosphere. Massive amounts of boreal forest burn yearly. So their scenario is pure speculation with zero basis in reality.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Massive amounts of boreal forest burn yearly. So their scenario is pure speculation with zero basis in reality. It's speculation shared by nuclear and climate scientists.
- dismalaf 2y ago
  15 million hectares burned in Canada alone in 2023. We average over 2 million hectares of burnt forest per year. Some quick maths. 15 million ha is 150,000km2. Tsar Bomba blast area was 16km2. It would take over 9000 Tsar Bombas to burn as much forest as only Canada's 2023 forest fire season. Maybe provide some source for your assertion...
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Tsar Bomba blast area was 16km2. It would take over 9000 Tsar Bombas to burn as much forest as only Canada's 2023 forest fire season The fire burns beyond the blast area. Also, urban fires produce > Maybe provide some source for your assertion Sure [1][2]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219184/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219184/ [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00794-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00794-y
    - dismalaf 2y ago
      Link 1 is talking about blast effect which is a different topic altogether, link 2 is paywalled and is a magazine, not anything scholarly.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Link 1 is talking about blast effect which is a different topic altogether One, no—it’s about fire effects. It’s in the title. Two, you literally cited blast area to estimate burn area. Three, do you need a source for fires being able to spread? If I toss a match into a dry forest, is the area of the matchhead a predictor of particulate volume?
        dismalaf 2y ago
        What I'm saying is... Tens of millions of hectares burn all the time, far more than all the nukes on earth would likely set on fire (since most of the populous cities on earth are on the coasts, and there's roads, farms and prairies surrounding most, not forests), so this idea that nukes would start forest fires that launch soot into the air that end civilization is pure fiction. There's zero basis for it, tens of millions of hectares worldwide burn yearly and it's barely noticeable if you don't live next to it.
        sabbaticaldev 2y ago
        comparing forest burning with a city of millions of people burning is such a nonsense, it is funny how you keep doubling down
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Tens of millions of hectares burn all the time, far more than all the nukes on earth would likely set on fire Totally wrong. You’re still comparing forest and urban fires, and assuming you’ve calculated a burn mass from blast effects alone. > There's zero basis for it So you still haven’t read the first source. The one with “superfires” in the title.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Massive amounts of boreal forest burn yearly. So their scenario is pure speculation with zero basis in reality. It's speculation shared by nuclear and climate scientists.

dismalaf 2y ago
15 million hectares burned in Canada alone in 2023. We average over 2 million hectares of burnt forest per year. Some quick maths. 15 million ha is 150,000km2. Tsar Bomba blast area was 16km2. It would take over 9000 Tsar Bombas to burn as much forest as only Canada's 2023 forest fire season. Maybe provide some source for your assertion...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Tsar Bomba blast area was 16km2. It would take over 9000 Tsar Bombas to burn as much forest as only Canada's 2023 forest fire season The fire burns beyond the blast area. Also, urban fires produce > Maybe provide some source for your assertion Sure [1][2]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219184/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219184/ [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00794-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00794-y
  - dismalaf 2y ago
    Link 1 is talking about blast effect which is a different topic altogether, link 2 is paywalled and is a magazine, not anything scholarly.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Link 1 is talking about blast effect which is a different topic altogether One, no—it’s about fire effects. It’s in the title. Two, you literally cited blast area to estimate burn area. Three, do you need a source for fires being able to spread? If I toss a match into a dry forest, is the area of the matchhead a predictor of particulate volume?
      - dismalaf 2y ago
        What I'm saying is... Tens of millions of hectares burn all the time, far more than all the nukes on earth would likely set on fire (since most of the populous cities on earth are on the coasts, and there's roads, farms and prairies surrounding most, not forests), so this idea that nukes would start forest fires that launch soot into the air that end civilization is pure fiction. There's zero basis for it, tens of millions of hectares worldwide burn yearly and it's barely noticeable if you don't live next to it.
        sabbaticaldev 2y ago
        comparing forest burning with a city of millions of people burning is such a nonsense, it is funny how you keep doubling down
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Tens of millions of hectares burn all the time, far more than all the nukes on earth would likely set on fire Totally wrong. You’re still comparing forest and urban fires, and assuming you’ve calculated a burn mass from blast effects alone. > There's zero basis for it So you still haven’t read the first source. The one with “superfires” in the title.