[dismalaf]

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]

> 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]

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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.

[sabbaticaldev]

comparing forest burning with a city of millions of people burning is such a nonsense, it is funny how you keep doubling down