Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Fire’s Afoot. CCM Question #3 Emily Parker. Table of Contents. Problem (a) (b) (c) Conclusion. Problem / (a) / (b) / (c) / conclusion. Problem. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Fire’s AfootCCM Question #3
Emily Parker
2
Table of Contents
• Problem • (a)• (b)• (c)• Conclusion
3
ProblemA homeowner is experiencing a new bout of asthma, which he blames on a neighborhood fire that occurred on Armour Drive down the hill from his house on Glen Oaks Way in east Oakland. He states that the fire occurred during a period of dense fog in the late afternoon of June 13, 2012, and therefore did not notice the smoke. Also, because of the inversion capping layer, the smoke did not disperse into the atmosphere and instead stayed close to the surface.
Problem / (a) / (b) / (c) / conclusion
4
Fig. 1
Source: http://maps.google.com/
Problem / (a) / (b) / (c) / conclusion
5
Fig. 2
Problem / (a) / (b) / (c) / conclusion
6
(a)
A consulting firm has hired you to:
(a) Determine if there was an inversion layer present during this period.
Problem / (a) / (b) / (c) / conclusion
7
Fig. 3
Source: http://meteo.psu.edu/
Problem / (a) / (b) / (c) / conclusion
8
Fig. 4
Problem / (a) / (b) / (c) / conclusion
9
Fig. 5Source: http://weather.uwyo.edu/
Problem / (a) / (b) / (c) / conclusion
10
(b)
(b) Determine whether fog was present during this period.
Problem / (a) / (b) / (c) / conclusion
11
Fig. 5Source: http://weather.uwyo.edu/
Problem / (a) / (b) / (c) / conclusion
12
(c)
(c) Determine the winds at the client’s house on this day.
Problem / (a) / (b) / (c) / conclusion
13
Fig. 5Source: http://weather.uwyo.edu/
Problem / (a) / (b) / (c) / conclusion
14
Problem / (a) / (b) / (c) / conclusion
Fig. 6
15
Problem / (a) / (b) / (c) / conclusion
Fig. 7
West (270)
East (90)
North (360)
South (180)
16
ConclusionProblem / (a) / (b) / (c) / conclusion
• Both houses are situated on the tops of mountains, where the wind reaching the buildings would not be obstructed by other peaks.
• The fire was located to the southeast of the client’s house. • A wind of this strength and in this direction proves that the smoke
from the fire would not have been blown towards the client’s house, despite the inversion layer capping the smoke.
• It was previously determined that there was no fog present, so the homeowner would have been able to see and avoid the smoke.
• It is concluded, then, that the homeowner’s bout of asthma did not come from this fire, and his case has no merit.
