explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-26T13:59:15Z

172.68.22.98: reply

Shouldn't Rankine say "0ºR is set to absolute zero"? {{unsigned ip|172.70.230.29|22:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)}}
:Yep. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.253|162.158.186.253]] 04:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:Furthermore, should it be 0°R or just 0R (no °)? I've been told that Kelvin doesn't use degrees because it's an absolute scale, so a) is this true and b) should it apply to Rankine? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.211.54|172.71.211.54]] 14:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::Kelvin is rather strange, for reasons never totally explained. It's "the Kelvin scale", but the unit is "kelvin" and I never got on with the official absence of the ° symbol by the "K". I was always taught to ''say'' "degrees kelvin" (for temperatures) and "kelvin degrees" (for a change/range of temperature) in order to not cause confusion and technical misunderstandings (''perhaps'' easier to contextualise when down in writing?) but no accounting for taste, or possibly official laziness.
::On the basis that Rankine is not kelvin (whatever the reason for how kelvin is what it is), I would use the degrees, as I would any other absolute scale (whether it be an adjusted form of °Rø or °Ré or whatever else might be invented), because kelvin is just inexplicably (to me, and to others) ''the'' exception to absolutely every other reasonably equivalent contemporary measure, including capitalisation. YMMV! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.2|172.70.162.2]] 19:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::0ºRa, not 0ºR. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.157|172.70.206.157]] 02:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Can be either. Perhaps best to use °Ra (in ambiguous context) to avoid ''possible'' confusion with °Ré and °Rø, but probably less important when both those two are also listed alongside (except for wondering what, if anything, is a typo, bad handwriting or other error). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.12|172.69.194.12]] 11:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::It's easy if you think about it like "meter". You usually say "meters" not "the meter scale" although both are correct. Scientists and engineers who use them daily call them "kelvins", not "kelvin" unless following a number. You wouldn't say "We need to measure this room in meter." Someone keeps reverting me on this, and they're wrong, but I don't care much anymore. I'll probably fix it next month or something. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 21:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::"Americans typically measure temperatures in Fahrenheits, whilst Europeans use Celsiusses..." hmm, no, that doesn't sound right at all. (Celciuses? No, wait. Celcii! Masculine Nominative Singular changed to the Plural, if I've got my Latin declensions right. But still doesn't sound right. Maybe I also need to use "Fahrenheit''en''"..? Wait, wasn't he born Polish, so that means...)
:::::Seriously, I think that if you talk of "measured in [the scale of] Celsius" you should probably talk of "... in [the scale of] Kelvin" (using the capital for the scale). According to the {{w|Kelvin#Orthography|orthography}}, you'd be right to specify "50 kelvins" (c.f. "50 degrees [whatever non-Kelvin measure]" ''or'' "50 [whatever non-Kelvin measure] degrees" for a range), but talking ''about'' the scale would definitely call for a simple "Kelvin". [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.135|172.68.205.135]] 21:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC) (PS., I'd also say "metre(s)", but then I'm British... which might also colour (or 'color') my personal grammatical sensibilities. But oh what fun you lot seem to have had with this whole issue!)
::::::The units are ''degrees'' Celsius or Fahrenheit, but just kelvins, like watts or ohms or amps. It's explained in great detail in the article already. Fun?! Perhaps you should talk to someone who uses kelvins on a regular basis before you impose your imagined usage over the course of a half dozen reverts. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.73|172.70.206.73]] 23:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Isn't that what was just said? Though I'd say "It's 50 kelvin", apparently the 'right' way to say that is "It's 50 kelvins" (also "It went up by 50 kelvin"/"it went up by 50 kelvins"... that latter sounds off to me, and isn't how I've ever used it, but the orthography link suggests it's right).
:::::::But then one can talk about measuring temperatures (or temperature ranges) ''in'' Celsius or Fahrenheit or Delisle or whatever, because you're saying you're measuring things in ''the scale of'' whatever-it-is, so you can equally say you're measuring things in (the scale of) Kelvin. Not too different from saying that you're using the meter or the foot or the kiloparsec or the nanosecond or the coulomb-squared-per-barn or even the fortnight-per-firkin-furlong if you ever so wish. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.150|172.68.205.150]] 23:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Tell me you never talk about kelvins in everyday work without telling me you never talk about kelvins in everyday work. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.98|172.68.22.98]] 13:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

yo,i thought comic 3000 was anticlimactic so randall would make this one COOL but sadly not
Same. Hope he does something cool for 3072.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.225|172.69.134.225]] 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

really he didn't do anything special for this either? come ON randall if you don't do something cool for comic 3072 i will come to your house personally and yell at you [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 23:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 
What's random about Fahrenheit? (Answer: nothing.) 0F is the freezing point of brine, 100F (or 98.7) is the human body temperature. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.65|172.68.54.65]] 00:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:What concentration of brine? (And which specific salt... No, not NaCl, as you might presume but NH4Cl!)
:And body temperature varies a lot ('typically' 36.5–37.5°C or 97.7–99.5°F, though even this range is thought to be too small), across genders, individuals, time of day ''and'' which orifices/surfaces you try to measure it from. (Originally, it was set so that '''90°F''' was to be the 'best guess' of human body temperature. It gradually changed, including via various {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|compounded misunderstandings}} so that the best you can say is that 100°F is arbitrarily ''slightly above'' most afebrile human body temperature measurements.)
:Celsius might be a bit off (arguments about triple-point or STP freezing, etc), but it still has far more physical logic to it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Randall, for my comfort, Fahrenheit is the least cursed. It's the best scale to use for my personal use, especially when hearing the weather report and deciding what to wear outdoors: temp in the 80's - no jacket. temp in 70's - maybe a windbreaker if it's breezy. 60's - sweater weather. 50's - medium weight coat. 40's - winter coat. 30'3 - winter coat with scarf and gloves. 20's - multiple layers. teens - stay indoors. None of the other scales provide such convenient distinctions for my daily life. Kelvin is great for astro physics or super conductivity, but useless for any common uses. Celsius is great for hanging out with the Euro crowd but still not so useful to scale my home thermostat. I judge Fahrenheit as 1.0 for cursedness. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 14:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I conveniently use Celsius in tens, also. Negative °C: Cold; 0-10°C: Nippy; 10-20°C: Generally pleasant; 20-30°C: Too warm to exert oneself; 30°C+: ''Definitely'' too warm. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.205|172.70.86.205]] 15:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm most disappointed that {{w|Delisle scale}} was not represented... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: I was so hoping for a {{w|Planck temperature}} quip. Like: "Water freezing point: 0; Water boiling point: 0; Notes: 1 = highest possible temperature (1.4E32K) where thermal radiation creates black holes; Cursedness: 0/0" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.164.184|162.158.164.184]] 01:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Same here. Freezing is 0.000000000000000000000000000001928 and boiling is 0.0000000000000000000000000000026338. [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] ([[User talk:DanielLC|talk]]) 03:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: Wow, those are even smaller than the IEEE floating point representations of 1-1.0/3*3! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.109|162.158.90.109]] 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: The Planck temperature quip is definitely well deserved. Good catch! [[User:Mumingpo|Mumingpo]] ([[User talk:Mumingpo|talk]]) 17:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess I was wrong in my comment on the last comic. sigh. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 01:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's actually spelled {{w|Wedgwood scale}}, not Wedgewood. [[User:Wilh3lm|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm|talk]]) 01:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I still call the modern version of the "Celsius" scale "centigrade", but if people start nitpicking, I'm happy to switch to "Carolus" to avoid ambiguity. For some reason that tends to annoy people more though. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.191|172.68.22.191]] 01:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Every temperature scale is equally "random" as every other scale. People always say that Celsius is so much better because it's defined by the phase changes of water. Okay, cool...why should THAT of all things be what we use as the base for a system of temperature measurement? And, who cares? I'm a ''Homo sapiens'', not a water molecule. If anything we should use the freezing and melting points of humans as our two reference points for temperature (which, I must say, Fahrenheit approximates better than Celsius, assuming 0 and 100 are your points "A" and "B"). [[User:Pie Guy|Pie Guy]] ([[User talk:Pie Guy|talk]]) 03:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: Every temperature scale is arbitrary, but since boiling and freezing water is a thing humans have a lot of experience with it makes sense to use that as the reference point. At least it makes more sense than whatever the coldest recorded temperature in Fahrenheit's home town was, because he didn't like negative numbers [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.23|172.70.250.23]] 03:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Planck temperature (as above) is probably the least arbitrary, and some would say it is to some extent free from arbitrariness. However, it's completely impractical for everyday use (as above.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.138|172.69.34.138]] 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Do the physics of black holes or neutron stars involve Planck temperatures greater than 0.0000001? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Chat Gippity told me:

:::::Black holes and neutron stars do not typically involve temperatures reaching the Planck scale. While both objects exhibit extreme physical conditions, their temperatures are far below the Planck temperature, even though they can be incredibly high compared to everyday phenomena.

::::: - **Neutron stars** have surface temperatures in the range of millions of Kelvin, and the core can reach even higher, possibly up to a few billion Kelvin. These temperatures are still vastly lower than the Planck temperature.

::::: - **Black holes**, especially the smaller ones, can emit Hawking radiation, with temperatures inversely proportional to their mass. However, the temperature of even a very small black hole is still far below the Planck temperature. Hawking radiation is not expected to reach temperatures close to the Planck scale under normal circumstances.

::::: The Planck temperature (TP=1) represents an energy scale so extreme that no known physical models, including those describing black holes and neutron stars, operate near or above this threshold. Temperatures reaching **0.0000001 TP** (or 1.416 × 10^26 K) would still be beyond current observational and theoretical frameworks related to these cosmic objects. A quantum theory of gravity would be required to describe physics at or near the Planck temperature, which remains speculative and is far beyond the conditions found in black holes or neutron stars.

::::[[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If the °X scale is based on the temperatures of Earth from all time (for some definition of "Earth"), then the scale is very hard to define and highly impractical. The earth appears to have gotten to more than 2,300 Kelvin (hot enough to melt steel and platinum and to boil lead) and while I can't find any sources for the lowest temperature, I imagine it is lower than -100°C. The recorded minimum, maximum and average temperatures appear to be around -89.2 °C, 56.7 °C and 15 °C respectively. This would make the scale somewhat useful, but this would make typical values between 41 °X (cold winter's day) and 68 °X (hot summers day) which I think is pretty cursed. I recommend the clearly superior °Y, based around average temp at 0 °Y, low at -100 °Y and high at 100 °Y. These would be measured by the yearly high, low and mean temperatures averaged per person. Then saying "It's 2 times colder than yesterday" would have some reasonable meaning. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.147|198.41.236.147]] 04:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:"''Record'' ... surface temperature" implies it was recorded. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.9|172.68.22.9]] 04:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

How do you all feel about adding an additional column for room temperature 22C/72F?
{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right;"
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Room temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22
|-
| Kelvin || 295
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72
|-
| Réaumur || 18
|-
| Rømer || 18
|-
| Rankine || 531
|-
| Newton || 7
|-
| Wedgwood || -7
|-
| Galen || 0
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78
|-
| °X || 59
|}

Or 0.00000000000000000000000000000208 °Planck, lol. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.211|108.162.245.211]] 05:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I feel like decigalens would be the most practical unit. Who's with me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.5|162.158.186.5]] 06:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's interesting; calculating the equilibrium temperature (with 2.05 and 4.24 being used for the heat capacities of ice and boiling water) gives 67... If I use water that's about to freeze and steam, I get 31. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 07:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Would you please explain in more detail? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: The equilibrium temperature of a mixture (?) of equal quantities of ice at 0 C and water at 100 C (with the heat capacities 2.05 and 4.24) is 67 C; if I use the data for water at 0 C and steam, I get 31 C. Additionally, if I use equal volumes, I get 68 (which isn't much different.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 17:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: One can obtain 0 = 22 C by setting the heat capacity of ice to be 39 and that of water to be 11. For any particular "normal temperature" ''R'' °C (that is, the temperature at 0 is ''R'',), I find that ''x'' °C = 50''R''(''x''+4)/(''x''(''R''-50)+200). In particular, for ''R'' = 22, we get (1100+275''x'')/(50-7''x''). [[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.163|198.41.236.163]] 05:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::How about Tnew=0.1694×degC+46.25; degC=(Tnew-46.25)/0.1694, where 0 is absolute zero and 50 is room temperature? (Freezing point of water: 46.25; Boiling point of water: 63.19) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.248|162.158.186.248]] 05:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:I would absolutely pull the trigger on an additional column if I didn't think it would further screw up what are most probably extremely cursed mobile portrait renderings of the table. How about a Trivia section? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding the X scale - when it‘s defined by *three* (somewhat, implying average is real and not just calculated by (max-min)/2)) independent points, how will linearity be achieved? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.76|162.158.155.76]] 05:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
[[File:Explanation length.png|right|thumb|Or click "[Expand]" in the bottom right table cell Derivation.]]
:Please see [[2701: Change in Slope]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.179|172.70.206.179]] 05:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:Sure, "a linear scale between each point":
[[File:XvsC.png|thumb|left|Here you go. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 06:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)]]
{{clear}}

The reference for the average surface temperature, https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html, suggests it has increased above 15°C. What value should we use in late 2024? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The [https://wmo.int/media/news/earth-experiences-warmest-day-recent-history World Meteorological Organization], [https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2024-now-very-likely-to-be-warmest-year-on-record/ Carbon Brief], and [https://climate.copernicus.eu/new-record-daily-global-average-temperature-reached-july-2024 Copernicus Climate Change Service] suggest 17.16°C. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Updated water temperatures, Derivation, and graph. So we've already had more than the +2°C warming we were trying to avoid in 2019? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: The +2°C (or +1.5°C that we were originally supposed to be avoiding) is over some (undefined) number of years, though, which allows us to ignore the fact that we're cooking ourselves by repeatedly saying 'Oh, but it doesn't count ''yet''.' [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.62|172.70.91.62]] 11:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3001%3A_Temperature_Scales&type=revision&diff=353635&oldid=353632], are the average surface temperatures from the sources supposed to be yearly or overall averages? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:According to https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature the global average near-surface temperature in 2023 was 14.4 + 0.4 = 14.8°C. (see Figure 1 and click "Increase above: [1991–2020 reference period].") [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.8|172.68.22.8]] 21:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

where is the interactive epic 3000 comic we should've gotten? This one's cool but 1000 seemed to have more effort in it and 2000 was at least tangetially related. Does Randall just not like making these anymore and is only making more comics as a business? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.185|108.162.238.185]] 12:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The comic is free on the website and it doesn't have ads; although the comic is part of his "brand" there are many more profitable things he could be doing with his time, and yet he continues to update it every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. I just don't like the idea of claiming that a creative person "should" produce any particular thing to satisfy their fans. He's a busy guy! Maybe he's working on a book, or a Scientific American article, or a TV show. He's under no obligation to give us anything, and maybe one day he'll stop making xkcd altogether; that's his choice. Sorry to single you out; I know a lot of people feel the same way as you do, but to me it doesn't make sense. He's not a content machine--he's a guy who started posting sketches on the internet. [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry if I sounded overly brash, I wasn't trying to imply "wahhh no special entry wahhh", I was just wondering if Randall still likes to make these or if he doesn't, mainly because he just didn't do anything special, which feels like he just didn't care. I wasn't trying to imply Randall should just do it for the fans[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.80|108.162.238.80]] 17:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::It ''could'' be that 3000 (or even 3001) ''was'' going to be special but, as fairly frequently with April Fool 'specials', it just wasn't doable on time. (If it's still considered fixablez it might pop up sometime before 3020 or so. Or, if transferable to another occasion (rebranding the obvious "3000!"ness), held over until Haloween, Christmas, April or 4000, perhaps with additional perfections.)
:::Hard to know, unless Randall (or his technical collaborators) say anything. And it's probably not worth doing so right now. Maybe "Hey guys, this ''was'' going to be #3000!" might accompany its eventual emergence, but also maybe not. Does it really matter? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.139|172.70.85.139]] 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this the first list-style comic where every single entry is real? (Usually he has several joke entries.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.182|172.70.114.182]] 14:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Where would [[1923: Felsius|Felsius]] go on this list?

One can find a smooth function for °X, namely, (477879''x''-17634840)/(3341''x''+197700), which takes °X and returns °C. The inverse is (-197700''x''-17634840)/(3341''x''-477879). Should this be included in the wiki article? Or maybe another way of fitting it (like exponential) should be used. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.165|172.69.0.165]] 06:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:It says "a linear scale between each point". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.130|172.70.210.130]] 21:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Should it be noted that in the first _What If?_ book, there's a reference to units and how much Randall loathes rankine? Someone can go take the book and cite it; it's in one of the early pages [[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.10|172.64.236.10]] 08:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I remember it being drummed into us in school physics (admittedly over 50 years ago) that 0 Celsius is defined as the melting point of ice, not the freezing point of water (presumably because of supercooling). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.189|172.70.160.189]] 08:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems he wrote "Earths'" (plural possessive) instead of "Earth's". [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.151|141.101.98.151]] 08:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What? No gas mark? It's linear for temperatures over 275°F but inverse powers of 2 below That's pretty cursed, but I still put it in my unit conversion app. It's only used in gas stoves in a few countries, so it doesn't come up very often. By the way, boiling is 1/5.7358 and freezing/melting is 1/843.3572. Interestingly, France has it's own stove temperature scale that seems to be based on °F.

Also, my understanding is that 7.5 and 32 aren't random. Both Romer and Fahrenheit put numbers on things so that freezing/melting of water and "Normal human body temperature", which was thought to be standard at the time, would be some number X (15 for Romer and 64 for Fahrenheit) and the water thing would be to be X/2 and NHBT would be X/2+X. Pretty nerdy. Sadly, the calibration was off and 212 degrees for boiling was found to be less cursed. But I could be wrong.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.138|172.68.54.138]] 20:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Re: water/ice point 'random number', I think it's more that it wasn't considered "special", such that "On my scale, that will be zero" (or whatever choice of handily round number, including zero, some scale-setters allocated to the BP of water).
:After all the other messing about ("my zero will be that of brine!", etc), obviously then the ~0°C equivalent would ''have'' a number, and ''perhaps'' there would then be a slight change to make it a ''whole'' (or easy-fraction) number for convenience's sake, but (before the concept of binary computers) there's not much special about landing on the number 32, for what is actually a temperature that is quite significant to the human experience, and less so with 7-''and-a-half''.
:Maybe landing on 90°F (at one time) for body temperature (and 180 F° ''between'' MP and BP) was considered useful as the analogue to angular-degrees where 90 (and 180) indeed features significantly, but I don't think there'd have been too much fuss if the value would have turned out to be 60(/120), also with plenty of handy factors to divide by, 70(/140), without so much, or whatever number(s) happened to depict one realistic real-world measurement that (overall) has no reason to have a factor-based relationship with various quite separate phenomenon measurements.
:''And'' it went through several {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|'corrective' iterations}} so that even its handy relationship with 'about 100°F' can be said to be an incidental accident, at best, unless we do something like Randall's °X scale and actively triple-tie the central value of the slope(s) to be exactly something useful by using the "currently accepted mean human body temperature (given various complicated caveats)".
:It's pretty much all random, in the same way that only because of anthropocentric choices of 'standard' time and distance measurements is the speed of light 'pretty much' 3×10⁸ m/s (a handily round value that works well enough for most purposes, even after back-standardising its component SI measurements to make "actually, precisely 299792458" the ''proper'' answer, and [https://conversion.org/speed/speed-of-light/furlong-per-fortnight it could be far worse...]). Avagadro's number never had it so good (6.022(+change)×1023...? ...where's the handily mnemonic value in that?), and Pi (in this universe's system of fundemental mathematics) clearly never ever had a chance! And, on {{w|Mount Everest#19th century|at least one occasion}}, such happenstance numeric roundedness in its exactitude (29''',000''' ft) was considered actually quite awkward... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.90|172.70.91.90]] 21:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::My understanding is that the brine thing was an ad-hoc justification when the scale was presented to the Royal Society. It may have seemed less cursed. But yes, there's a BIG reason for using 32 or 64, halving a distance is trivial and as an instument maker, Fahrenheit would have found that attractive. Mind you, I'm getting this from the Straight Dope, so I could be a dope getting it straight. https://www.straightdope.com/21344240/did-cecil-err-in-explaining-the-significance-of-zero-fahrenheit [[Special:Contributions/162.158.10.189|162.158.10.189]] 20:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, then, regarding {{diff|353895|this edit}} (and the original IP-led one(s) that even made huge and revert-necessary changes), was it ''really'' intended to get rid of whole paragraphs such as "Randall also fails to specify what happens with temperatures[...]" that had nothing to do with the numeric adjustments? When I see that, I see mistakes (especially in light of the "clobber" that happened, where typos reappeared and other things became unexplained/worse-explained once more). — Basically, if your edit summary is nust about updating baseline data, and the resulting maths, I don't expect (maybe good, maybe bad) edits to unrelated bits. Or I may (and have) presumed accidental (or deliberate?) carelessness that I'd rather not try to go back to first principles to re-re-check for the editor concerned. That is all. At least try to justify enough of your edit in its own way, even if it means diving in several times to get enough space to summarise your whole "why" to each tweak. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.104|172.68.186.104]] 22:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Yes. I have re-removed the removals piecemeal with individual edit summaries for clarity. Many of them involved detailed obscure technical misunderstandings, such as whether the Vostok and Death Valley measurements were surface temperatures (the WMO says they are, and there are the WMO's photos of the observation stations in the linked references now) which combined with the incorrect yearly average global mean temperature, added five paragraphs unnecessarily. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.152|172.68.23.152]] 01:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::Definitely some points made (some incorrect, "ne er" was ''obviously'' more just a basic typo of "never", not my attempt to use "ne'er" for no good reason, and my attempt to fix that and some other bits ran into a set of Edit Conflicts ...hope I caught all the remaining ones when I finally could try again on the settled-down page) and I've blended answers to your objections in while giving back what useful nuances (from a number of past editors, only a couple of bits even having had my own hand primarilly behind them as they were) really needn't have been removed. I dispute the terms of your objections (as summarised) behind {{diff|353937|some changes}}, but have rephrased based upon what I ''think'' you mean, giving you should prefer and wouldn't feel the need to be as randomly censorious about. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.173|172.69.195.173]] 02:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Figure 1 in https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature does not seem like a random walk to me. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.118|172.69.33.118]] 05:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Added the "Random Walk" because, ignoring long-term trends, year-on-year the measured average is going to blip up and down for all kinds of reasons (physical and measuring issues, both), so it will be lower than expected or higher than expected compared to the smoother track it actually takes on a rolling average. I think one of the versions I replaced had partial suggestion that the average was effectively constant (in °C, not just °X), and while records adjusted every now and then (or every year!), it all just rather settled down at the °X midpoint. Which it doesn't. (And also that it's ''possible'' that Average and Minimum change such that the projected Absolute Zero ''doesn't'' move so much, one year, although mostly the fulcrum will be closer to 0°X rather than 0K.)
::::But I've yet to see what's been changed (maybe improved) since I was last looking at it. Maybe this is an out-of-date explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.202|172.70.90.202]] 12:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

When I originally designed my unit conversion app I almost made a unit up that was based on the ideal gas law and one mass pound of said gas in a one cubic foot container. It seemed more quixotic than anything else so I didn't pull the trigger on it. Maybe I should have.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.33|172.70.111.33]] 20:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Is x based off of elon musk changing twitter to X? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.254.50|172.71.254.50]] 23:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:Too many things were already "X" (X marks the spot, Planet X, The X-Men, Xmas...), I see no need to presume that Elon has successfully claimed ownership of one entire letter of the alphabet due to a car-crash business deal and a self-obsessive personality. To paraphrase Freud, "sometimes an X is just an X", and with no references at all to anything Twitter-like I don't see any other intent than just as a traditional placeholder character. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.209|172.70.90.209]] 09:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

== Division by zero ==

I saw this in an edit summary: "10/0 is not ∞, it's also an error, not NaN according to the IEEE. It's closer to {+∞, -∞} than NaN but it's still neither because you can't make limits work"

Actually, IEEE floating point 10/0 can be an error, +∞, or NaN depending on the rounding mode. This is one of the reasons why mathemeticians don't appreciate the IEEE as much as they might. Division by zero is strictly undefined because of the problems with limits alluded to in the summary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHdg1yn1SgE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.66|108.162.245.66]] 03:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:"When considering division by zero through limits, assigning {+∞, -∞} as potential results is insufficient because limits require consistency and well-defined behavior. In the case of dividing a number by values approaching zero, the results differ depending on whether zero is approached from the positive or negative direction. As a divisor approaches zero from the positive side, the quotient grows towards +∞, and from the negative side, it tends towards -∞. Since limits must converge to a single value for consistency, this disparity leads to an undefined result. Moreover, in many mathematical contexts, infinity is not a number but rather a concept describing unbounded growth, meaning operations involving infinity, like addition or multiplication, are not well-defined in the same way as with finite numbers. This inconsistency in approaching zero prevents {+∞, -∞} from being an adequate solution set for division by zero. Defining division by zero as infinity would create contradictions in both arithmetic and algebraic contexts, as it disrupts fundamental properties like continuity and field structures in mathematics. Hence, division by zero remains undefined to preserve mathematical rigor and coherence."
:[Chat Gippity 4o] [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::https://imgflip.com/i/7yd7gz [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.131|172.71.150.131]] 09:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

== Trivia section table values? ==

Someone please double-check the Trivia section temperatures. I am not convinced they are entirely correct or consistent. I'm least sure about the Galen row. And Wedgwood obviously needs more digits of precision. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.28|162.158.41.28]] 13:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:LGTM. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 20:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-25T00:10:38Z

172.68.22.98: how does any of this help the reader understand? Do readers know what we mean by "smudges" oh my god why am I wasting my time on this?

{{comic
| number = 3001
| date = October 21, 2024
| title = Temperature Scales
| image = temperature_scales_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x535px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an EXPONENTIAL TEMPERATURE SYSTEM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Since the invention of the {{w|thermometer}}, a number of different {{w|temperature}} scales have been proposed. In modern times, most of the world uses {{w|Celsius}} for everyday temperature measurements. A small number of countries (the USA and {{w|Territories of the United States|its territories}}, the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia, and Palau) retain the {{w|Imperial units|imperial system}}, which uses the {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale, which preceded Celsius by just under two decades (both being established in the early 1700s). The other widely used temperature scale is the {{w|kelvin}}, which uses the same scale as degrees Celsius, but is rooted at {{w|absolute zero}}, making it both useful in scientific calculations and easy to convert to and from °Celsius (which, along with °Fahrenheit, is now officially defined relative to kelvin.) The kelvin has been part of the widely adopted official {{w|metric system}} since 1954. Even in countries that use Fahrenheit, scientific measurements are usually done in degrees Celsius or kelvin.

The comic compares these scales, and a number of others, on [[Randall]]'s scale of "cursedness." The joke is highlighting how different the temperature scales are, and how impractical most of them are. All of the listed scales are real, but may be considered obsolete to varying degrees. Please see also [[1923: Felsius]], a combination of degrees Fahrenheit and Celsius.

{| class=wikitable
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Water freezes
! scope="col" | Water boils
! scope="col" | Notes
! scope="col" | Cursedness
! scope="col" | Explanation
|-
| {{w|Celsius}} || 0 || 100 || Used in most of the world || 2/10 || The Celsius (°C) scale, also called {{w|centigrade}}, was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742 and revised in 1745, a year after his death. 0°C represents the freezing point of water and 100°C represents the boiling point, both under {{w|standard atmospheric pressure}}. The Celsius scale is now defined in terms of the kelvin scale. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the least problematic temperature scales, but still considered cursed.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin (written with a lowercase 'k' in its full name; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other temperature units) is a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. It uses the same scale as Celsius but is shifted by 273.15 to set absolute zero at 0K (based on the {{w|Boltzmann constant}}.) While the kelvin is very useful for calculations in {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, and engineers/scientists like Randall (who rates it here as minimally cursed) will probably use one or both of kelvin and Celsius, it can be unintuitive to lay-persons unfamiliar with its use.
|-
| {{w|Fahrenheit}} || 32 || 212 || Outdoors in most places is between 0–100 || 3/10 || Fahrenheit (°F) is officially used in a few countries and informally in several others. It originated in a time when factors of 360 were favored in science over powers of ten, which is why the freezing and boiling points of water are set 180° apart. Devised around 1724, {{w|Daniel Fahrenheit}} chose not to base 0° on the freezing point of water, instead setting it at the coldest temperature he could achieve: the freezing point of an {{w|ammonium chloride}} {{w|brine}} solution. Although these reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars (and the original brine solution freezes at a value other than zero in more recent versions), the scale gained popularity especially in Anglophone countries, likely because a swathe of everyday weather conditions across the anglophonic world fall (mostly) within the range of 0–100°F, with those who already frequently use it for such purposes considering it more intuitive. Additionally, 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|conveniently close to}} normal human body temperature, as a related coincidence, even though initial estimates had set it to 90°F. The Fahrenheit scale remains commonly used only in Randall's home country (the U.S., and its territories), the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia and Palau. This does not prevent Randall specifying it as marginally more cursed than the more global standards.
|-
| {{w|Réaumur scale|Réaumur}} || 0 || 80 || Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100 || 3/8 || Abbreviated as °Ré, this system devised by {{w|René Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur}} in 1730 was used in some places until the early 20th century, mostly for cheese-making. The rating (3/8) is a joke on the boiling point of water in this system being 80 instead of 100 as it is in Celsius; converting this to an out-of-ten scale would give 3.75/10, labeling it as more cursed than Fahrenheit but less so than Rømer.
|-
| {{w|Rømer scale|Rømer}} || 7.5 || 60 || Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design || 4/10 || Abbreviated as °Rø, this scale was created by the Danish astronomer {{w|Ole Rømer}} around 1702. Much like Fahrenheit, it uses the freezing point of ammonium chloride brine as the benchmark for 0°, and the scale is built with factors of 360 in mind with the boiling point of pure water at 60°. Like the Fahrenheit scale, the freezing point of pure water was not originally considered significant by Rømer, but the scale was later updated to fix it to 7.5.
The Rømer scale is also considered the common predecessor of both the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales. Réaumur was inspired by Rømer's scale, Celsius based his work on Réaumur and Fahrenheit specifically designed his scale with more divisions than Rømer's to reduce the necessity for fractions.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°R] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute scale rather than a relative one. The scale is mostly obsolete, but is still occasionally used in legacy industrial operations where absolute temperature scales are required. It is described as more cursed than the otherwise identical Fahrenheit scale, despite being rooted at a more universal zero point. Another comic, [[2292: Thermometer]], expresses disdain for this scale.
|-
| {{w|Newton scale|Newton}} || 0 || 33-ish || Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in" || 7-ish/10 || The famous scientist and mathematician {{w|Isaac Newton}} published this scale in 1701, which was referred to by the the °N symbol. Sadly, the degrees of temperature specified do not correlate exactly with amounts of {{w|heat}}. The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition. Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{cn}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.<ref>https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43</ref>
|-
| {{w|Wedgwood scale|Wedgwood}} || –8 || –6.7 || Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about || 9/10 || Created by the potter {{w|Josiah Wedgwood}} in 1782, the '°W' scale was based on the shrinking of clay when heated above red heat, but was found to be very inaccurate. The comic has a typo, as the scale is called Wedgwood, without the second 'e'.
|-
| Galen || –4? || 4?? || Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?) || 4/–4 || The Greek physician {{w|Galen}} suggested a "neutral" temperature around 180 A.D.,<ref>https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml</ref> when he was a prominent physician in the {{w|Roman Empire}}. Created by mixing equal parts of boiling water and ice, on either side of this neutral point he described four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold. This range from +4 to –4 is humorously used as its rating, implying -100% cursedness. Technically this makes it the least cursed of all the listed scales, but the idea of negative cursedness (or cursedness itself) would be Randall's invention. There is no standard modern abbreviation for Galen's scale.
|-
| {{w|Celsius#History|''Real'' Celsius}} || 100 || 0 || In Anders Celsius's original 1742 specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it || 10/0 || Most scales' temperatures can be indefinitely large, but have an absolute minimum temperature. By starting at a maximum value and counting down, this scale is indeed cursed, as nearly all possible temperatures (possibly to the equivalent of 1.42x1032K, considered [https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198 the maximum attainable physical temperature]) will be negative in this implementation. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined (see [[2295: Garbage Math]]) and may be interpreted in a number of counter-intuitive ways.
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a column of mercury at the temperature of boiling water, and further measurements then made of the amount it ''reduced'' in height under cooler conditions. This orientation survives in the historic {{w|Delisle scale}} devised in 1732 by French astronomer {{w|Joseph-Nicolas Delisle}}, which arguably inspired the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was only changed, after his death, in 1745. Delisle's scale was never reversed.
|-
| [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/459851/john-daltons-temperature-scale#459863 Dalton] || 0 || 100 || A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton || 53.9/50 || {{w|John Dalton}} proposed a logarithmic temperature scale in 1802 during his work on what became {{w|Charles's Law}}. The scale is defined so that absolute zero is at negative infinity, with the exponent chosen to match Celsius at 0 and 100:
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 273.15)</center>
<center>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) - 273.15</center>
There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale. While Dalton temperature is defined for all positive and negative numbers, the nonlinear scale is difficult to work with since the amount of heat represented by a change of one degree Dalton is not constant. Degrees Dalton differs from Celsius by as much as 3.9 degrees between 0 and 100, but diverges much more for more extreme temperatures.

The rating (53.9/50) is a joke about the unit, as 53.9 Dalton would be 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., the cursedness could be understood as 50/50, or entirely cursed, but perhaps instead as 107.8% (even more than entirely) cursed.
|-
| °X || 42.9 || 151.4 || '''Title text:''' "In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' [sic] record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed." || Randall has not stated the cursedness of his new scale || The {{w|Lowest temperature recorded on Earth|record lowest surface temperature on Earth}} as of 2024 is –89.2°C (–128.6°F), recorded at the {{w|Vostok Station|Vostok Research Station}} in Antarctica on July 21, 1983.<ref>https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature</ref> The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)<ref>https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature</ref> The {{w|Highest temperature recorded on Earth|record highest temperature}} is 56.7°C (134.1°F), recorded on July 10, 1913 at {{w|Furnace Creek, California|Furnace Creek Ranch}} in Death Valley, California.<ref>https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature</ref>

"Surface" temperatures are measured at 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent the temperature of the air, because temperatures closer to the ground are often quite different due to the heating effects by sunlight (or a lack therof, e.g., at night or under clouds.)

{{cot|Derivation and graph}}
To break the scale into two linear parts (below and above 14.8°C), we define two separate equations for each range:

1. Below 14.8°C (from –89.2°C to 14.8°C):
* 0 °X corresponds to –89.2°C
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C

We calculate the slope m₁:

<center>m₁ = (50 – 0) / (14.8 – (–89.2)) = 50 / (14.8 + 89.2) = 50 / 104 ≈ 0.48</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₁:

<center>50 = 0.48 × 14.8 + b₁</center>

<center>50 = 7.1 + b₁</center>

<center>b₁ = 50 – 7.1 = 42.9</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''below 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 0.48 × C + 42.9'''</center>

2. Above 14.8°C (from 14.8°C to 56.7°C):
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C
* 100 °X corresponds to 56.7°C

We calculate the slope m₂:

<center>m₂ = (100 – 50) / (56.7 – 14.8) = 50 / 41.9 ≈ 1.19</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₂:

<center>50 = 1.19 × 14.8 + b₂</center>

<center>50 = 17.6 + b₂</center>

<center>b₂ = 50 – 17.6 = 32.4</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''above 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 1.19 × C + 32.4'''</center>

;Freezing and boiling points of water

Freezing point of water (0°C): Since 0°C is below 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 0.48 × C + 42.9:

<center>X = 0.48 × 0 + 42.9 = 42.9</center>

So, '''the freezing point is 42.9 °X.'''

Boiling point of water (100°C): Since 100°C is above 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 1.19 × C + 32.4:

<center>X = 1.19 × 100 + 32.4 = 119 + 32.4 = 151.4</center>

So, '''the boiling point is 151.4 °X.'''

[[File:XvsC.png|400px|center]]

See also [[2701: Change in Slope]] for a general discussion of separate linear scales between three points.
{{cob}}
Due to high temperature records now being increased almost every year as a result of {{w|climate change}}, and average temperatures (trending upwards) subject to their own annual fluctuations, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift more significantly over time, everyday temperatures will vary less.
|}

==Trivia==

Here are the {{w|room temperature}}, water freezing and boiling, {{w|body temperature}}, recommended refridgerator and freezer, warm bath, and hot coffee temperature values for those scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Room temperature
! Water freezing
! Water boiling
! Body temperature
! Recommended refrigerator
! Recommended freezer
! Warm bath
! Hot coffee
|-
| Celsius || 22°C || 0°C || 100°C || 37°C || 2.5°C || -18°C || 39°C || 77°C
|-
| Kelvin || 295K || 273K || 373K || 310K || 276K || 255K || 312K || 350K
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72°F || 32°F || 212°F || 98.6°F || 36.5°F || -0.4°F || 102°F || 171°F
|-
| Réaumur || 17.6°Ré || 0°Ré || 80°Ré || 29.6°Ré || 2°Ré || -14.4°Ré || 31.2°Ré || 61.6°Ré
|-
| Rømer || 19.1°Rø || 7.5°Rø || 60°Rø || 26.9°Rø || 8.8°Rø || -2°Rø || 28°Rø || 47.9°Rø
|-
| Rankine || 531°Ra || 492°Ra || 672°Ra || 558°Ra || 496°Ra || 459°Ra || 562°Ra || 630°Ra
|-
| Newton || 7.3°N || 0°N || 33°N || 12.2°N || 0.8°N || -5.9°N || 12.9°N || 25.4°N
|-
| Wedgwood || -7.7°W || -8°W || -6.7°W || -7.5°W || -8°W || -8.2°W || -7.5°W || -7°W
|-
| Galen || -2.2 || -4 || 4 || -1 || -3.8 || -5.4 || -0.9 || 2.2
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78 || 100 || 0 || 63 || 98 || 118 || 61 || 23
|-
| Dalton || 24.8 || 0 || 100 || 40.7 || 2.9 || -21.9 || 42.8 || 79.6
|-
| °X || 59°X || 43°X || 151°X || 76.4°X || 44.1°X || 34.3°X || 78.8°X || 124°X
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns, labelled: Unit, water freezing point, water boiling point, notes, cursedness. There are eleven rows below the labels.]

:[Row 1:] Celsius, 0, 100, Used in most of the world, 2/10
:[Row 2:] Kelvin, 273.15, 373.15, 0K is absolute zero, 2/10
:[Row 3:] Fahrenheit, 32, 212, Outdoors in most places is between 0–100, 3/10
:[Row 4:] Réaumur, 0, 80, Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100, 3/8
:[Row 5:] Rømer, 7.5, 60, Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design, 4/10,
:[Row 6:] Rankine, 491.7, 671.7, Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero, 6/10
:[Row 7:] Newton, 0, 33-ish, Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in", 7-ish/10
:[Row 8:] Wedgewood, –8, –6.7, Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about, 9/10
:[Row 9:] Galen, –4?, 4??, Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?), 4/–4
:[Row 10:] ''Real'' Celsius, 100, 0, In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it, 10/0
:[Row 11:] Dalton, 0, 100, A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton, 53.9/50

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Science]]

Randall Munroe

2024-10-22T05:46:26Z

172.68.22.98: /* Absence from explain xkcd */ seems like this should have the date

{{Infobox character
| image = Randall_Munroe_speaks_at_MIT.JPG
| imagesize = 250px
| caption = Randall speaking at {{w|re:publica}} in 2016
| first_appearance = [[120: Dating Service]]
}}

<noinclude>:''For a list of comics, see [[:Category:Comics featuring Randall Munroe|Comics featuring Randall Munroe]].''</noinclude>

{{Quote|I'm just this guy, you know? I'm a CNU graduate with a degree in physics. Before starting xkcd, I worked on robots at NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia. As of June 2007 I live in Massachusetts. In my spare time I climb things, open strange doors, and go to goth clubs dressed as a frat guy so I can stand around and look terribly uncomfortable. At frat parties I do the same thing, but the other way around.|Randall Munroe|[https://xkcd.com/about Source]}}

[[File:What If? 2 signature.png|300px|right|thumb|Randall's signature with [[Cueball]] from ''[[What If? 2]]'']]

'''{{w}}''' is the creator, writer, and artist of ''[[xkcd]]''. He has a degree in physics from the {{w|Christopher Newport University}} and, prior to his career as a professional webcomic artist, was a roboticist independently contracted with {{w|NASA}}. Since his contract was not renewed in 2006 as they [https://blog.xkcd.com/2006/10/06/many-news-things-some-overdue ran out of money to rehire him], he has supported himself primarily through xkcd, selling books and merchandise among other income streams. In his ''[[what if? (blog)|what if?]]'' blog, he occasionally posts "scientific answers to absurd hypothetical questions", while on his [https://blog.xkcd.com personal blog], called ''[[Blag]]'', he posts announcements related to his projects, comics, and books.

The content of ''xkcd'' tends to stem from Randall's thoughts, experiences, and his physics background. He sometimes writes comics in the first-person and even uses [[Cueball]] to represent himself (such as in [[541: TED Talk]]). That said it is likely that many of these strips are not factually based on Randall's real life; for example, the [[:Category:My Hobby|My Hobby series]] appears to be written about Randall's own hobbies, although it is likely that few if any are things Randall has ever done himself. Based on his ''what if?'' blog, he wrote two books called ''[[What If? (book)|What If?]]'' and ''[[What If? 2]]''. He also published ''[[Thing Explainer]]'', where he explains complex topics using only the 1,000 most common words'', and [[How To]]'', where he gives "absurd scientific advice for common real-world problems". His first book, ''[[xkcd: volume 0]]'', is a collection of his favourite comics published in 2009.

In June 2011, Randall announced that his then-fiancée had been diagnosed with stage 3 {{w|breast cancer}}. They married in September of that year. As with other events of his real life, the cancer diagnosis was [[:Category:Cancer|the subject]] of many future ''xkcd'' comics.

==Timeline==
{| class="wikitable"
! Date
! Event
|-
|October 17, 1984 || Is born.
|-
|September 30, 2005 || [https://archive.vn/hjmW Launches xkcd.com].
|-
|2006 || [https://xkcd.com/about Graduates] from Christopher Newport University with degree in Physics.
|-
|October 2006 || Starts working on ''xkcd'' full time after [https://blog.xkcd.com/2006/10/06/many-news-things-some-overdue NASA stops renewing his contract].
|-
|May 2008 || Moves to Somerville, Massachusetts.
|-
|2008 || Gets nominated for "Outstanding Use of the Medium", "Outstanding Short Form Comic", and "Outstanding Comedic Comic", and wins "Outstanding Single Panel Comic" in the [https://web.archive.org/web/20090310200607/https://www.ccawards.com/2008finalists.html 2008 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards].
|-
|September 2009 || Releases ''[[xkcd: volume 0]]''.
|-
|June 2011 || [https://blog.xkcd.com/2011/06/30/family-illness Announces] his fiancée was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer.
|-
|August 2011 || [https://web.archive.org/web/20110429050214/https://www.renovationsf.org/hugo-intro.php Gets nominated] for "Best Fan Artist" in the 2011 Hugo Awards.
|-
|September 2011 || [https://blog.xkcd.com/2011/09/12/672 Marries his fiancée].
|-
|August 2012 || [https://web.archive.org/web/20120408045604/https://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2012-hugo-awards Gets nominated] for "Best Fan Artist" in the 2012 Hugo Awards.
|-
|September 2013 || The asteroid {{w|4942 Munroe}} is named [https://blog.xkcd.com/2013/09/30/asteroid-4942-munroe after him].
|-
|August 2014 || [https://www.thehugoawards.org/2014/08/2014-hugo-award-winners Wins] the 2014 Hugo Awards for "Best Graphic Story" thanks to [[1190: Time]].
|-
|September 2014 || Releases ''[[What If? (book)|What If?]]''.
|-
|November 2015 || Releases ''[[Thing Explainer]]''.
|-
|September 2019 || Releases ''[[How To]]''.
|-
|September 2022 || Releases ''[[What If? 2]]''.
|}

==Speeches and interviews==

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOWntIdegws MIT Talk] (3 minutes) – May 14, 2007, {{w|Massachusetts Institute of Technology}}, Cambridge, MA

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJOS0sV2a24 Talks at Google: xkcd] (58 minutes) – December 7, 2007, {{w|Googleplex}}, Mountain View, CA

* [https://youtu.be/z_zwyJ6IYR0 XKCD Comes to Dartmouth!] (86 minutes) – Fall 2008, {{w|Dartmouth College}}, Hanover, NH

* [https://youtu.be/fCa4wPRuicY Randall Munroe at MIT] (excerpt, 7 minutes) – December 17, 2009, {{w|Massachusetts Institute of Technology}}, Cambridge, MA

* [https://youtu.be/AHp_Vh9TESU JoCo Cruise Crazy 3: Randall Munroe] (50 minutes) – February 15, 2013, {{w|MS Freedom of the Seas}} cruise ship, Caribbean Sea

* [https://archive.oredev.org/oredev2013/2013/wed-fri-conference/art-and-code-with-xkcd.html Øredev developer conference 2013: Art & Code with xkcd] (47 minutes) – November 7, 2013, [[Wikipedia:sv:Slagthuset|Slagthuset]], Malmö, Sweden

* [https://www.ted.com/talks/randall_munroe_comics_that_ask_what_if TED 2014: Comics that ask "what if?"] (9 minutes) – March 20, 2014, {{w|Vancouver Convention Centre}}, Vancouver, Canada

* [https://youtu.be/EnbhjvNRD_8 Live Talks Los Angeles: Randall Munroe] in conversation with {{w|Wil Wheaton}} (90 minutes) – September 14, 2014, {{w|Aero Theatre}}, Santa Monica, CA

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GIDDaF26zE Talks at Google: What If?] (60 minutes) – September 24, 2014, {{w|Googleplex}}, Mountain View, CA

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm4Gn9iQ6sE World Economic Forum: Simplicity In Complexity] (13 minutes) – June 27, 2016, Meijiang Convention and Exhibition Center, Tianjin, China

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_mrGoFQgGs World Economic Forum: Education for a New Age], with {{w|Justine Cassell}}, R. May Lee, and Andrew Fursman (52 minutes) – June 28, 2016, Meijiang Convention and Exhibition Center, Tianjin, China

* [https://youtu.be/ewdDSGv7Css BookCon 2019: Randall Munroe] in conversation with Adam Savage (34 minutes) – June 2, 2019, {{w|Javits Center}}, New York, NY

* [https://twit.tv/shows/triangulation/episodes/412 This Week in Tech: Triangulation], hosted by {{w|Leo Laporte}} (75 minutes) – August 30, 2019, podcast

* [https://mbmbam.simplecast.com/episodes/mbmbam-475-edchup?t=34m19s Maximum Fun: My Brother, My Brother and Me], by {{w|Justin McElroy|Justin}}, {{w|Travis McElroy|Travis}}, and {{w|Griffin McElroy}} (59 minutes) – September 2, 2019, podcast

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wwmt2M4-C9Y Politics and Prose: How To by Randall Munroe], with {{w|Alexandra Petri}} (72 minutes) – September 4, 2019, {{w|Sidwell Friends School}}, Washington, DC

* [https://teamcoco.com/video/randall-munroe-s-comics-inspired-fans-to-bring-chess-boards-on-coasters Conan: Randall Munroe’s Comics Inspired Fans To Bring Chess Boards On Coasters] (4 minutes) – December 12, 2019, Stage 15, {{w|Warner Bros. Studios, Burbank|Warner Bros. Studios}}, Burbank, CA

* [https://teamcoco.com/video/how-chris-hadfield-serena-williams-helped-randall-munroe-with-his-new-book Conan: How Chris Hadfield & Serena Williams Helped Randall Munroe With His New Book] (10 minutes) – December 12, 2019, Stage 15, {{w|Warner Bros. Studios, Burbank|Warner Bros. Studios}}, Burbank, CA

* [https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/ejt89o KPFA Radio 94.1 FM: Randall Munroe: How To] with {{w|Adam Savage}} (from {{w|MythBusters}}) (59 minutes) – September 10, 2019, First Congregational Church, Berkeley, CA

* [https://grist.org/video/how-to-power-your-house-with-xkcds-randall-munroe Grist Magazine: How to power your house, with xkcd's Randall Munroe] (5 minutes) – October 16, 2019, Grist Headquarters, Seattle, WA

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEExr56oXmw Tableau Conference 2019: Overthinking Things with Randall Munroe] (62 minutes) – November 14, 2019, {{w|Mandalay Bay Convention Center}}, Las Vegas, NV

==Absence from ''explain xkcd''==
{{Quote|xkcd has inspired a wiki of its own, [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page Explain xkcd], where fans dissect every comic and share their theories, including about Munroe himself. On the [[Talk:Randall_Munroe|talk page]] for the "Randall Munroe" entry, one user speculated that Munroe pranked Wikipedia editors into putting the fact that he was raised as a Quaker in his bio to illustrate the fake-news cycle of "citogenesis", a concept perhaps explained [[978: Citogenesis|best by Munroe himself]]. "No, I was really raised Quaker", he said bemusedly, when I asked him about the speculation. (He hasn’t spent much time on Explain xkcd, believing instead in "{{w|The Death of the Author|the death of the author}}".)|Marissa Martinelli|[https://slate.com/culture/2019/09/xkcd-randall-munroe-interview-how-to-book-wikipedia.html xkcd Creator Randall Munroe on the Joys of Overthinking Everything], Slate, September 6, 2019.}}

==See also==
* The [https://xkcd.com/about About page] on ''xkcd''.
* The {{w|Randall Munroe}} article on Wikipedia.
* The comics made for ''[[:Category:A Smarter Planet|A Smarter Planet]]'', an IBM corporate blog
* The science columns for ''[[New York Times: Good Question|Good Question]]''

{{navbox-characters}}
[[Category:xkcd]]
[[Category:Characters]]
[[Category:Real people]]
[[Category:Friends of Randall]]
{{xkcdmeta}}

Talk:2993: Ingredients

2024-10-03T22:26:42Z

172.68.22.98:

Added a quick draft of an explanation. Is it good? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.147.164|172.68.147.164]] 07:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
: sign your damn comment [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 07:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Be more f'ing polite![[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.138|172.70.85.138]] 08:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

;Voice actor speculation
Since we're rapidly approaching number 3000, let's designate voice actors to the xkcd cast.

Beret Guy could be voiced by Michael Kovach, doing the same voice as he does for N from Murder Drones.

Black Hat could be voiced by JamsDX, with the same voice he did for X in his cover of Obituary.

And so on. [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 07:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:It would help if I knew who either of those were, or even the things that they are described as doing. And I suspect my own prospective choices would be similarly unknown to you. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.62|172.70.85.62]] 08:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::here's [https://youtu.be/IeUfDDz7vSg?feature=shared the n voice clips] and [https://youtu.be/YmzxwWNuYnk?feature=shared the obituary cover] i was referring to, hope this helps! [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 13:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::You can do whatever you like but it is not a part of explain xkcd og xkcd... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

How hard would this really be? I feel like we could do this by messing with different orbits and just crashing the moons into each other.[[User:Anonymouscript|Anonymouscript]] ([[User talk:Anonymouscript|talk]]) 20:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this the plot of the first Ratchet & Clank game?

2990: Late Cenozoic

2024-09-26T07:24:54Z

172.68.22.98: /* Explanation */ complete sentence

{{comic
| number = 2990
| date = September 25, 2024
| title = Late Cenozoic
| image = late_cenozoic_2x.png
| imagesize = 303x396px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Our nucleic acid recovery techinques found a great deal of homo sapiens DNA incorporated into the fossils, particularly the ones containing high levels of resin, leading to the theory that these dinosaurs preyed on the once-dominant primates.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ONCE-DOMINANT BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Many science museums contain fossils, which are often reconstructed into full skeletons.
In the comic, aliens (in [[Randall]]’s [[2572: Alien Observers|classic alien style]]) in the future have discovered the reconstructed fossils from our museums and misidentified them as coming from actual dinosaurs living now, and have thus concluded that these dinosaurs survived the {{w|Chicxulub crater|asteroid impact}} that in fact {{w|Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event|made them extinct}}. The {{w|Cenozoic}}, which began after that impact around 66 million years ago, is Earth's current {{w|Geologic_time_scale#Divisions_of_geologic_time|geologic era}}, while the {{w|Cretaceous}} was the final {{w|Geologic_time_scale#Divisions_of_geologic_time|geologic period}} of the previous era, the {{w|Mesozoic}}.

The title text says that a high amount of resin and human DNA has led to them theorizing that dinosaurs ate humans. Much more likely, the resin and human DNA have mixed as a result of the molding and casting process used to recreate missing or damaged bones—usually so complete skeletons can be displayed.

A similar museum, misunderstood by people instead of alien beings, is depicted in [[2760: Paleontology Museum]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[Three squid-like aliens in a classroom; one alien stands in front of a board covered with minute text and a drawing of a T-Rex skeleton. Two aliens sit on stools watching the teacher alien. The teacher alien on the left is on a raised platform and points at the board with one tentacle.]
:Left alien: Species such as triceratops and tyrannosaurus became more rare after the Cretaceous, but they survived to flourish in the late Cenozoic, 66 million years later.
:Left alien: Many complete skeletons have been discovered from this era.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:It's going to be really funny when our museums get buried in sediment.

==Trivia==
The title text has a typo: "techinques" should be "techniques".

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Aliens]]
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]
[[Category:Geology]]