explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3039: Human Altitude

2025-01-20T15:33:16Z

Doctorhook: /* Explanation */ Add info about cliff jumping, because I was curious and procrastinating

{{comic
| number = 3039
| date = January 17, 2025
| title = Human Altitude
| image = human_altitude_2x.png
| imagesize = 508x495px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I wonder what surviving human held the record before balloons (excluding edge cases like jumping gaps on a mountain bridge). Probably it was someone falling from a cliff into snow or water, but maybe it involved something weird like a gunpowder explosion or volcano.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT HILARIOUSLY STUCK IN A TREBUCHET- Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
The comic purports to show the altitudes of humans over time, starting from a little after 1700. The conceit is that it indicates the ''single'' most altitudinous individual at any given time, so does not follow any particular person but would switch focus to whichever representative of humanity becomes "the highest up" (whether by rising above the previous leader, or by remaining high as the other loses their own elevation). There will necessarily be a degree of artistic interpretation and presumed trajectory of this particular marker, although the general trend of the line appears to be inspired by (some) actual factual realities. It uses a [[Log Scale | logarithmic vertical scale]] in order to indicate the finer details of 'low level' altitudes, yet fit the highest achievements onto the page. The measurements do not count altitude ''due'' to the ground beneath them, so a resident of {{w|Tibet}} or the {{w|Andes|high Peruvian Andes}} (for example) does not normally gain any particular advantage.

Prior to 1783, the {{w|Montgolfier brothers#Piloted flight, autumn_1783|first confirmed ascent}} of a human in a balloon, the line's high-points are indicated to be due to "various falls", i.e. a person who ''was'' on the top of a particularly high building/cliff/tree suddenly finding themselves (for an instant or two, at least) the person 'lucky' enough to be considered the furthest above the ground (it is at times like this that living at a higher absolute altitude ''might'' grant an 'advantage' to the individual who suddenly discovers their previously high standing-spot to no longer be as reliable as they thought). It also suggests that "catapult accidents", such as accidentally, or maybe [https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/nov/01/highereducation.students not so accidentally] being caught in a sling on a {{w|trebuchet}} when it is fired (indicated as "hilarious") may also contribute to the (momentary) gain in altitude. The limit to this period's ability to exist at altitude appears to be around 100 metres, which is perhaps mostly what a particular precipitous (and precarious) cliff-top might contribute to the situation. Only the eventual punchline of the title-text even hints at whether any of these feats might have been survivable, perhaps the minimum requirement is merely that the individual be alive (to still be considered a person) at the point they are at their claimed height — if the resulting return to ground level is fatal, usually this will happen upon meeting the surface, by which point they are already no higher than all other humans.

Once {{w|balloon}} flights start, heights of up to 10km are attained. And though there were some {{w|List of ballooning accidents|dangers}} from this, as early aeronauts discovered, it might at least now be presumed that some of these peaks were attained by individuals who had previously marked a prior instantaneous altitude on the graph.

Shortly after the 1900s, {{w|airplanes}} dominate the graph. And the rise in utility of passenger aircraft (before World War 2; but especially afterwards, following a period where regular and extended high-altitude flight has been experienced by bomber pilots of various nations) ensures not only that there are people attaining greater and greater altitudes, but also that there are also always ''other'' people in the air, ensuring that the lesser 'maximum altitude' periods still have people a significant number of kilometres in the air.

Interestingly, the lower-limit, all the way up to the invention of the airplane, seems to stay at about two metres (around 1881, the lowest marked position seems to be only slightly above 1 metre), which might represent the possibility of there always being at least ''someone'' climbing up a ladder and/or jumping off of a hay-cart. This does not, of course, discount the very real possibility that there are persons about to attain greater altitude, as the parts ''between'' the lowermost fluctuations obviously represent periods of someone having yet greater vertical displacement.

Once {{w|spaceflight}} becomes a thing (interestingly, marked around the late 1960s, though it actually started in April 1961), that greatly increases the upper spikes for the (implied) duration of the {{w|Orbital spaceflight|orbital flights}}.

The {{w|Apollo Program}} is then indicated by both label and a notable spike as (between {{w|Apollo 8}} in December 1968 and {{w|Apollo 17}} in December 1972), men from Earth were sent around the Moon and attained altitudes 'above the Earth' of approximately 400,000km in the process. Note that the disclaimer "(very approximate)" in the chart's title also applies here, as the graph shows fewer spikes than actual Moon orbitings or landings performed.

Since the end of the original Moon landings, the upper spikes settled down quite significantly back to 'only' generally low orbital distances, but the very latest era, marked "Space Station", seems to coincide with the current continuous inhabitation of space, which officially started in November 2000. Since that date, there has ''always'' been someone at approximately 400km altitude (give or take changes in the orbit, and of the terrain below), with occasionally some yet higher person(s) on certain missions (e.g. servicing the {{w|Hubble Space Telescope}}, May 2009 at 515km). The graph does not ''seem'' to show the blip created by {{w|Polaris Dawn}}'s 1,400 km 'new record' of September 2024, but this may be ''just'' off the right-hand edge of the graph.

Though the historical validity is sometimes argued, it is interesting to note that (as early as the 6th century CE), experiments with man-flying kites may have produced (semi-)brief spikes in the altitude record for the time.
Also, workers and bell-ringers in medieval cathedrals, or attendants at the Lighthouse of Alexandria, would have been substantially above the "tens of meters" level. Moreover, the Eiffel tower has been open to visitors since its opening in 1899, which would have ensured some people to be at at least 276m, during the opening hours. This indicates that people standing on buildings and tall structures do not count for the purpose of the graph, and combined with the fact that tornadoes can lift people high in the air and touch them down alive (though the latter stipulation ''may'' not even be required). It may be that Randall excluded cases in which the person was standing on a permanent structure, considering that as an equivalent to varying terrain. Perhaps he also refuses to count cases that are difficult to substantiate/quantify, such as those caused by violent winds, although the graph ''does'' convey the impression of an omniscient and absolute certainty beyond the more broad historical basis it outlines.

The title text talks of record-holders who survived, and the possible circumstances. Amongst these circumstances would include anyone who had to leap a narrow gap above a deep drop, momentarily having an extreme height above the ground directly below them, without the absolute certainty of fatality (though still open to risks) of stepping off a similarly high cliff-top. (As of the date of the comic, the record for jumping off a cliff into water --- and surviving, albeit with minor injuries --- appears to be 58.8 meters. This was officially set in 2015, but there seems to be no particular reason some couldn't have done it earlier if they wanted to. The Tomb of Hunting and Fishing, c. 520 BCE, has a fresco showing someone diving off a cliff with other people watching. Unfortunately, they neglected to include a height scale.) Randall considers these as 'edge cases', and ponders what more violent events may have literally propelled someone to a notable height. It is unlikely that he is entirely serious about his two suggestions. A gunpowder explosion would be dangerous enough at the {{w|Hoist with his own petard|start of the process}}, leaving the unfortunate individual probably not in any condition to appreciate the remaining trajectory. The possibility of ''any'' survivable event being triggered by close proximity to a {{tvtropes|LavaSurfing|volcanic eruption}} is unlikely, and even less possible to prepare for.

Unlike the rapidly fluctuating line of the graph, a graph of the human altitude ''record'' would stay level except when incremented by a new attainment being reached, effectively drawing directly across from a given high-point in the trace until a new peak crosses it, then starting again from the top of ''that'' peak. The further stipulation of survivability would be represented by a lower line (only given the level of the tip of a new fluctuation once it is ratified that the individual concerned has survived their return to ground level, unsurvivable events not changing things). A lowest-upper-limit line could also be drawn using the low-tips of all fluctuations, representing the greatest height above the ground for which, from any given time onwards, there is always now at least one person higher. Currently, this would be at the lowest level of the orbit by the ISS but, if the ISS is abandoned prior to any further habitat in space (or beyond), this may need to be retroactively lowered to jet-plane altitudes (assuming they stay the dominant factor that they are, in the absence of space-inhabitation).

A ''different'' line to plot, which may also be the interpretable intent of the title text, could be the highest height visited by a ''still living human''. Though no currently surviving human can have ever held a record "before balloons", in the time prior to balloons there will have been individuals alive who had survived heights (and perhaps also their resulting falls) who would have been still living for at least some of the time that they technically held the record. This trace would follow (most of?) the graphed upward fluctuations to their tips, then stay at least this high for only as long as the individual remain alive. This could end almost immediately (their death occurring at height, due to exposure, or upon their terminal return to ground-level), or else for the rest of their long and fulfilling future life (or until someone else superseded them). But upon their demise, whenever that might be, any record that they might still have held would revert back down to whatever attainment ''another'' still-living human had established (which need not have previously featured on any graph, while those with greater marked achievements were still alive). Some of this graph would have a very similar look to [[893: 65 Years]], but in different ways and for different reasons; it would attain 'Moon height' from the very first orbit of Apollo 8 until the last death of an Apollo astronaut (from missions 8 and 10 to 17), assuming no {{w|Human mission to Mars|greater records}} are set before that point, then be reliant upon any living Artemis crews (or those from any {{w|Chinese space program#Near future development|equivalent}}) to sustain the "living record".

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

:Height above Earth's surface of the highest-altitude human over time
:(very approximate)

:[A line graph is shown, with frequent spikes on the line. The y-axis is a logarithmic scale from 1 meter to 1,000,000 km. The x-axis shows years from about 1710 to 2025.]

:[Label between 1720s and 1780s, maximum height is roughly 100 meters:]
:Various falls and hilarious catapult accidents

:[Label with multiple arrows, from 1780s to 1910s, maximum height is roughly 10 km:]
:Balloon flights

:[Label with multiple arrows, from 1910s to 1960s, maximum height increases to roughly 100 km:]
:Airplane flights

:[Label with arrow, in the late 1960s, maximum height is roughly 500 km:]
:Spaceflight

:[Label with arrow, in the 1970s, maximum height is roughly 500,000 km:]
:Apollo Program

:[Label between 1990s and 2025, the average height after 2000 is roughly 500 km:]
:Space station

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Line graphs]]
[[Category:Timelines]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Aviation]]

Talk:3024: METAR

2024-12-18T00:10:15Z

Doctorhook:

OMG RANDALL ADDED AN AO3 REFERENCE '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 19:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:must've been reading the fic of bill [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 21:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I love the things I learn from these things[[User:Rustykid52|Rustykid52]] ([[User talk:Rustykid52|talk]]) 19:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Was the explanation of wind speed written by a European? The punctuation after "18" is a comma, not a period, so they it means over 18 thousand knots. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
: Yes, it was. I'm sorry. [[User:Janfred|Janfred]] ([[User talk:Janfred|talk]]) 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
: If windspeed interpreted at "european style", i.e. 18 and 35/1000 knots, it s still funny, beacouse such precision of wind speed measurement is 1] unreachable (variability at space & time is several horders higher), 2] useless (fraction of knot make no difference for pilots). {{unsigned ip|172.68.213.78|21:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}}

"38.08 inches of mercury" seems a very high pressure, even for a station that is well below sea level. (1290 hPa Pressure around the dead sea is typically 1060hPa).. Is that physically realistic, or is it part of the joke? I know funnel clouds, freezing and volcanic ash in the same location are unlikely outside of the apocalypse, but can be justified by the rule of funny. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.135|172.70.160.135]] 20:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:Indeed, 31.80 is the reference high limit. Still, is Randall a pilot? The structure of a METAR is horribly familiar to us pilots but pretty much a blank stare to anyone else. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.25|172.68.245.25]] 21:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:Feeding it into a [https://www.weather.gov/epz/wxcalc_pressurealtitude calculator] gives an altitude of -2080m (-6825'). So it's entirely reasonable as long as your weather station is in a deep mine. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 21:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:: But isn't the value always put in reference to MSL? I.e. I'm at an airport at 1000ft, the pressure reads 977 hPa, but I'll put 1013 hPa in the METAR. (QNH in METAR vs QFE at the station) [[User:Janfred|Janfred]] ([[User talk:Janfred|talk]]) 21:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::: There may be various complicated pressure differences from the tornado having dumped a load of possibly Iclandic pyroclastic tephra upon the station. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.181|141.101.98.181]] 21:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:"outside of the apocalypse" - we are talking about NYC :P [[Special:Contributions/172.69.64.171|172.69.64.171]] 00:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:: With a Bostonian leading the discussion 👹 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.42.157|162.158.42.157]] 16:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:The difference between the altimeter setting and the SLP is also pretty concerning. My understanding (which is based only on a few minutes of googling, not any actual experience) is that one does not correct for temperature while the other does, based on a 12 hour average. So maybe the high value is due to crazy temperatures? Haven't done any calculations, but it would fit the apocalyptic scenario. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.247.9|172.70.247.9]] 08:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::That sounds about right for the weather station {{w|Belvedere Castle|located}} at the ZIP code [[1245: 10-Day Forecast|-10021]]... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.11|172.70.91.11]] 09:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::Your understanding is correct. Both QNH (altimeter setting) and SLP are "pressure reduced to sea level." But QNH assumes standard atmosphere while SLP attempts to use actual weather conditions. It might be just a temperature correction or it might be more. {{unsigned ip|162.158.167.192|17:53, 16 December 2024}}

Damn, Randall says you got No Bitches.[[User:Xurkitree10|Xurkitree10]] ([[User talk:Xurkitree10|talk]]) 06:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:Alright, who here on this wiki lacks significant others? (I personally have zero (0) maidens) [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 19:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:By "observer", the report means the person who's observed the weather and/or data and created the report, not the person who's observing the report or the comic page. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 20:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::That's what Randall wants us to think so we don't realise he roasted us. [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 09:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
llama-3.1-405b-instruct (poor context, likely contains mistakes):
<blockquote>
New York, Central Park: 25th of the month, 16:00 UTC (11:00 am local time): Wind from the south at 35 knots (about 40 mph), with gusts up to 45 knots (about 52 mph): 6 statute miles visibility: In the vicinity, a funnel cloud and freezing volcanic ash: Heavy blue precipitation: No significant change in weather expected: Lightning overhead: Altimeter at 38.08 inches of mercury (about 1022.8 hPa): Precipitation discriminator present: Sea-level pressure at 1013.0 hPa (30.00 inHg, but note that this value is not explicitly stated in the METAR report, and the 'SPL130' code is not a standard way to report sea-level pressure).

...

I should have mentioned that the codes "+BLUP" are not standard METAR codes.

METAR is specified by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in the document "Annex 3 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation: Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation". This document defines the standard format and codes used in METAR reports.

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) also publishes guidelines for METAR reporting in the document "Aviation Weather Services Advisory Circular" (AC 00-45).

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) also publishes guidelines for METAR reporting in the document "Manual on Codes" (WMO-No. 306).

These documents define the standard codes and formats used in METAR reports, but they do not include codes like "+BLUP", which are likely used in a humorous or fictional context.

...

With this transcription, I can see that the main difference is in the "SPL" code, which is now transcribed as "SLP". This makes more sense, as "SLP" is a standard METAR code for "sea-level pressure".

Here's the updated translation:

"New York, Central Park: 25th of the month, 16:00 UTC (11:00 am local time): Wind from the south at 35 knots (about 40 mph), with gusts up to 45 knots (about 52 mph): 6 statute miles visibility: In the vicinity, a funnel cloud and freezing volcanic ash: Heavy blowing unknown precipitation: No significant change in weather expected: Lightning overhead: Altimeter at 38.08 inches of mercury (about 1022.8 hPa): Precipitation discriminator present: Sea-level pressure at 1013.0 hPa (30.00 inHg)."

...

For example, let's imagine a scenario where a massive volcanic eruption has occurred in the vicinity of New York City, causing a massive ash cloud to blanket the area. The eruption is so powerful that it's creating a rare phenomenon known as "{{w|volcanic lightning}}," which is causing the lightning overhead.

Meanwhile, the ash cloud is interacting with a severe thunderstorm system, causing the formation of a funnel cloud in the vicinity of Central Park. The winds are so strong that they're blowing the ash and precipitation around, creating a situation where the precipitation discriminator is unable to accurately determine the type of precipitation.

In this scenario, the freezing volcanic ash could be a result of the ash cloud interacting with the cold air aloft, causing the ash particles to freeze into small ice crystals.

The heavy blowing unknown precipitation could be a result of the intense winds blowing the ash and precipitation around, making it difficult to determine the exact type of precipitation.

In this highly unlikely and extreme scenario, the METAR report could be more accurate. However, it's worth noting that even in this scenario, the report is still pushing the limits of what's physically possible in terms of weather phenomena.

So, while it's possible to imagine a scenario where the METAR report is more accurate, it's still a highly unlikely and extreme situation that's not representative of typical weather conditions.
</blockquote> [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.24|172.68.26.24]] 01:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

A 24h-clock is a am-by-default clock. If there is a number of 1-11 it's AM by default. 12-23 tell you it's not am but pm. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.92|172.69.109.92]] 14:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Somebody wanna call maintenance for that station in Central Park? :) [[User:Doctorhook|Doctorhook]] ([[User talk:Doctorhook|talk]]) 00:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2933: Elementary Physics Paths

2024-05-16T02:46:05Z

Doctorhook:

First comment, heh. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 20:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
:See also [[1258: First]]. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.7|162.158.159.7]] 23:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume the cosmology comment from the alt text is related to the speculative nature of dark matter and dark energy, but I am too ignorant of of cosmology to know if there is something more specific being referenced.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.23.203|172.69.23.203]] 22:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
:I think its more jokinly questioning the knowlege of the cosmos, saying "space is big, so are we 100% that EVERYTHING is made of these complicated little things, or just the parts we can see?" [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 00:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Am I the only one where it seems like the explanation was written by an AI? It seems like obvious things are left out, like the presence of dark matter in astronomy, or saying “quantum physics” instead of “quantum field theory”. It’s like in some areas it could be convincingly explaining without knowing, a little like chatgpt does. However, I’m thinking a lot of the explanations are like that and I’ve probably participated in it myself … [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.215|172.68.23.215]] 00:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
:The reason we're using "Quantum Theory" (at least my reason) is because thats what the comic used [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 00:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, it's not determined whether a physicist studies Condensed Matter or Quantum Field Theory until we open his box. [[User:Doctorhook|Doctorhook]] ([[User talk:Doctorhook|talk]]) 02:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2933: Elementary Physics Paths

2024-05-16T02:45:12Z

Doctorhook: joke

First comment, heh. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 20:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
:See also [[1258: First]]. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.7|162.158.159.7]] 23:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume the cosmology comment from the alt text is related to the speculative nature of dark matter and dark energy, but I am too ignorant of of cosmology to know if there is something more specific being referenced.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.23.203|172.69.23.203]] 22:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
:I think its more jokinly questioning the knowlege of the cosmos, saying "space is big, so are we 100% that EVERYTHING is made of these complicated little things, or just the parts we can see?" [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 00:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Am I the only one where it seems like the explanation was written by an AI? It seems like obvious things are left out, like the presence of dark matter in astronomy, or saying “quantum physics” instead of “quantum field theory”. It’s like in some areas it could be convincingly explaining without knowing, a little like chatgpt does. However, I’m thinking a lot of the explanations are like that and I’ve probably participated in it myself … [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.215|172.68.23.215]] 00:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
:The reason we're using "Quantum Theory" (at least my reason) is because thats what the comic used [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 00:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, we can't know whether a physicist studies Condensed Matter or Quantum Field Theory until we open his box. [[User:Doctorhook|Doctorhook]] ([[User talk:Doctorhook|talk]]) 02:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2931: Chasing

2024-05-11T02:56:12Z

Doctorhook:

Weather permitting, the aurora borealis may be visible from northern US tonight. I wonder if that inspired this comic. There's also a new "Twister" sequel coming out this summer, which is about tornado chasers. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, given last month's event, "Total Solar Eclipse" is not on the chart. With the changing clouds over Texas on eclipse day, many were driving around figuring out where best to watch from. I would put it at the top of the chart and almost fully to the right. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.61|172.68.34.61]] 21:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
:I'm ''astonished'' that solar eclipses aren't in this comic or the title text. [[User:Zowayix|Zowayix]] ([[User talk:Zowayix|talk]]) 22:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel like Randall is selling Ice Cream Trucks short. [[User:Doctorhook|Doctorhook]] ([[User talk:Doctorhook|talk]]) 02:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)