explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1732: Earth Temperature Timeline

2016-11-01T06:12:21Z

172.68.35.73: reply

'''NOTICE:''' As this is a loaded topic there will be several Trolls lurking here below. Beware of feeding the trolls... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, never mind then. Oh well. -- [[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 1:02, 12 September 2016
:I acknowledge that the picture is WAY too long, so I added a "skip to explanation" bar, to speed things up. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 17:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the picture not render all the way down in full resolution on firefox? I found it worked on Chrome and explorer... And Wauw, just after I had created the new [[:Category:Climate change]]... Was also just watched a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxEGHW6Lbu8 QandA program] yesterday where [[1644: Stargazing|Brian Cox]] tried to convince some Australian politician about global warming, but the other one just cried conspiracy... Will take some time to make this one complete I guess? Great ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
:That's the thing with this kind of stuff. It takes a LONG time to make it just right. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 19:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please delete the ridiculous trivia
*The colors used to represent temperature vary from blue (the perceived hue of a black body at 20000K) to pale red (perceived at 2200K).
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.139|108.162.221.139]] 19:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course you can pretty much ignore the part of the diagram that is in dotted line, you can't rely on that data. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.119|108.162.246.119]] 20:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
:Note that even if we ignore the extrapolated future, the warming in the past century is already a vastly more abrupt climate shift than anything that happened in the preceding 219 centuries. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 21:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
::Actually we don't know what the shifts were on that scale in the past. The dotted line before modern measurement is a very limited estimate. We have no idea what the year to year changes were in the past, at best we can work out an average. I am reminded of a house mouse(life span of about 1 year) looking at the leaves fall from the tress and saying "Surely this is the end of the world". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.119|108.162.246.119]] 14:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
:::Randall explicitly addresses your specious complaint at 15900 BCE. Year-to-year fluctuations are not the same as the current century-long surge. Either show scientific evidence or go away, Mr Troll from Seattle Cloudflare. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 16:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
::::I should have known better to enter into a religious debate on the internet. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.119|108.162.246.119]] 00:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::No it is not that which is the problem, but that you try to disqualify the data without even bothering to look through them. Aa mentioned Randall tries to let us know that such a high fluctuation as we have in these last 100 years would not be hidden in the old data. As mentioned by Fankie this is explained between 16000 and 15500 BCE... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
::::::I refuse to debate a matter of faith with you. Note that 15500-16000 is 500 years, perhaps when we have 500 years of accurate temperature measurements we will know more. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.119|108.162.246.119]] 03:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not surprised that you can't even read a chart. 16000-15500 BCE is where the explanation is placed on the chart. The fluctuations he shows that would not register are small fluctuations over a decade or two. A fluctuation of a century would "unlikely" be smoothed out. The examples are even drawn to scale... 3rd grade level stuff here. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.145|108.162.221.145]] 17:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Why even bring your faith into this? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.92|108.162.212.92]] 16:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I call Troll. Talking about the significance of where the subchart/Legend/footnote lies? Like what years it's next to actually has any significance? Either he's too dim to actually look, or he's trolling. The standard recommendation is "Don't feed the trolls". :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.118|108.162.218.118]] 02:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
:Have you read the referenced papers? Well you fit well with the people he refers to between the two lines at the top. ;-) We are heading for troublesome times :-( [[164: Playing Devil's Advocate to Win]]... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

*the use unqualified of the words "still many people" is exactly the kind of weasely nonsense that this comic is designed to refute. there are "still many people" who claim the earth is flat, that they have been abducted by aliens, or that the MMR jab made their children autistic. those people are deluded or insincere. the difference with deniers of climate change is that there are in their ranks scientists who are clear-sighted but who have decided that funding at any price is better than none. this site should be better than that. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.84|141.101.98.84]]
::You're absolutely right, the ranks of climate deniers do indeed include a few scientists willing to sell their voices to the highest bidder (e.g. http://www.polluterwatch.com/heartland-institute ). But is that what you meant to say? - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 11:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
:::that the wording be changed to reflect that. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.84|141.101.98.84]] 11:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

For a large post like this, it's a wonder that we can all keep up and edit something like this all at once. Wow. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 11:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
:Also, anyone else notice that this was a top trending post on Facebook last night? I don't know if I could call it a milestone but it's still pretty cool. And '''WE''' edited it! :D --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 12:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
::Very interesting, so it was explain xkcd and not xkcd that where the top trending post? Could you post a link to where you found this out? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
:::I can see you are right from the fact that Randall has chosen to postpone his next comic in order to keep this one on the front page for all the new visitors as has now been noted in the explanation and in the trivia section. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe someone should add the fact that the transcript may be a reference to oxidation?[[User:Transuranium|Transuranium]] ([[User talk:Transuranium|talk]]) 19:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Transuranium
:I think you mean the "title text" not the transcript? And that you refer to the recent comic [[1693: Oxidation]] which is indeed referened in the title text, then that has been written at the bottom of the main explanation and has been there already since the 12th edit less than 1½ hour after the comic came out... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Is nobody else having a problem seeing the comic? Both here and on XKCD I get an "Image not found" icon, a blue question mark. I thought maybe this was an interactive comic that doesn't work on my iPad (like that garden thing, though that did nothing on my computer either). If I tap it on XKCD nothing happens, here it leads to the picture's Wiki page - also with the question mark - which says it's a PNG, which I know this iPad can show. It's 11pm EST, maybe night maintenance on XKCD? Or the file got renamed without updating the sites? - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.227|162.158.126.227]] 03:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
:I had trouble seeing it on my own PC using Firefox but not the other browsers I have. See my early comment above. I guess the file is too big for your iPad as it is a very huge file. I tried to download it but it failed. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
::It's weird that I got what is clearly an "Image not found" icon, though. Maybe my 1st Gen iPad's Safari saw the file, decided "No way I'm loading that!"(or "that size can't be right", LOL!) and chose to show the error icon instead. When I force the issue, by going directly to the image URL listed on XKCD, the first time Safari crashed rather than load the image (but it crashes on a regular basis, so that didn't deter me), the second time it crashed, the third time it actually loaded, and I was able to see it. After seeing mentions here of spelling errors (though I have to disagree on "Pokemon", generally only people connected to the show bother with the accent. Like how I'm the only one who spells Hallowe'en correctly, with the apostrophe), I thought maybe the comic was taken down to correct it, but guess not. LOL! - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.239|108.162.218.239]] 20:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I feel that the missing bottom axis is a usability problem, so I fixed it. [http://info.org.il/data/earth_temperature_timeline_bottom_axis.png See it here.] [[User:Hananc|Hananc]] ([[User talk:Hananc|talk]]) 10:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
:Nice but I'm sure it was on purpose to indicate that time continues down,as well as a possible even worse temperature change. As shown in the previous global warming comic [[1379]] Earth has been 8 degree hotter than now... And apart from the last small segment (albeit a very important one) you either remember that white is normal and bluer is colder redder is warmer or else you cannot use the chart in between the top and bottom, and since this is the longest xkcd comic so far it would be a shame. :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, now that I've managed to SEE the damn thing, I have a question. There's no mention of why this is using "BCE" and "CE" instead of the standard "BC" and "AD", never mind what these stand for (thinking and thinking about it, my guess is "Before Christ Era" and "Christ Era"). This is the kind of thing that should be mentioned on ExplainXKCD, LOL! Fun fact: when I searched this page for "BCE", to confirm it wasn't explained, I got "Over 100 matches". :) Anyway, I figure maybe those are currently accepted scientific terminology, especially since "AD" is Latin, unlike "BC", but the average person still uses BC and AD. In fact, I think this is the first time I've ever seen BCE and CE (unless it's been on XKCD before and I just dismissed it as a typo or something. This time there are WAY too many for it to be a mistake every time, including here in the explanation!) - NiceGuy1[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.239|108.162.218.239]] 21:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
:It's "Before Common Era" and "Common Era", an alternative to BC/AD. Pretty common alternative, though I don't know why off-hand - probably to remove the religious connotations of "Christ" and "Year of our Lord". --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.236|108.162.215.236]] 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
::Because they're the standards in the scientific community. The guy above assumed his way is standard, but that's inaccurate. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.92|108.162.212.92]] 00:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:::I assume nothing. My statements are completely accurate. I OBSERVE it is the standard, the only standard anybody (else) seems to use. BC/AD is the "standard" because it is standard practice to use it. For good reason, since I would estimate just about everybody knows what it means, while I am sure I am in the majority in having never heard BCE/CE. It is also not "my" way, I made no choice here, it is the established convention, it is the way accepted and adopted by society. While I would normally be more inclined towards terminology devoid of religion (as seems to be the point here, now that someone kindly clarified these acronyms for me), I feel this would be a losing fight, one it would be foolish to attempt, the classic terminology is too ingrained in society. Sorry. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.118|108.162.218.118]] 02:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
:: For the convenience of archeologists working in the Middle East. [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 01:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
::Thank you! Yes, it sounds to me like the point would be to remove the religious aspect. Personally, I don't really mind the religious terminology, I just see it as historical, keeping a record of where the names and numbering came from. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.118|108.162.218.118]] 02:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

What this comic doesn't show is what kind of changes occurred in the previous interglacial period as opposed to the current one. Since the current one is not yet over there could still be a stage of an interglacial with rapid temperature rise which we are only now reaching, but has happened in previous interglacial periods.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.54|108.162.219.54]] 02:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:Check out this 400k year comparison of temperature variations from two ice core projects in Antarctica, Lake Vostok and EPICA. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png (Note that Randall's timeline matches up pretty well with the last 20k years on the far right of the graph) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.98|162.158.69.98]] 13:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this would be first time where I see global thermonuclear war described as "best case scenario". There was and still is lot of discussion about how much is current warming caused by humans, but that's not important. Important question is "can we stop it?" and the answer is "not without literally billions of dead" (and even that might not suffice). Any money currently used for most plans to reduce CO2 (which usually fails to reduce CO2, not speaking about global warming, but succeed in their main goal, which is moving the money into pockets of their proponents) would be better spent on ADAPTING to the change. Only plans for reducing CO2 actually worth doing are the ones related to stopping burning fossil fuels, because we will soon need fossil fuels to make food (and other stuff) from. Oh, and also stop burning FOOD. So we should replace fossil fuel power plants with only viable alternative - NUCLEAR. So called renewable power sources like solar are good addition, but doesn't scale to the amount of power and stability we need. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 14:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

So disappointing to see that Randall Hitler Munroe subscribes to the obviously false "global warming" religion. He should know better. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.55.83|172.68.55.83]] 00:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
: Troll troll trolly trolly troll troll troll [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.217|162.158.214.217]] 03:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/261:_Regarding_Mussolini {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.126}}

I understand the concept behind this comic, but why doesn't the graph include atmospheric CO2, sulfur aerosols, and solar 10.7cm radio flux for comparison? Also, for the person who suggested we look at previous interglacial periods, I may be wrong, but I believe a lot of that data comes from ice cores, that would make it hard to look at time periods before the present ice sheets existed. IIRC, there were periods not too long ago (geologically speaking) where Antarctica was covered in lakes, tundra, and sparse forests instead of ice sheets.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.127|172.68.65.127]] 05:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The jump of 0.5 degrees from 2000 to 2016 has been shown to be false. It exists because "scientists" went back and changed (or "seasonally adjusted") their data to fit their preconceived conclusions. Just look at Al Gore's 'Inconvenient [Non]Truth', pretty much every doomsday scenario has not occurred. I expect better of XKCD.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.77|173.245.48.77]] 20:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It would be very nice if they wouldn't spread climate change misinformation.
22,000 year Time line [20,000 BC to 2000 AD]
versus
2.5 to 3 billion years of Evolution
on a 4 Billion year old Planet

22,000 / 2,500,000,000 = 0.0000088
Using 0.00088 % of Evolutionary History do decide what the weather is supposed to look like.
Now an atmospheric history lesson
-
Cambrian
Oxygen 12.5% - Carbon Dioxide 0.45% - Average Temp. 21 °C - sea level 30 - 90 meters
-
Ordovician
Oxygen 13.5% - Carbon Dioxide 0.42% - Average Temp. 16 °C - sea level 180 - 220 - 140 meters
-
Silurian
Oxygen 14% - Carbon Dioxide 0.45% - Average Temp. 17 °C - sea level 180 meters
-
Devonian
Oxygen 15% - Carbon Dioxide 0.22% - Average Temp. 20 °C - sea level 189 - 120 meters
-
Carboniferous
Oxygen 32.5% - Carbon Dioxide 0.08% - Average Temp. 14 °C - sea level 120 - 0 - 80 meters
-
Permian
Oxygen 23% - Carbon Dioxide 0.09% - Average Temp. 16 °C - sea level 60 - 0 - -20 meters
-
Triassic
Oxygen 16% - Carbon Dioxide 0.1750% - Average Temp. 17 °C - sea level 0 meters
-
Jurassic
Oxygen 26% - Carbon Dioxide 0.1950% - Average Temp. 16.5 °C
-
Cretaceous
Oxygen 30% - Carbon Dioxide 0.17% - Average Temp. 18 °C
-
Paleogene
Oxygen 26% - Carbon Dioxide 0.05% - Average Temp. 18 °C
-
Neogene
Oxygen 21.5% - Carbon Dioxide 0.028% - Average Temp. 14 °C
-
Current
Oxygen 20.9% - Carbon Dioxide 0.039% - Average Temp. 15 °C

As you can see an atmosphere when healthy should have
Oxygen 25 - 32%
Carbon dioxide 0.1 - 0.15%
Average Temperature 14 - 18 °C
Sea level 60 - 180 meters
and there should be no polar ice caps

our sea level is at extinction levels
our carbon dioxide is almost too low for plants to survive
and our oxygen level is almost suffocatingly low

Less Carbon Dioxide means less Plants
Less plants means less Oxygen
Less Oxygen means less Life[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.112|108.162.246.112]] 07:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

:I think the point of comics is that while there were changes in temperature before, they were never this rapid. Although I wouldn't be sure about THAT either ... granted, the previous rapid changes were accompanied with mass extinction ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 15:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
::Yeah, the long sample intervals and best fit curves from pre-industrial temperature estimates tend to smooth out any rapid changes that may have occurred over the time period (Think of an ECG/EKG that took a single instantaneuos microvolt sample once every 15 minutes of your life from birth to death, the resulting deflection graph would not look like anything like a normal heart rhythm, but it could be interpreted as the average electrical activity of your heart over the course of a lifetime). It's true that the rapid climate shifts we are able see in geological records usually coincide with things like supervolcano eruptions and asteroid impacts. But those shifts are usually to the negative end from the nuclear winter effect. Idea for reversing global warming without affecting CO2 emissions, just send a couple of hypervelocity rods or a gravity-tractored asteroid into a dormant supervolcano caldera every few years and... instant winter. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.75|173.245.51.75]] 02:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting and important work.

Actually.... Solomon and Jesus are not historical figures. Outside the Old and the New Testament, there is no archaeological or other evidence for their existence. I suppose, Jesus has played a significant role in history. So, you may be justified to add an entry saying something like "Date that religious traditions hold as the date of birth of Jesus."

Then, if you mention, say, Shakespeare, then you should also mention the estimated composition of the Bible, an event with more important historical influences.

Roman empire was continued for more than thousand years (Eastern Roman Empire, today reffered as Byzantium).

Current scholarly wisdom is that the Homeric epics, (the Iliad and the Odussey) were composed at the second half of the 8th century, perhaps around 720 BCE.
[[User:Konstantas|Konstantas]] ([[User talk:Konstantas|talk]]) 05:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

== Actual best-case scenario == 

The [http://imgur.com/a/H4prq actual best-case scenario] is far better than Randall's depiction; please see. However, the URLs below in that linked Imgur gallery's first caption were rendered unclickable, probably for spam protection measures, so I reproduce them here:
:;Actual "best-case scenario assuming immediate massive action to limit emissions"
:From https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/17/why-cant-we-give-up-fossil-fuels
:What will it take to get to this scenario? https://www.solveforx.com/explorations/foghorn/ with http://freenights.txu.com/ and http://co2-chemistry.eu/ for ocean carbonate-sourced plastic composite structural lumber allowing reforestation.
[[User:JSalsman|JSalsman]] ([[User talk:JSalsman|talk]]) 15:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

: First, the Guardian is a newspaper, not a science journal. Second, that article is from 2013, before the latest upsurge. Third, even ignoring those things, the article doesn't say what you claim it does. The single most optimistic sentence I see is ''"If we are lucky, the impact of burning all that oil, coal and gas could turn out to be at the less severe end of the plausible spectrum."'' The rest of the article is quite pessimistic, such as ''"it is overwhelmingly likely that we would shoot well past 2C and towards 3C or even 4C of warming."''
: Please post exact quotes where your links talk about a better scenario. Please do not post URLs and expect us to figure out what you mean. You are making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 17:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
::How do you expect me to quote from [http://imgur.com/a/H4prq the graphs]? I can't upload images, maybe I need more edits. Please ask any questions you like. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.73|172.68.35.73]] 06:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

== Joanne Nova ==

* http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-past-climate-change.html
* http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/03/almost-everything-we-know-about-fake.html
* http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/02/global-warming-denial.html
* http://www.desmogblog.com/joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook
* http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova
* http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/
- [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 23:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

== Interesting Ways to Look at it. ==

Hey, I had a great time scrolling down and watching the earth heat up :).[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.115|108.162.245.115]] 19:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

1132: Frequentists vs. Bayesians

2016-10-30T00:15:32Z

172.68.35.73:

{{comic
| number = 1133
| date = November 9, 2012
| title = Frequentists vs. Bayesians
| image = frequentists_vs_bayesians.png
| titletext = 'Detector! What would the Bayesian statistician say if I asked him whether the--' [roll] 'I AM A NEUTRINO DETECTOR, NOT A LABYRINTH GUARD. SERIOUSLY, DID YOUR BRAIN FALL OUT?' [roll] '... yes.'}}

==Explanation==
This comic is a joke about jumping to conclusions based on a simplistic understanding of probability. The "{{w|base rate fallacy}}" is a mistake where an unlikely explanation is dismissed, even though the alternative is even less likely. In the comic, a device tests for the (highly unlikely) event that the sun has exploded. A degree of random error is introduced, by rolling two {{w|dice}} and lying if the result is double sixes. Double sixes are unlikely (1 in 36, or about 3% likely), so the statistician on the left dismisses it. The statistician on the right has (we assume) correctly reasoned that the sun exploding is ''far more'' unlikely, and so is willing to stake money on his interpretation.

The labels given to the two statisticians, in their panels and in the comic's title, are not particularly fair or accurate, a fact which [[Randall]] has acknowledged:<ref name="munroe-on-gelman">[http://web.archive.org/web/20130117080920/http://andrewgelman.com/2012/11/16808/#comment-109366 Comment by Randall Munroe] to "I don’t like this cartoon", blog post by Andrew Gelman in ''Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science''. Archived Jan 17 2013 by the Wayback Machine.</ref>
<blockquote>I seem to have stepped on a hornet’s nest, though, by adding “Frequentist” and “Bayesian” titles to the panels. This came as a surprise to me, in part because I actually added them as an afterthought, along with the final punchline. … The truth is, I genuinely didn’t realize Frequentists and Bayesians were actual camps of people—all of whom are now emailing me. I thought they were loosely-applied labels—perhaps just labels appropriated by the books I had happened to read recently—for the standard textbook approach we learned in science class versus an approach which more carefully incorporates the ideas of prior probabilities.</blockquote>

The "frequentist" statistician is (mis)applying the common standard of "{{w|P-value|p}}<0.05". In a scientific study, a result is presumed to provide strong evidence if, given that the {{w|null hypothesis}}, a default position that the observations are unrelated (in this case, that the sun has ''not'' gone nova), there is less than a 5% chance that the result was merely random. (The null hypothesis was also referenced in [[892: Null Hypothesis]].)

Since the likelihood of rolling double sixes is below this 5% threshold, the "frequentist" decides (by this rule of thumb) to accept the detector's output as correct. The "Bayesian" statistician has, instead, applied at least a small measure of probabilistic reasoning ({{w|Bayesian inference}}) to determine that the unlikeliness of the detector lying is greatly outweighed by the unlikeliness of the sun exploding. Therefore, he concludes that the sun has ''not'' exploded and the detector is lying.

The line, "Bet you $50 it hasn't", is a reference to the approach of a leading bayesian scholar, {{w|Bruno de Finetti}}, who made extensive use of bets in his examples and thought experiments. See {{w|Coherence (philosophical gambling strategy)}} for more information on his work. In this case, however, the bet is also a joke because we would all be dead if the sun exploded. If the Bayesian wins the bet, he gets money, and if he loses, they'll both be dead before money can be paid. This underlines the absurdity of the premise and emphasizes the need to consider context when examining probability.

The title text refers to a classic series of logic puzzles known as {{w|Knights and Knaves#Fork in the road|Knights and Knaves}}, where there are two guards in front of two exit doors, one of which is real and the other leads to death. One guard is a liar and the other tells the truth. The visitor doesn't know which is which, and is allowed to ask one question to one guard. The solution is to ask either guard what the other one would say is the real exit, then choose the opposite. Two such guards were featured in the 1986 Jim Henson movie ''[[246|Labyrinth]]'', hence the mention of "A LABYRINTH GUARD" here.

===Mathematical and scientific details===
As mentioned, this is an instance of the {{w|base rate fallacy}}. If we treat the "truth or lie" setup as simply modelling an inaccurate test, then it is also specifically an illustration of the {{w|false positive paradox}}: A test that is rarely wrong, but which tests for an event that is even rarer, will be more often wrong than right when it says that the event has occurred.

The test in this case is a neutrino detector. It relies on the fact that neutrinos can pass through the earth, so a neutrino detector would detect neutrinos from the sun at all times, day and night. The detector is stated to give false results ("lie") 1/36th of the time.

There is no record of any star ever spontaneously exploding—they always show signs of deterioration long before their explosion—so the probability is near zero. For the sake of a number, though, consider that the sun's estimated lifespan is 10 billion years. Let's say the test is run every hour, twelve hours a day (at night time). This gives us a probability of the Sun exploding at one in 4.38×1013. Assuming this detector is otherwise reliable, when the detector reports a solar explosion, there are two possibilities:
# The sun '''has''' exploded (one in 4.38×1013) and the detector '''is''' telling the truth (35 in 36). This event has a total probability of about 1/(4.38×1013) × 35/36 or about one in 4.50×1013.
# The sun '''hasn't''' exploded (4.38×1013 − 1 in 4.38×1013) and the detector '''is not''' telling the truth (1 in 36). This event has a total probability of about (4.38×1013 − 1) / 4.38×1013 × 1/36 or about one in 36.

Clearly the sun exploding is not the most likely option.

===Presidential election predictions===
[[File:Nate Silver Tweet.png|.@JoeNBC: If you think it's a toss-up, let's bet. If Obama wins, you donate $1,000 to the American Red Cross. If Romney wins, I do. Deal?|right]]

This comic may be about the accuracy of presidential election predictions that used statistical models, such as Nate Silver's ''538'' and Professor Sam Wang's ''PEC''. The bet may refer to a well-publicized bet that Nate Silver tried to make with Joe Scarborough regarding the outcome of the election (see tweet on the right).

==Trivia==
* The Sun will never explode as a supernova, because it does not have enough mass.
*In the same blog comment as cited above<ref name="munroe-on-gelman"/>, Randall explains that he chose the "sun exploding" scenario as a more clearly absurd example than those usually used:
<blockquote>…I realized that in the common examples used to illustrate this sort of error, like the cancer screening/drug test false positive ones, the correct result is surprising or unintuitive. So I came up with the sun-explosion example, to illustrate a case where naïve application of that significance test can give a result that’s obviously nonsense.</blockquote>
*"Bayesian" statistics is named for Thomas Bayes, who studied conditional probability — the likelihood that one event is true when given information about some other related event. From {{w|Bayes Theorem|Wikipedia}}: "Bayesian interpretation expresses how a subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for evidence".
* The "frequentist" says that 1/36 = 0.027. It's actually 0.02777…, which should round to 0.028.
* Using neutrino detectors to get an advance warning of a supernova is possible, and the {{w|Supernova Early Warning System}} does just this. The neutrinos arrive ahead of the photons, because they can escape from the core of the star before the supernova explosion reaches the mantle.

==Transcript==
:Did the sun just explode? (It's night, so we're not sure)

:[Two statisticians stand alongside an adorable little computer that is suspiciously similar to K-9 that speaks in Westminster typeface.]
:Frequentist Statistician: This neutrino detector measures whether the sun has gone nova.
:Bayesian Statistician: Then, it rolls two dice. If they both come up as six, it lies to us. Otherwise, it tells the truth.
:Frequentist Statistician: Let's try. [to the detector] Detector! Has the sun gone nova?
:Detector: ''roll'' YES.

:Frequentist Statistician:
:Frequentist Statistician: The probability of this result happening by chance is 1/36=0.027. Since p<0.05, I conclude that the sun has exploded.

:Bayesian Statistician:
:Bayesian Statistician: Bet you $50 it hasn't.

==References==
<references/>

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:1574: Trouble for Science

2016-10-17T17:45:53Z

172.68.35.73:

Sentence case, or down style, is one method, preferred by many print and online publications and recommended by the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. The only two rules are the two rules mentioned above: Capitalize the first word and all proper nouns. Everything else is in lowercase. http://www.dailywritingtips.com/rules-for-capitalization-in-titles/ [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.154|173.245.50.154]] 12:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

;Problems with the p-value as an indicator of significance

The p-value alone can never be an indicator of significance. However, it is still often used as the only indicator, because a full set of parameters (including sample size, test setup, etc.) can't easily be packed into a single number. There's a nice article in nature about this problem: [http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700]
I can also recommend [http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800this story] about (ab-)using hacked p-values to get maximum publicity. I hope this helps :-) --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.183|141.101.105.183]] 12:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
:In this section, I really want to reword the p-valye explanation that "one can assume that the event observed 'exists'." Except where it's an event indirectly observed through a chained effect (unseeable gas molecules observed through brownian motion, unstable particles through detection of their decay particles, prehistoric meteorite impact through a geological/chemical fingerprint, etc) I think it should be more that "this (directly observed) event was directly linked to the presumed cause rather than spontaneous and random, at least w.r.t. the presumed cause being tested". But writing it better than I did just now. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.114|141.101.99.114]] 19:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the joke is that these newspapers are talking about how bad science is, and yet they manage to come up with a stupid story about Bunsen burners, presumably being too scientifically illiterate to know the problem. [[User:Timband|Timband]] ([[User talk:Timband|talk]]) 12:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Although reading the other comments, it's a much better joke if the Bunsen Burner story is actually true, because that makes all of them about journalists not realising that they are highlighting their own ignorance. [[User:Timband|Timband]] ([[User talk:Timband|talk]]) 16:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

See [[Significant]] for another comic on p-values.--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 14:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

One journal, Basic and Applied Social Psychology (vol. 37 pages 1–2, 2015), went so far as to ban p-values entirely. So, anti-p-value sentiment does seem to be on the rise. --[[User:Scjphysicist|scjphysicist]] ([[User talk:Scjphysicist|talk]]) 01:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

;Controlled trials show Bunsen burners make things colder

Actually, I can easily imagine a way to use a Bunsen burner to make something colder. Involving an unlit Bunsen burner that has been placed in the freezer for a couple hours, for example. Nowhere in the headline is there any mention of a flame. --[[User:Svenman|Svenman]] ([[User talk:Svenman|talk]]) 12:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Actually, there was a (badly formatted and badly placed, probably therefore now removed) comment on the explanation page earlier which pointed out that feeding a Bunsen burner from a propane bottle will cause the pressure, and therefore the temperature, in the bottle to decrease. That is a lot less contrived than my original idea. --[[User:Svenman|Svenman]] ([[User talk:Svenman|talk]]) 13:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

::That was me. Trying to get my 2 cents in on my phone before I forgot. http://www.propane101.com/propaneregulatorfreezing.htm as an example. [[User:Mattiep|Mattiep]] ([[User talk:Mattiep|talk]]) 13:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Correct me if i'm wrong here, but doesn't burning flame from a Bunsen burner cause the temperatures of the flame and the target object to equalize? Sure in most cases that results in a temperature increase in the target object, but I don't see why that would be true in all high temperature cases. The comment about "reducing the rate of heat loss in 2000K+ temp objects" would only be true if the gas (assuming any atmosphere at all) surrounding the target object was cooler than the flame from the bunsen burner. This gets worse in a perfect vacuum. If a 5000K object was in a perfect vacuum and somebody set a lit bunsen burner (assuming the tip had an Oxygen source) to spray across the target object, then the Flame would get hotter as it touched the hotter object and the object would cool as the two temperatures attempted to equalize. No reduction of heat loss would happen. Can we remove the comment about "reducing the rate of heat loss in 2000K+ temp objects" ? [[User:Harodotus|Harodotus]] ([[User talk:Harodotus|talk]]) 22:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC).

::Found an article backing up my previous comment and lacking any objection for several hours, reveresed the note in the article.[http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2xr7dc/can_you_cool_an_object_hotter_than_fire_with_fire/] [[User:Harodotus|Harodotus]] ([[User talk:Harodotus|talk]]) 23:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Bunsen burners hasten the heat death of the universe, making things colder generally. Showing that in "controlled trials" seems like a challenge for a type 2 civilization, though. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.241.73|198.41.241.73]] 08:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the joke is in the wording of the headlines. The fact that a replication study fails to reproduce can be seen as a contradiction. Overfeeding rodents leads to fat rodents. This compromises their ability to function als animal (runway) models. I haven't figured out the other ones yet. But that's çause I'm dumb :-). Alva. {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.80}}

:It's way simpler than that - The joke is that people outside of sciences (with no understanding really of how to science) will report basically anything that sounds shocking or exciting, especially if it proves those nerdy, scary scientists wrong! So Randall gives us a bunch of possibly headlines that to a layman read like real, scary news about science, but to scientists this is stuff that is generally well known and understood. The last one is just taking it a step further for credulous news editors - They've been lying to us all this time! 13:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
::I think it's even simpler than that: the title is "Trouble for Science" and it shows a series of misleading headlines about misleading (i.e.: invalidated) scientific studies. The implication is "Trouble for Journalism".[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.87|173.245.54.87]] 14:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:I agree. All of the titles are poorly written. All immunoassays are antibody-based, so saying many commercial antibody-based immunoassays are unreliable is redundant, implying they have no idea what an immunoassay is. Problems with the p-value as an indicator of significance implies that there is some significant error in the use of a tool to measure significance of error, which leads one to wonder how they figured that out. If you don't know what a p-test is, the title is paradoxical. The last title would make someone assume that the controlled trials are using turned on bunsen burners to make things colder, but could mean almost anything, such as a bunsen burner being turned off the entire time, or a bunsen burner placed inside of a freezer, or even that people consider using bunsen burners in an experiment makes the experiment cool (or sweet or groovy or whatever). {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.155}}

::I would appreciate someone adding info about what an immunoassay is. [[User:Teleksterling|Teleksterling]] ([[User talk:Teleksterling|talk]]) 22:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree, but would say if you DO know what a p-test is, the title is paradoxical. If you don't know what a p-test is, the title is meaningless. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 07:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This comic may be in reference to Monsanto's latest ailments. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.112}}

;Replication study fails to reproduce many published results
:Upon reading that specific headline, the rational behavior would be to question the veracity of all the other headlines before and after. I could see a paper picking up on that sensationalist-looking headline and ignoring the fact it casts doubt on whatever else they published. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 14:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but what is the irony in the first headline? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_(matter)]: "When a substance undergoes a phase transition (changes from one state of matter to another) it usually either takes up or releases energy. For example, when water evaporates, the kinetic energy expended as the evaporating molecules escape the attractive forces of the liquid is reflected in a decrease in temperature. The amount of energy required to induce the transition is more than the amount required to heat the water from room temperature to just short of boiling temperature, which is why evaporation is useful for cooling. " That could explain the Bunsen burner making things colder (i.e. having less kinetic energy)

About gaussian irregularities. Using a computer and floating point numbers, someone would see irregularities on a gaussian distribution. That amounts to sampling the curve with a small but finite precision. Computing the value a any given point could lead to rounding errors and would be seen as irregularities. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.118}}
:That's like saying a crack in your telescope glass has revealed new stars.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.134|108.162.229.134]] 23:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Gregory Chaitin makes a case for using experimentally observed mathematical relations to increase the expressiveness of mathematics beyond the limits of purely deductive axiomatic methods. If this trend is adopted, it might conceivably develop that a set of foundations that support what would then be known as the "normal distribution" could have significant irregularities which would result in either adoption of this new effect, or changing the foundational proposition from which the effect is derived, or both. Randall's headline may be predictive of the type of thing that may be seen as more mathematicians explore conjectures aided by computer computations using numeric and symbolic congruences.
[[http://www.linkedin.com/in/Comet Comet]] 20:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think everyone is over-thinking this comic. In each headline, the question is "Well if that's the case, how did they prove it?" In other words, every test would have most likely made use of the technique that they studied in the study.

Anti-bodies-I don't know anything about this topic, so I can't explain the irony that I hypothesize to be there.

P-values-Presumably the researchers started with the null hypothesis that p-values are a good indicator of significance. They then disproved it with p<0.05.

Lab rats-They proved that animal studies are compromised. They undoubtedly used animals to conduct this experiment

Replication study-They couldn't replicate the results. To show that this is a robust phenomenon, other researchers should be able to replicate their results.

Bunsen burners-In their controlled experiment, they found that bunsen burners cool things down. But since bunsen burners are the heat-source of choice for many scientific investigations, they were probably the control heat source as well as the test.

Gaussian curve-The bell curve has irregularities in it. Assuming that these irregularities are independent, their effect is modelled by a Gaussian curve (ie the average irregularity in the faulty Gaussian curve will form a Gaussian distribution per the central limit theorem)

In each case, the joke is that the study results discredit the method that would have been used to prove the result.
CAS [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.149|173.245.55.149]] 23:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There's another interpretation. All of these articles are headlines in newspapers. Reporters will only bother to write and publish news articles about highly controversial or exciting results, framed in the most inflammatory way, regardless of their reliability or applicability. So we have carnival barkers in the news media cherry-picking and misrepresenting results they really don't understand.

But most scientists are also dependent on having a steady stream of published, novel results so they can get their grant money from the government. Which means "sexy" results that are publishable and impactful- i.e. worthy of mention in the non-scientific press. So ''of course'' we have sloppy methods and irreproduceable results-- those are the methods most likely to produce the kind of excitingly counter-intuitive results that get published and catch the notice of the mainstream media. Disciplined labs that publish properly vetted results will hit dry periods when their results are unexciting or their theories don't check out, and their grant money will dry up, and they will fall apart. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.171|108.162.237.171]] 14:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the bunsen burner part might be a reference to a demonstration a teacher once did. I can't find the reference, but when her students came in she showed them a metal plate next to a lit bunsen burner. The students observed that the side closest to the flame was colder, and she asked them to write down what they thought was going on. They wrote non-answers like, "because of heat conduction," and none of them came anywhere close to guessing the correct answer, which was simply that the teacher turned the metal plate around just before they came in. [[User:Shanek|Shanek]] ([[User talk:Shanek|talk]]) 16:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I figured that this comic was mostly making a joke about how often newspapers describe things as "Trouble for Science!"... when most of the things being reported are merely niggles in one narrow area of one scientific field. Whereas this is a list of things which actually *would be* "trouble for science" in that that they would invalidate huge areas of scientific "knowledge". A few of them are real, most are not.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.77|108.162.216.77]] 06:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

A Bunsen burner could be used to drive an absorption chiller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_refrigerator). In that case it could be said to indirectly "make things colder."

1729: Migrating Geese

2016-09-05T15:19:40Z

172.68.35.73: Added definition for shock front and comptroller, also changed "curvyness" in transcript to "curvature"

{{comic
| number = 1729
| date = September 5, 2016
| title = Migrating Geese
| image = migrating_geese.png
| titletext = "Hey guys! I have a great idea for a migration!" "Dammit, Kevin."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete| Only a rough draft.}}
Migrating refers the changing a habitat, like it happens every year with geese travelling long distances as to not experience cold seasons. When geese fly to their new habitat they tend to fly in a very clear shape or formation which resembles a flipped V. This formation is shown and explained here like a military formation with different roles:
{| class="wikitable"
!Name
!Explanation
|-
|Head Goose
(4th in line to the British throne)
|This goose may become the newest monarch of the UK, assuming the three who are further in line die. The current fourth in line to the British throne is {{w|HRH}} {{w|Princess Charlotte of Cambridge}}.
|-
|Quarterback
|A {{w|quarterback}} is a position in {{w|American Football}}.
|-
|Comptroller
|A {{w|comptroller}} is a position in a company. A comptroller oversees and manages all financial operations.
|-
|Migration abort goose
|This might be a reference to launch abort capsules used in rockets to safely land astronauts in the case of a critical stage failure
|-
|Twin-Engine Model
|This goose has two tails, which makes it look like a Twin-Engine aircraft which has two motors on either wing instead of one in the nose.
|-
|Kevin
|Might be a reference to the Kevin of reddit fame: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/219w2o/whos_the_dumbest_person_youve_ever_met/cgbhkwp
|-
|CIA Informant
|A person, usually a criminal, that surreptitiously provides information to the {{w|Central Intelligence Agency}}.
|-
|Backups
|These are geese that are not used in the formation so they can replace other geese in their positions in case they have problems performing their task.
|-
|Missing Valence Geese
|In Chemistry, {{w|Valence (chemistry)|valence}} electrons are the electrons in the outermost "layer" which change places when chemical reactions happen. As there is an optimal number of electrons in a layer, if there are missing valence electrons, elements which can fill in these gaps tend to react with the elements having the missing electrons.
|-
|Shock Front
| A shock front is the front boundary of a shock wave created by either a sonic boom or another explosion in a fluid. It can also refer to the shock wave itself.
|-
|Stealth cargo being escorted
|The formation is forming a protective surrounding around an empty space in the middle which in a military formation could contain protected cargo. As there is no cargo visible in the goose formation, it is titled "stealth".
|}

==Transcript==
:[Caption above the panel:]
:Understanding Migration of Geese

:[20 geese are shown flying in a typical migratory V-formation. As they are shown in silhouette it is not possible to determine if they are seen from above or from below. They are flying toward the top of the image with the first goose close to the top in the middle of the image. There is one head goose, and then there are 7 geese in the left arms and 9 geese in the right arm. Behind the left arm there are two stragglers that are not in line with the others, but closer to the middle than those above and not as close to each other as the rest but still flying in the same direction. Finally there is one goose at the bottom right corner flying at a 45 degree angle away from the other to the right. The first goose is flapping its wing, which is also the case with six other geese, no. 4 and 6 in the left and 3, 5 and 6 in the right arm as well as the middle of the two in the rear towards the middle. The rest are soaring with straight wings and all of these look the same except no. 7 in the right arm which has two tails, which both goes ahead of the wings, making it look like a plane with two engines. The head goose and 5 of the 9 geese in the right arm as well as the one bottom right are labelled with and arrow pointing to them from the label. The front goose has the label in front to the left, the other have it in front to the right, except the second last in the arm which has the label inside the V and one flying away which has the label right above it. The two behind and right of the left arm have one label behind them with two arrows from the label pointing at both geese. There is a thick curvy line in front of geese no. 3 to 5 in the left arm. In front of that line is a thinner broken line. In front of this is a label written with the same curvature. There are two areas surrounded by dotted lines. The first one is behind the last of the left arms geese, extending in the same direction for a distance of about two geese. It has a label above and left with and arrow pointing to it. The other area is in the middle of the V forming a loose triangular structure with a label inside.]
:Head goose: Head goose (4th in line to the British throne)
:Right no. 1: Quarterback
:Right no. 3: Comptroller
:Right no. 5: Migration abort goose
:Right no. 7: Twin-engine model
:Right no. 8: CIA informant
:Bottom right corner: Kevin
:Behind center: Backups
:In front of left no. 3-5: Shock front
:Empty area behind left arm: Missing valence geese
:Empty area in center: Stealth cargo being escorted

{{comic discussion}}

1695: Code Quality 2

2016-06-17T16:32:32Z

172.68.35.73: /* Explanation */ Grammar fixes

{{comic
| number = 1695
| date = June 17, 2016
| title = Code Quality 2
| image = code_quality_2.png
| titletext = It's like you tried to define a formal grammar based on fragments of a raw database dump from the QuickBooks file of a company that's about to collapse in an accounting scandal.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|first edits}}

The comic is a continuation of [[1513: Code Quality]], in which we see [[Ponytail]] being introduced to the {{w|source code}} [[Cueball]] has written, and where he is warning her that he is self-taught so his code probably won't be written the way she is used to.
She then continues to describe poetically the total mess of a code she encounters, using references to recipes created by corporate lawyers or the transcript of a couple arguing at IKEA.

The second panel makes a reference to "OCR" ({{w|Optical Character Recognition}}), a technique for recognizing text in a picture using software. In this case she is referring to a picture of a {{w|Scrabble}} game, which is a popular word-making game in which players have a pseudo-randomized set of letters and must arrange them on a grid to form interlocking words. OCR software is notoriously imperfect at the time of writing, and the criss-crossing semi-random words on a Scrabble board fed through an OCR program would likely produce dubious results, certainly not fit for current code standards. This is further compounded by Ponytail's suggestion that Cueball made rampant use of JavaScript reserved words in his declarations, which is [http://www.javascripter.net/faq/reserved.htm strictly forbidden] by the language. Scrabble's point system is based on the value of individual letters, combined with certain modifier squares on the game board which can boost points. "Triple points" is the highest class of modifier available in the game (though it can be for triple points on a specific letter, or the entire word) and is highly-sought-after by players.

The third panel continues Ponytail's rant, this time referencing naval weather forecasts, avian interference and indentation. A weather forecast is a complex, multidimensional array of data used in predicting or assessing the atmospheric conditions of a geographical area over a set time. One such example of a "naval weather forecast" [https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/wxmap_cgi/cgi-bin/wxmap_DOD_area.cgi?area=efs_nvg_nlant&set=EFS may be this one], which would generally be unreadable to an untrained individual. Transcribing it would be a long and typing-intensive process which could result in an even more unreadable product, further complicated by a {{w|woodpecker}} (a bird noted for its rapid successive pecking motions) "hammering" (pecking) the Shift key on the keyboard, which would result in many letters being randomly capitalized. Indentation is the practice of shifting a section of text further from the starting margin, which in coding is typically used to organize functions and statements, but if done "randomly" would only serve to scramble the code hierarchy.

The fourth panel references famous poet {{w|E. E. Cummings}} and user name suggestions. E. E. Cummings was noted for his "unusual" style of poetry which combined words and phrases in ways that were atypical for English speech, resulting in constructs that might easily confuse someone who doesn't natively speak the language. Websites that offer membership often also require that users create a pseudonym (known as a "username") for use in tracking/authenticating their actions on the site, as well as identifying them to the site's community. Many of these sites also require usernames be unique. On popular sites, many common words, phrases and names have already been reserved by users, so when signing up for them many people run into situations where the name they want has already been taken. On many sites where this happens, the site may suggest alternate usernames, usually based on the one that was entered to begin with. For example, if the username "Hedgeclipper" is already reserved, the site may recommend "Hedgeclipper1234" or "H3dg3clipp3r" instead, depending on the algorithm behind the suggestions. An E. E. Cummings poem written entirely out of these semi-random suggestions would make the resulting poem even more "unusual" than his work is already considered.

The last panel's metaphor involves {{w|Markov chaining}}, {{w|Chatterbot|chat-bots}} (presumably), bus schedules and potential [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/Air-India-plane-unfit-to-fly-may-be-scrapped-after-bus-crash/articleshow/50307194.cms gross vehicular negligence]. Applied Markov chaining is a process used in many computer algorithms that try to simulate real-world concepts such as speech simulation and decisions-making. Its inherent randomness also makes it a candidate for unpredictable things such as stock market analysis and speech recognition. Bus schedules are [http://elb-jpinstances-1463028547.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com/ccg3/XSLT_STT_REQUEST?mode=direct&line=ccg:01065:%20:H:y15&sessionID=0&requestID=0&itdLPxx_template=tableResults&type_stt=any&language=en&coordOutputFormat=WGS84%5Bdd.ddddd%5D&outputFormat=0&name_stt=10111816&contentFilter=allstops often complicated and full of notation], and are notorious for confusing people who are not used to reading them. Chat-bots using applied Markov chains to recognize and respond to speech/text rely on the input being clear and well-organized in plain language. "Feeding" bus schedules to such a bot would likely result in the returns being complete gibberish and unreadable. The issue is further complicated when Ponytail suggests that the schedules are from a city where "the [http://www.heapsoffun.com/pictures/20120106/funny_bus_crash_1002.jpg buses] [http://data.whicdn.com/images/45882595/original.jpg crash] [http://blog.taxiforsure.com/wp-content/uploads/indian-traffic-bus.jpg constantly]", which would be horrifying if it happened so [http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/842/unexplainable.jpg regularly] that the schedules actually took [http://baddogneedsrottenhome.com/images/emails/527927c6cbfff.jpg crashes] into account. Even more horrifying would be the further unpredictability of the output of the chat-bot from such unpredictable input.

Cueball finally comments that "...it runs fine for now" which indicates he knows the code has problems but it reluctant to fix them because it's more-or-less serving its function. Ponytail quips back that "So does a [http://scarboroughwhat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/bitch-im-a-burning-bus.jpg burning bus]", which is technically true, but the "for now" part implies that disaster and injury could result at any moment, as would likely happen on a burning bus.

==Transcript==
Side view of Ponytail sitting at a computer in all five panels.

First panel, tall vertical. 
Ponytail: Ugh, I hate reading your code. 
Offscreen: I know, I know.

Second panel is wider, shows her in an office chair. 
Ponytail: It's like you ran OCR on a photo of a Scrabble board from a game where Javascript reserved words counted for triple points. 

Third panel zooms in and shows just her head. 
Ponytail: It looks like someone transcribed a naval weather forecast while woodpeckers hammered their shift keys, then randomly indented it. 

Fourth panel, similar to second, though slightly narrower. 
Ponytail: It's like an e e cummings poem written using only the usernames a website suggests when the one you want is taken. 

Fifth panel zooms in, shows her head and the screen. 
Ponytail: This looks like the output of a Markov bot that's been fed bus timetables from a city where the buses crash constantly. 
Offscreen: Whatever, it runs fine for now. 
Ponytail: So does a burning bus.

{{comic discussion}}