explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-24T00:40:16Z

172.70.86.204: /* Explanation */ Tweaks

{{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 thermometer, a number of different temperature scales have been proposed. In modern times, most of the world uses {{w|Celsius}} for everyday temperature measurements, as it is part of the {{w|metric system}} that has been widely adopted for official uses. A small number of countries (namely Liberia, the USA and its three associated free states in the Pacific) retain the US customary (or 'imperial') system, which uses the ''slightly'' older {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale (°F was initially defined in 1724, the general current form of °C was created in 1743). The other widely used temperature scale is {{w|Kelvin}}, which uses the same scale as Celsius, but is rooted at {{w|absolute zero}}, making it both useful in scientific calculations and easy to convert to and from Celsius. Even in countries that use Fahrenheit regularly, scientific measurements are typically done in Celsius and/or Kelvin.

The strip proceeds to compare these scales, and a number of others, on a scaled of "cursed"-ness. The joke is highlighting how strange and generally difficult to use many older proposed systems were. All of the listed scales are real, but may be considered obsolete to varying degrees. See also [[1923: Felsius]], a combination of 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 || Celsius is defined (indirectly, these days, by way of comparison to Kelvin) so that the freezing and boiling points of pure water at standard atmospheric pressure are 0 and 100 degrees respectively. This is considered the joint-least cursed temperature system (along with Kelvin), from amongst those where the ranking values make any sense. This implies an inherent degree of cursedness for all systems.

|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin is a scientific unit of measure invented by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} that intends to use the same scale as degrees Celsius, but is offset by 273.15, in order to set the zero point at absolute zero (by way of using the {{w|Boltzmann constant}}, as of 2019). This is very practical for the math of thermodynamics, but unintuitive for non-expert users. Kelvin and Celsius are, by far, the most common units used in scientific measurements and calculations (which Randall will be more familiar with than not). Their utility and inherent logic is likely what makes them the least "cursed".
|-
| {{w|Fahrenheit}} || 32 || 212 || Outdoors in most places is between 0–100 || 3/10 || Fahrenheit is officially used in several countries across the globe, and unofficially in several others. It was derived in an era where factors of 360 were more popular in science than powers of ten, so water freezing and water boiling were calibrated to be 180° apart. In addition, Daniel Fahrenheit believed that pure water freezing was not worthy of the 0° benchmark and resolved to set 0° to the coldest possible temperature he could create: the freezing point of ammonium chloride brine. While modern scholars find these benchmarks arbitrary and outdated, it gained usage, primarily in Anglophone countries, likely due to the scale being considered intuitively useful for some common functions (the range roughly matches the typical span of weather conditions, for various ranges of climate, and the 100 point is quite near normal human body temperature, even though 90 was initially presumed to be this). While it was largely displaced by the Celsius scale, the US, [[Randall]]'s home country, continues to typically use it. It is ranked as slightly more cursed than Celsius.
|-
| {{w|Réaumur scale|Réaumur}} || 0 || 80 || Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100 || 3/8 || A historical French system used in some places until the early 20th century. In modern times mostly used in cheesemaking. 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, labelling 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 || Created by the Danish astronomer Ole Christensen Rømer in around 1702, while the Fahrenheit scale was proposed in 1724. 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 Ole Rømer, but the scale was later updated to fix it to 7.5. The scale is also the last common ancestor of Celsius and Fahrenheit, as Reuamur was inspired by it, and Celsius by Reamur, and Fahrenheit specifically wanted a Rømer scale with more steps to avoid using decimals.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°R] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || As the chart mentions, 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 and perhaps ''should'' be considered more logical (and less "cursed") than Fahrenheit, though its score suggests not. [[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 || Created by Isaac Newton, measuring "degrees of heat". The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
|-
| {{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 potter Josiah Wedgwood in the 18th century. The measurement 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 e'').
|-
| Galen || –4? || 4?? || Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?) || 4/–4 || {{w|Galen}}, in his medical writings, is said to have proposed a standard "neutral" temperature made up of equal quantities of boiling water and ice; on either side of this temperature were four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold, respectively. The rating (4/–4) is a joke about the scale being defined between positive and negative 4, and could be interpreted as –100% cursedness, though it's not clear what negative cursedness would mean, or "cursedness" itself.
|-
| {{w|Celsius#History|''Real'' Celsius}} || 100 || 0 || In Anders Celsius's original 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 (an indefinite range of them) will be negative. The rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. This might be interpreted as "infinitely cursed", or else just {{w|NaN|Not a Number}}.
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 direction 'survives' in the historic {{w|Delisle scale}}, which predates (and arguably helped greatly inspire, though with a different factor) the classic version of °C. The version originally used by Anders was only 'corrected' posthumously, but nobody seemed bothered enough to do the same with Delisle's scale.
|-
| [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. The scale is defined so that absolute zero is at negative infinity, with the exponent chosen to match Celsius at 0 and 100. 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 10/10, 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." || ''not provided'' || 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.4°C (57.2°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature]

Usually temperature records are measured 1 m above ground, to consistently represent the temperature of the air, as temperatures of the actual surface (and just above it) can be much higher. It is uncertain if Randall actually meant "surface" or just the usual ground-station temperature records (as opposed to upper-atmospheric measurements) like the ones mentioned here.

{{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

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}}
Randall does not specify what calculation should apply to temperatures above and below the record extreme temperatures. The option would exist to simply extend the slope of the two gradients beyond their nominal outer defining points, but there is no reason to assume that any such consideration was made.

Since extreme temperature records are being broken frequently due to {{w|climate change}}(and the average would be expected to always change, up ''or'' down, on each reassessment), this scale will require re-calibrated whenever new data is compiled. Any noted °X values of Absolute Zero or (for example) the melting point of tungsten are likely to vary much more than those of 'everyday' temperatures, although the record books will at least ''never'' need to be updated to reflect changes in the current low/high/mean details (just historic ones, to 'correct' them in relation to the latest figures). As only part of the title text, a cursedness scale isn't explicitly given but it might be assumed to be very high and/or variable.

See [[1061: EST]] for another example of an overly complicated system of measurement.
|}

==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

{{comic discussion}}

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

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-22T15:16:21Z

172.70.86.204: /* Explanation */ tyop

{{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 thermometer, a number of different temperature scales have been proposed. In modern times, most of the world uses {{w|Celsius}} for everyday temperature measurements, as it is part of the {{w|metric system}} that has been widely adopted for official uses. A small number of countries (namely Liberia, the USA and its three associated free states in the Pacific) retain the US customary (or 'imperial') system, which uses the ''slightly'' older {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale (°F was initially defined in 1724, the general current form of °C was created in 1743). The other widely used temperature scale is {{w|Kelvin}}, which uses the same scale as Celsius, but is rooted at {{w|absolute zero}}, making it both useful in scientific calculations and easy to convert to and from Celsius. Even in countries that use Fahrenheit regularly, scientific measurements are typically done in Celsius and/or Kelvin.

The strip proceeds to compare these scales, and a number of others, on a scaled of "cursed"-ness. The joke is highlighting how strange and generally difficult to use many older proposed systems were. All of the listed scales are real, but may be considered obsolete to varying degrees (though some, such as Rankine, are still sometimes used in legacy applications).

{| 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 || Celsius is defined (indirectly, these days, by way of comparison to Kelvin) so that the freezing and boiling points of pure water at standard atmospheric pressure are 0 and 100 degrees respectively. This (along with Kelvin) is considered the least cursed temperature system (at least from those where the ranking values make any sense), likely due to Randall's background. Notably it is still considered a 2/10, implying an inherent degree of cursedness for all systems.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin is a scientific unit of measure invented by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} that intends to use the same scale as degrees Celsius, but is offset by 273.15, in order to set the zero point at absolute zero (by way of using the {{w|Boltzmann constant}}, as of 2019). Kelvin and Celsius are, by far, the most common units used in scientific measurements and calculations. Their utility and inherent logic is likely what makes them the least "cursed".
|-
| {{w|Fahrenheit}} || 32 || 212 || Outdoors in most places is between 0–100 || 3/10 || Fahrenheit is officially used in several countries across the globe, and unofficially in several others. It was originally defined from the Rømer scale by multiplying its values by 4, recalibrating the scale for the melting of ice and body temperature{{actual citation needed}} and slightly changed the number for better divisibility. At this point, it was noticed that the boiling point of water seemingly became around 212 °F instead of the 256 it was supposed to be and redefined the scale so that the freezing point of water became exactly 32 °F and its boiling point exactly 212 °F. Despite this somewhat chaotic development and arbitrary fixed points, it gained usage, primarily in Anglophone countries, likely due to the scale being intuitively useful for some common functions (the range roughly matches the typical span of weather conditions, and the 100 point is near normal human body temperature). While it was largely displaced by the Celsius scale, the US (Randall's home country) continues to typically use it. It is ranked as slightly more cursed than Celsius
|-
| {{w|Réaumur scale|Réaumur}} || 0 || 80 || Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100 || 3/8 || A historical French system used in some places until the early 20th century. In modern times mostly used in cheesemaking. The rating (3/8) is a joke on the boiling point of water in standard atmosphere being 80 instead of 100 as it is in Celsius; converting this to an out-of-ten scale would give 3.75/10, labelling 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 || Created by the Danish astronomer Ole Christensen Rømer in around 1702, while the Fahrenheit scale was proposed in 1724.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || An absolute scale, with 0°R set to absolute zero, but using the Fahrenheit scale. || 6/10 || Randall has shown disdain for this before, like in [[2292: Thermometer]]. The scale is mostly obsolete, but is still occasionally used in legacy industrial operations where absolute temperature scales are required.
|-
| {{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 || Created by Isaac Newton, measuring "degrees of heat". The rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
|-
| {{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 potter Josiah Wedgwood in the 18th century. The measurement was based on the shrinking of clay when heated above red heat, but was found to be very inaccurate. Randall has a typo, as the scale is called Wedgwood (''without the e'').
|-
| Galen || –4? || 4?? || Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?) || 4/–4 || Galen, in his medical writings, is said to have proposed a standard "neutral" temperature made up of equal quantities of boiling water and ice; on either side of this temperature were four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold, respectively. The rating (4/–4) is a joke about the scale being defined between positive and negative 4, and could be interpreted as –100% cursedness.
|-
| {{w|Celsius#History|''Real'' Celsius}} || 100 || 0 || In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it || 10/0 || As most scales' temperatures can be indefinitely large but there exists an absolute minimum temperature, defining the scale in this way (giving an absolute maximum but allowing indefinitely negative values) is indeed cursed, as nearly all possible temperatures will be negative. The rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. This might be interpreted as "infinitely cursed", or else just {{w|NaN|Not a Number}}.
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 direction 'survives' in the historic {{w|Delisle scale}}, which predates (and arguably helped greatly inspire, though with a different factor) the classic version of °C. The version originally used by Anders was only 'corrected' posthumously, but nobody seemed bothered enough to do the same with Delisle's scale.
|-
| [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. The scale is defined so that absolute zero is at negative infinity, with the exponent chosen to match Celsius at 0 and 100. 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 Celcius 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 10/10, entirely cursed), but perhaps instead as 107.8% (even more than entirely cursed).
|-
| °X ([[Randall]]'s new temperature scale as defined in the title text) || 41.9 || 154.4 || Title text: "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." || ∞ (estimated) || Usually temperature records are measured 1 m above ground as surface temperatures can be much higher. It is uncertain if Randall actually meant surface or just normal temperature records as the ones mentioned here.

The record lowest temperature on Earth is –89.2°C (–128.6°F), recorded at the {{w|Vostok Station|Vostok Research Station}} in Antarctica on July 21, 1983. This would then be set to 0°X unless it is surface temperature instead.

The {{w|List_of_weather_records#Highest_global_average_temperature|hottest ever average temperature of Earth}} as of 2024 is 17.16°C (62.9°F.) on 22 July 2024. [https://wmo.int/media/news/earth-experiences-warmest-day-recent-history][https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2024-now-very-likely-to-be-warmest-year-on-record/][https://climate.copernicus.eu/new-record-daily-global-average-temperature-reached-july-2024]. However it is the average temperature not the record temperature that should be used. This would then be set to 50°X but the question is if this should change on a daily basis or depend on a yearly average? But definitely not the highest ever average that should be used. Also again this is not the average surface temperature.

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. This is though disputed and 54°C (129.2 °F) seems a more reasonable record, which has been recorded more than once in recent years. This would then be set to 100°X unless it is surface temperature instead. Surface temperatures on the ground of up to 90°C has been recorded, in {{w|Furnace_Creek,_California#Climate|Furnace Creek up to 94°C}} (201°F).

{{cot|Derivation}}
To break the scale into two linear parts (below and above 17.16°C), we define two separate equations for each range:

1. Below 17.16°C (from –89.2°C to 17.16°C):
* 0 °X corresponds to –89.2°C
* 50 °X corresponds to 17.16°C

We calculate the slope m₁:

<center>m₁ = (50 – 0) / (17.16 – (–89.2)) = 50 / (17.16 + 89.2) = 50 / 106.36 ≈ 0.47</center>

Now, using the point (17.16°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₁:

<center>50 = 0.47 × 17.16 + b₁</center>

<center>50 = 8.06 + b₁</center>

<center>b₁ = 50 – 8.06 = 41.94</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''below 17.16°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 0.47 × C + 41.94'''</center>

2. Above 17.16°C (from 17.16°C to 56.7°C):
* 50 °X corresponds to 17.16°C
* 100 °X corresponds to 56.7°C

We calculate the slope m₂:

<center>m₂ = (100 – 50) / (56.7 – 17.16) = 50 / 39.54 ≈ 1.26</center>

Now, using the point (17.16°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₂:

<center>50 = 1.26 × 17.16 + b₂</center>

<center>50 = 21.63 + b₂</center>

<center>b₂ = 50 – 21.63 = 28.37</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''above 17.16°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 1.26 × C + 28.37'''</center>

;Freezing and Boiling Points

Freezing point of water (0°C): Since 0°C is below 17.16°C, we use the equation X = 0.47 × C + 41.94:

<center>X = 0.47 × 0 + 41.94 = 41.94</center>

So, the freezing point is 41.9 °X.

Boiling point of water (100°C): Since 100°C is above 17.16°C, we use the equation X = 1.26 × C + 28.37:

<center>X = 1.26 × 100 + 28.37 = 126 + 28.37 = 154.37</center>

So, the boiling point is 154.4 °X.
{{cob}}
See also [[2701: Change in Slope]].

Since extreme temperature records are being broken frequently due to {{w|climate change}}, this scale will need to be recalibrated regularly. Because it's not consistent over time, this makes it infinitely cursed.
|}

==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

{{comic discussion}}

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

Talk:2995: University Commas

2024-10-14T04:09:19Z

172.70.86.204: Added a comment.

As Wikipedia notes, the {{w|Harvard comma}} is actually a thing, and synonymous with the Oxford comma. It's hard to understand whether Randall was just ignoring that.
It's interesting to also look at how the various commas are meaningful. For instance, the Yale comma here appears to be just plain ungrammatical, you'd never put a comma between a verb and a its direct object; similarly the Cambridge comma and Princeton commas are ungrammatical, you'd never put one after the word "and." The Stanford comma is unambiguously normal and it's not clear how you could have such a list without it (absent replacement with a [Stanford?] semicolon). The Columbia comma is being used to separate "mac and cheese" into "mac, and[,] cheese" which changes the semantic meaning (arguably into something meaningless, but maybe we're listing Apple Computers or even Macintosh apple fruit abbreviated). The MIT comma is a cute programming joke for multiline lists. Maybe there are hidden trick meanings (like MIT) I'm missing. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 23:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:On their own, few of them are intrinsically bad, in the right context.
:*"Please, buy" - valid comma. Prefixed subclause (general plea).
:*"Please buy, apples" - valid comma (more specific plea).
:*"apples, mac" - valid comma (list-type).
:*"mac, and" - valid comma (potentially a conjunctive sub-clause).
:*"mac and, cheese" - valid comma (potentially a post-conjunctive sub-clause).
:*"and cheese, milk" - valid comma (follow-up sub-clause).
:*"cheese, milk, and" - Oxford comma.
:*"milk and, bread." - ...would be valid, as above, except for the sentence ending.
:*"and bread,." - Ok. Definitely the worst.
:Obviously, combinations of them (or counterpart lack of them, in some cases) can clash badly. Some can work well together, but using ()s, ;s or feetnete* is often better than diving in and out of sub-clauses in the midst of a comma-bound list and potentially making it ambiguous whether you're diving in/out of a clarifying aside or replacing a non-terminating conjunction or perhaps one of the other usages to which a comma might apply.
:* Or just generally rewriting a multi-clausal sentence completely! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.22|172.70.86.22]] 23:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry, no: "and," is bad grammar, except when illustrating a dramatic (but grammatically wrong) verbal pause; ", and" is fine for noting a pause used to divide a list, but it's best to use semicolons in a divided list. IE: "milk; bread; mac and cheese; blood, sweat, and tears". (Again, "blood, sweat and tears", would be atypical cadence if spoken aloud; therefore, the comma.) I don't care what style guides say, only what works well.
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::What's grammatically wrong about something like "I drink beer and, on occasion, cider"?
::::Thank you for the "and, on occasion, beer and cider" example. Looking only at the given sentence about a shopping list, I wondered if the subordinate clause suggestion was edit-mangle or a very strange dialect difference. [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 02:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::It wasn't "and, on occasion, beer and cider" given as an example. It was "[I drink] beer and, on occasion, cider". Depending upon what comes before the "and,", it ''might'' be the same sort of thing, but "beer and, on occasion, cider" probably is intended to mean "... beer (mostly) and cider (occasionally)". Your vesion might be somethng like "I drink beer, cider and, on occasion, beer and cider" => "I drink beer (frequently), cider (frequently) and a beer-and-cider-mix (occasionally)".
:::::(Noting that I've never tried mixing beer and cider, although I have done it with wine and cider. Long story. Though mostly it was mixed in my stomach, not pre-mixed. Probably made me the absolute drunkest I ever have been, but the effects took more time to take effect than those who were deliberately plying me with the drink(s) counted on, so their 'plan' sort of failed... I was younger and foolisher, but so were they! These days, I prefer my beer (typically a bitter, maybe a stout, generally not lagers/etc) unblended in any way. The same with my whisky (single malt, and in preference to whiskey). And wine's fine, but with a meal. Don't really go for ciders these days. If I want something appley, I prefer fruit juice, and if I want something fizzy (not all ciders are fizzy, but most of the major ones are) then give me a Pepsi Max (or something similar - I love the taste of aspartame in the morning!). But I rarely mix anything more than cordial/concentrate and water.)
:::::As to how people mangle/dialectise subordinate clauses, I couldn't say. I think it's grammatically odd to say "Write me!" (for "Write '''to''' me!), ''or'' to say "lit it on fire" (I'd just say that I "lit it", or "set fire to it"), so there's probably some strangeness of expectations between sublinguistic jurisdictions. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.165|172.68.205.165]] 15:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Also, the cadence of "blood, sweat and tears" has nothing to do with the commas you give it. This isn't a case of marking verbal ticks, with... uh... transcribed notation. Either for official recording purposes or in the pre-scripting of speech for later performance. One is free to nuance the phrase how you want, with or without OC. The main issue about the OC is whether a list (of ''more'' than two items) should have each (non-final) element followed by a comma? Or are commas placeholders only for the "and"/"or"s that are omited? (And my opinion is that it is the latter, all else being equal. I apply that to semicolon-separated lists, insofar as I won't end with "...; penultimate item; '''and'' last item", but prefer to omit the '''and''' (or '''or'' ), casting whether it's a list of options or an accumulation by the introductory/follow-up contextualisation of that list.)
:::But, whichever standard you prefer, there will be cases where it reads wrongly to others. If you're lucky enough to spot it, then you can look to what you can do to adjust the sentence to remove ambiguity. This does not normally mean adding in any old commas where,,,,, you think a Pinter Pause is needed. (Maybe an ellipsis, in normal writing.) The fact that a grammatical comma may be where a spoken pause may crop up is not because the comma causes the pause. The verbal pause is (if not garbled out) caused by the same understanding of how clauses/etc require intoning under the circumstances.
:::But it is a rhetorical choice as to whether to intone "blood..., sweat... and tears" or "blood, sweat and... tears" or any number of other pausing strategies, as it is how you faithfully transcribe what has already been intoned. When merely listing these in text, your chosen style of grammar is the master. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.134|172.70.160.134]] 19:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

::Commas can go in a number of places in lists, and, occasionally, after the word "and". [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 23:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::Potentially, anything is possible... I can see how a sentence like "Please buy apples, mac and cheese, milk, and, bread being out of stock, oats" would work, but I really don't see how the commas after "and" could work ''in this sentence''. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 08:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

If each item in a list shall be followed by a comma then the MIT comma is quite proper. SDT [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.206|172.68.245.206]] 05:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The UCLA comma may refer to the 8 clap, a chant at UCLA which is begins with a string of 8 claps. {{unsigned ip|172.68.205.178|07:33, 8 October 2024}}

I thought the UCLA & Michigan commas referred to quotes within citations. This isn't uncommon in literary studies, where you quote articles quoting books. Depending on your quotation style, this can result in a long string of 3-4 "commas" (as in: short lines in punctuation marks). If you place the quote between actual commas, make that 4-5. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 08:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the tirade against the Oxford comma in the article is not relevant for understanding the comic. "'To my mother, Ayn Rand and God' does not" is not saying that Ayn Rand is the mother. To express that one should write "To my mother, Ayn Rand, and to God". Thus the ambiguity can be resolved. I velieve one of the editors is mixing in their personal taste here. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.71|172.71.160.71]] 09:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:Tirade? Hardly. It explains when it doesn't help (and when it might).
:And I think you misread. "'To my mother, Ayn Rand and God' does not" indeed does not say that Ayn Rand is the mother. In fact it ''explicitly'' says that "'To my mother, Ayn Rand and God'"... erm... does ''not'' say the thing that 'To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God' ''potentially'' does. (See table below.)
:The choice of how to disambiguate "my mother, who is Ayn Rand", as a concept, is another thing and has multiple options. Disambiguating in the direction of a simple list is the contention surrounding the Oxford(/Serial) Comma itself (it is, by definition, being used in the list format), given that some circumstances are most helped by it and others are most helped by its absence. If you're strongly for the OC, you'll hopefully rewrite problematic OCed formulations so that you can use it. If you're strongly against it you should change problamatic non-OCed versions so that you can better go without one. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.128|172.70.85.128]] 10:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Inspired (a bit) by the Three Laws permutation table, a set of possible ambiguations from the straight list...
{| class="wikitable"
!A !!B !!C !!"A, B and C" !!"A, B, and C"
|-
|my parents||Ayn Rand||God||"my parents (who are Ayn Rand and God)"||''list only''*
|-
|my parents||God||Ayn Rand||"my parents (who are God and Ayn Rand)"||''list only''*
|-
|Ayn Rand||my parents||God||''list only''* ||''list only''*
|-
|Ayn Rand||God||my parents||''list only''* ||"Ayn Rand (who is God), and my parents"
|-
|God||my parents||Ayn Rand||''list only''* ||''list only''*
|-
|God||Ayn Rand||my parents||''list only''* ||"God (who is Ayn Rand), and my parents"
|}
:-* - Assuming no other "All You Zombies" and/or divine incarnation scenarios.
:...maybe it's too early in the morning, but I'm sure I'm missing other ambiguities I've commented on before. (Without necesarily going into the asterisked territories.) Anyone want to amend this? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.105|172.68.186.105]] 09:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::Love it! [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 10:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::There's additional potential ambiguity if you go with the singular "my mother" as opposed to the plural "my parents". "My mother, Ayn Rand, and God" (with the Oxford comma) could be listing 2 separate entities while indicating that my mother is Ayn Rand, or could be listing 3 separate entities. "My mother, Ayn Rand and God" (without the Oxford comma) could be referring to a single entity while indicating that my mother is both Ayn Rand and God, or listing 3 separate entities. (In a phrase like, "My mother, Ayn Rand and God, gave it to me," the comma after God indicates that it's one entity, but you lose that clarity with "It was given to me by my mother, Ayn Rand and God." [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.66|172.68.70.66]] 14:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::What if my mother, Ayn Rand, and God are actually the trinity?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.87|172.69.195.87]] 08:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I myself, was fully expecting one of the examples given, to be: "To my God and mother, Ayn Rand". [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I realize that this comic focuses on University commas, however I feel that some mention should be made about the Walken Comma and the Shatner Comma! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.103|172.70.114.103]] 10:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:What, do you,    mean by,   that? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.106|172.69.195.106]] 13:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::Here's the explanation: [https://www.joeydevilla.com/2015/06/26/a-visual-guide-to-the-different-comma-styles/ Walken and Shatner Commas] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.228|162.158.62.228]] 11:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

{{w|Mac and cheese}} is probably not well-known outside the US (especially not under that name). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.115|172.71.160.115]] 13:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:As usual, the Brits don't know how to name food. "Macaroni cheese" sounds like the macaroni is made of cheese. But I added an explanation and link to the Wikipedia page. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::Don't be silly, that would clearly be named "cheese macaroni". Macaroni cheese is clearly cheese for macaroni, and it's simply polite to serve macaroni to have it with as well. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.114|172.71.151.114]] 14:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::: By the logic of your second interpretation, "cheese macaroni" is clearly macaroni for cheese. The lexical existence of this separate form of macaroni begs the question: what kind of macaroni goes best with macaroni cheese? The plain kind or cheese macaroni? The answer is neither! The best kind of macaroni to serve with macaroni cheese is clearly macaroni-cheese macaroni. But then what kind of cheese goes best with that? None other than (macaroni cheese)-macaroni cheese, which in turn is best served with ((macaroni cheese) macaroni)-cheese macaroni. This interleaving of macaroni and cheese never ends, meaning that no matter where you choose to stop, you will always end up with a sub-optimal pairing. So it's best to just not eat any form of cheese with any form of macaroni, to avoid disappointment. As an aside, the logic of your first interpretation implies that "macaroni cheese" is actually cheese that's made of macaroni. [[User:MelodiousThunk|MelodiousThunk]] ([[User talk:MelodiousThunk|talk]]) 12:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::As opposed to 'mac and cheese', which sounds like a particularly unappetising dish made using a waterproof coat.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.92|172.68.186.92]] 15:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Oddly, US English goes the other way with "grilled cheese", neglecting to mention that the cheese should be placed between slices of bread before grilling; in British English, it would generally be called a "cheese toastie". (Until looking it up, I was under the mistaken belief that it was a name for what we would call "cheese on toast", which also involves grilling the cheese, on the toast.) - [[User:IMSoP|IMSoP]] ([[User talk:IMSoP|talk]]) 21:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:'Mac & cheese' is, sadly, probably more common in the UK now than the proper 'macaroni cheese'.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.47|141.101.99.47]] 08:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the added red text in the Notation column, but it needs to be explained in the Explanation column. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.8|162.158.90.8]] 00:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Could this, at least in part, be about typography, not grammar and style? The depicted commas are not all the same. [[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 10:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, MIT is the home of the Rust language, which prominently uses trailing commas after the last item in a list as a matter of programming style.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.211|172.70.214.211]]

ABAP uses dots as end-of-command delimiters. {{unsigned ip|162.158.202.92|06:13, 11 October 2024}}

My favorite type of breakfast: ham, eggs sausage, eggs or sausage, beans but not ham, and beans.

== ! UNRESOLVED VERSION CONFLICT ! ==
There has been a problem with different versions. I shifted a paragraph, but the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2995:_University_Commas&oldid=352624 version that got saved] had 1615 characters less than before. A whole lot of rambling had been removed from the explanation, but there was no version conflict warning and no other saved revision in the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2995:_University_Commas&action=history revision history]. I didn't want to take credit for the changes, though I appreciated them, so I undid my edit, then redid my shift of paragraphs, and hoped that the other editor would reconcile the versions. That didn't happen. I'm writing this note to draw attention to the "lost edit". [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 18:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

2992: UK Coal

2024-10-01T13:46:14Z

172.70.86.204: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2992
| date = September 30, 2024
| title = UK Coal
| image = uk_coal_2x.png
| imagesize = 532x232px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The Watership Down rabbits removed an additional 0.1 nanometers constructing their warren, although that was mostly soil. British rabbits have historically mined very little coal; the sole rabbit-run coal plant was shut down in the 1990s.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT RUNNING ON 3 INCHES OF THE UK - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic uses dimensional analysis to humorously{{cn}} describe the end of the coal mining industry in the United Kingdom, in reference to the [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y35qz73n8o shutting down of the Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal power plant] in central England on Monday, September 30, 2024. This event signified the closure of the last coal-using power plant in the UK. UK coal ''production'' has also been in decline significantly since {{w|1984–1985 United Kingdom miners' strike|the politically enforced decline in the 1980s}}, and the proposed opening of the new {{w|Woodhouse Colliery}} in Cumbria [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62533nyvzwo seems to have been stopped], leaving just the [https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/coal-mining-production-and-manpower-returns-statistics-2023/coal-mining-production-and-manpower-returns-received-by-the-coal-authority-january-to-march-2023 remnants of the coal-mining industry] active. There remain uses for coal, both locally obtained and imported, but the conversion away from coal [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70zxjldqnxo in various industries] marks a possible soft-end to the British era which started with the {{w|Industrial Revolution}}.

The equation shown in the comic determines how much coal was mined in the UK with respect to the surface area of the region, and calculates the height of it if the coal mined out was taken away in an even layer from ''all'' across the UK. The caption incongruously reduces the entirety of the coal industry’s environmental impact into a 3 inch (about 7.62cm) high extraction.

''UK DESNZ'', referenced in the comic, is the United Kingdom's {{w|Department for Energy Security and Net Zero}}, the source for the statistic on UK total coal production from 1853 to present; see DESNZ's historical statistics of coal production [https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/historical-coal-data-coal-production-availability-and-consumption here].

The comic’s title text adds the additional humor of describing a similar metric for earth excavated for a rabbit warren (referencing {{w|Watership Down}}, a novel about a group of English rabbits). It humorously refers to a former rabbit-run coal plant in the UK and claims that it was shut down in the 1990s. The volume of earth described, 0.1 nm × 240,000 km2, is equal to 24 m3. This is a humorous play on depictions of anthropomorphic rabbits in children's literature. No {{w|Run, Rabbit, Run|rabbit-run}} coal plants have ever been documented.

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

:[The following formula is shown (with the divisor below a horizontal line in the comic, rather than inside parentheses):]
:UK total coal production (1853-present, ''UK DESNZ'') / ((coal seam density) × (UK land area)) = 25 billion tonnes / (1.3kg/L × 240,000km²) ≈ 3 inches
:[Cueball is standing to the right of the formula, upon a dotted line representing the prior ground level. Two arrows indicate that the dotted line is 3 inches above the solid line that is the current ground level.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The UK shut down their last coal power plant today, which means that over the course of the industrial revolution, they dug up and burned an average of 3 inches of their country.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Animals]]

Talk:2992: UK Coal

2024-10-01T13:45:46Z

172.70.86.204:

nuclear power is better in all aspects anyway [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.105|172.70.90.105]] 19:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Here before the explanation :) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.9|172.71.154.9]] 20:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I made an initial explanation, but it needs a lot of work still; hopefully someone with more experience editing on this wiki can improve it (this is my first explanation) [[User:MathEnthusiast|MathEnthusiast]] ([[User talk:MathEnthusiast|talk]]) 20:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

: the sole rabbit-run coal plant was shut down in the 1990s. [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 20:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Just checking, but this isn't referencing some particularly egregious, badly managed coal power plant in the U.K., is it? [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 20:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

:I don’t think so; I believe it’s simply that Ratcliffe-on-Soar power plant is the last UK coal plant to be shut down.

Randal uses SI units in the formula, as every person with the tiniest bit of tech/science education would, but then gives the result in inches (3.15) instead of centimeters (8.0). Americans are weird. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.110.162|162.158.110.162]] 20:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

:^^ This! {{unsigned|172.70.90.109}}

One should not forget that the 3 inches are very unevenly distributed. Some areas on top of coal mines have sunken in much further creating new flooding risks that require continued future interventions.
--[[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.34|172.64.236.34]] 21:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

:Indeed, I used to line in the north of England and road signs would say, "Road liable to subsidence." I also wonder about the year 1853. Mining was going on long before that. The industrial revolution started in the mid-eighteenth century.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.22|141.101.98.22]] 07:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that Watership Down is sometimes categorized as "children's literature", but it always catches me off guard. The Wikipedia page for it calls it an "adventure novel" and it's in the adult fiction section at my library. I'm just wondering if perhaps the explanation here should be a little less specific in its categorization of the book.[[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 21:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

From the perspective of someone who lived through the 1980s Miner's Strike (not directly affected, my father worked at a steel-works, not at a pit like my friends' fathers) and then the decline of the steel manufacturing industry (which ''did'' affect my father, obviously), I have rather naturally kept a general eye on the extraction and use of coal. There still are working coal-mines (though there isn't going to be that new one, in Cumbria), and there are still uses for UK coal (enough to import to add to tht which we dig out). It's really a bit early to say that the layer of total coal dug out ''won't'' deepen slightly (very, very slightly) in the future. And coal that is dug is only loosely associated with coal which is turned into electricity, so the last coal-generator stopping seems like an oddly off-topic detail for Randall to leap into the amortised accumulation of extracted volume. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.165|172.68.205.165]] 22:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Full conversion to US Customary Units (AKA US Bullshit Units):

(25e9 Tonnes / (1.3 kg/L * 2.4e5 km^2)) * (1000 kg / 1 Tonne) * (1 km^2 / (1000 m)^2 ) * (1 m^3 / 1000 L) * (39.37 in / 1 m ) ~= 3"

--[[User:JayTeeEll|JayTeeEll]] ([[User talk:JayTeeEll|talk]]) 22:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

He has not added the amount of "flotation" that results from the removal of all that material from the islands. Have the islands risen more than 3 inches in the crust, due to the removal? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 23:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:Scotland's still going up (after the last Ice-Age melt) and the south of Britain is still going down, IIRC. Which'll confuse matters. But I don't see how the component contributions to raising level (due to the digging out) could outpace the removal (due to that digging), by any significant amount. Rebound takes a while, and the effects should roughly equal out (so long as we haven't been digging too deep). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.151|172.68.205.151]] 23:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
: He doesn't mention anything about the surface height at all, though. He says that an average 3" has been dug up and burnt, but not that the country is 3" lower as a result.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.204|172.70.86.204]] 13:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I have a nagging feeling that although rabbit-run coal plants aren't (known to be) a thing, there must be Victorian children's books (e.g. Beatrix Potter) in which bunnies use coal scuttles or coal fires. "When Horace Hedgehog arrived, it was tea-time, so Mr Hoppy put some more coal on the fire..." [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 00:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

UK DESNZ refers to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which is a ministerial department of the UK government. So basically that text is citing the source for the data.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.185|172.70.162.185]] 03:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

To help balance this out, should someone import coal into the formerly coal producing areas to fill in the now empty veins, or would that be selling coal to Newcastle? [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 05:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

From the miner's strike onwards, a lot of coal was imported (particularly from (Poland) to run the coal-fired power stations since it was much cheaper, so wasn't dug out the ground in the UK. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.105|172.70.90.105]] 07:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The formula doesn't take into account that the UK has ...changed land area over that period. Land area of the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Ireland) was 315000 km² until 1922.
This changes the reading in SI units from 8 cm to 7 cm, but the rounded value in inches is unchanged, 3 in. Which explains why you call those units of his glorious majesty Imperial, I guess. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.172.180|172.71.172.180]] 08:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
: I checked the source and it doesn't say wether production data for 1853-1922 is for the CURRENT territory of UK or includes production in the territory now belonging to Eire. Maybe we should inquire. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.89|162.158.111.89]] 11:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the punctuation spatter in "The UK shut down their last coal power plant today, which means that over the course of the industrial revolution, they dug up and burned an average of 3 inches of their country." And the place I'd put a new comma might confuse others' sensibilities. Perhaps "..., which means that (over the ... revolution) they dug ...". Or just get rid of the one after revolution and accept a rather long run-on clause. Not that it's changable here, being Transcript of what's there but it's strangely off in grammatical meter and span from how I would try to say/write the same words. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.101|172.70.85.101]] 10:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I missed the joke somewhere with this: "The volume of earth described, 0.1 nm × 240,000 km2, is equal to 24 m3. This is a humorous play on depictions of anthropomorphic rabbits in children's literature." Are these two separate statements that happened to be placed in a misleading way, or is something funny about 24 cubic meters having to do with anthropomorphic rabbits?