explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2313: Wrong Times Table

2020-05-30T02:29:01Z

Aaron Rotenberg: Code Golf SE link

Such an illogical table. Smaller numbers multiply to larger answers than larger numbers? Even numbers multiply to odd numbers?! How?!?! What sort of illiterate alien declared this to be the multiplication table?! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.101|108.162.221.101]] 20:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This is easily one of the worst XKCD comics, period. Not funny, nor clever. Just seems like noise. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.183|172.69.68.183]] 20:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:I suspect Randall may have just been feeling random, perhaps after several months of mostly Coronavirus-related comics. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::That's fair, I'm being a bit harsh, but this just comes across as exceptionally meaningless and contrived, so much so that I felt the need to come here and comment immediately for the first time ever [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.56|172.69.71.56]] 21:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:I relate to certain mathematical facts not sounding right, like how 54 intuitively feels like it's divisible by 4. Nonsensical, but makes sense anyway. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.233|162.158.62.233]] 21:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This seems like the multiplication equivalent of looking at a word and thinking it is spelled incorrectly. Sometimes I look at a simple word like "fish" and think: "That can't be right." Sometimes multiplication can feel that way, particularly 7's because those were tricky for some reason. The alt text confirms fishiness with 7's [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.173|108.162.246.173]] 21:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:Is it weird that I ''don't'' get this? I have this sense of "that is obviously wrong" when it comes to multiplication of small numbers like these, even with sevens and eights. If I read that 7 * 8 = 54, my brain screams "NOOOOOOOOO IT IS 56 YOU IDIOT!". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.101|108.162.221.101]] 21:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, 2,2 that's actually 2^3=8. 2,3 is addition instead of multiplication. 1,2 is division instead of multiplication. 1,1 is subtraction. 10,10 seems to be a visual gag, though most of the 10s row is either multiplication by 11 or 12... There's some logic to some of these, but it's different for each row, column, or cell. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.167|162.158.74.167]] 21:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:Yeah, there is something going on. It looks like a lot of it is remembering the correct answer to a different problem. By my count 55 squares are the correct answer to a square next to it and 31 have a correct answer for somewhere else on the grid. Also, 2*2, 4*4 and 5*5 are double the correct answer.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.76|108.162.245.76]] 21:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's almost disappointing that he didn't hide one or two asymmetries in there just to throw us off! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 22:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I get the idea that this is the sort of table you'd get if you tried to train an Adversarial AI from scratch to determine x*y purely by stocastic guessing and comparing to a co-evolving 'scorer' that also starts off naively but supports each answer according to the 'rightness' it thinks it has ''except'' for the real answer which is always hard-coded to be down-scored. (Also noting that DA reportedly came by his choice of 42 by asking people which numbers were 'funnier' than others, which can be said to be a similar kind of process but without the arrayed "original multiplication" element.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.179|162.158.158.179]] 22:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As someone who often confuses 7*8 as 54, I found the alt text very humorous. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.118|172.69.34.118]] 22:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see that 6*9 isn't equal to 42. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 23:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This is just a collection of equations with the wrong answers. I'm not sure who finds this funny. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.96|108.162.219.96]] 00:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1210:_I%27m_So_Random[[User:Overlord of oddities|Overlord of oddities]] ([[User talk:Overlord of oddities|talk]]) 01:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have asked [https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/205425/67157 a Code Golf Stack Exchange question] with the goal of producing the shortest program that computes this function. [[User:Aaron Rotenberg|Aaron Rotenberg]] ([[User talk:Aaron Rotenberg|talk]]) 02:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2259: Networking Problems

2020-01-27T20:32:32Z

Aaron Rotenberg: More insanity.

I just had an issue the other day with copying disk images to a network drive using <code>smbclient</code> on Linux Mint. The transfer would only run at 1 to 2 MB/s. Then I discovered that if I opened the mounted drive in the GUI file explorer and refreshed the directory where I was copying the image to, it would consistently cause the copy operation to jump to 40 to 60 MB/s and stay there for the rest of the operation. I concluded that <code>smbclient</code> must run on actual sorcery. [[User:Aaron Rotenberg|Aaron Rotenberg]] ([[User talk:Aaron Rotenberg|talk]]) 18:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

:Sounds like the explorer is able to create some sort of cache that the transfer is able to use but not create. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

::I forgot to mention the part where this turned out to be filename dependent. I determined that the trick always worked if the filename on the destination network drive was <code>test.stuff</code>, but most other filenames didn't work. So I had to start a copy operation to <code>/mnt/xdrive/test.stuff</code>, refresh <code>/mnt/xdrive</code> in the GUI explorer so that the speed would jump up, wait for the copy to finish, then rename the file inside <code>/mnt/xdrive</code> to the name I actually wanted. [[User:Aaron Rotenberg|Aaron Rotenberg]] ([[User talk:Aaron Rotenberg|talk]]) 20:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

:The original <code>smbclient</code> implementation turned out to be virtually impossible, so the programmers gave up and used <code>import_ai()</code>. Unfortunately they then used <code>ai_solve(network.problems,0,0)</code> to set the maliciousness and capriciousness variables to zero, but a combination of off-by-one and roll-over errors mean that these two variables are maximized. True story. [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 09:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, can confirm that even the high end of 'normal computer problems' can result in belief in the occult and/or paranormal operation of computers. I now attempt to moderate my brainwaves into positive only flow to make sure I do not negatively effect the computer through quantum effects on the bits and operation. If i get frustrated or confused by the computer for an extended time, i put it down and walk away until I have more of a 'can do' attitude. Then of coarse there was that time that.... it may be too late for me, but there are puzzling computer problems to explore so I... remember me as I was. ~Litppunk 18:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
: Yeah. Life changed, memory lost. Still trying to fix bugs. Are you available to connect over this? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.72|172.68.133.72]] 22:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

"Ghosts generally are not concerned with expressions of belief, but there are some religious traditions that include group clapping and chanting." - I don't think the hover text is related to the ghosts. They seem just like two separate unbelievable things. "Perhaps the ghost in question is the Holy Ghost." - I doubt that is what he is referring to, especially since it is plural 'ghosts' and the Holy Ghost is singular. [[User:Curtobi4|Curtobi4]] ([[User talk:Curtobi4|talk]]) 18:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Clearly seems related to 1457, albeit with much more advanced tech issues. --[[User:GoldNinja|GoldNinja]] ([[User talk:GoldNinja|talk]]) 19:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Clapping hands and saying you believe in fairys is how you prevent Tinkerbell from Dying when you watch Peter Pan.{{unsigned|108.162.241.32}}
:Yeah, the interactive part of the play/movie/comix. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

: '''Pareidolia''' (one of my least favorite words because I can't spell it well enough to google for the correct spelling) is a definite problem for the human brain - we habitually spot patterns where they don't exist. But the problem for software engineers is that spotting patterns that '''DO''' exist is how you find bugs. So distinguishing between real patterns and pareidolia ('i' before 'e' except after 'c'...and 'r'...sometimes...) is a vital part of the job. Clearly Cueball has that problem here. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 20:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I know it's hyperbole, but are there any actual networking problems that could cause every other packet to be laggy? [[User:Blacksilver|Blacksilver]] ([[User talk:Blacksilver|talk]]) 21:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

:Nothing I can think of you'd ever do in a production setup on purpose, but with some really crazy port-channel settings, with the right kind of tiny packets like a SYN, and a downstream bridge or repeater to add in some intentional delay, I think you could. Never underestimate the power of a sufficiently motivated netadmin. [[User:DevAudio|DevAudio]] ([[User talk:DevAudio|talk]]) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

:Theoretically, yes. But it would require some malicious/stupid/buggy configuration. For example, some stupid packet scheduler on a misconfigured bonded link or having two same-metric routes to some destination that are not equal in fact. It may not even be an error in any ''local'' configuration, but a collective effect of multiple sub-optimal configurations or just a lack of knowledge of the whole picture of the network. In essence, if there are multiple connections leading to some destination, someone may want to utilize them all to 'sum' the bandwidth of them. A network device would then 'share' traffic between those multiple (in Cueball's case: two) connections, mostly sending every N-th packet on any particular connection. Normally there won't be ideal division of packets to connections unless there are some pathological conditions. If one of these connections is actually slower than the others, this could generate the effect seen by Cueball. The network administrator may not be aware of the asymmetry - the links connected directly to his device may be in fact identical, but the slowness can be induced somewhere along the path by a device not under his control. Similarly, Cueball, even if very competent, may not be aware that some device not under his control along the path uses such configuration and causes unintentional delays in (mostly) every other packet. -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.23.109|162.158.23.109]] 09:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The classic 500-mile bug: "We can't send mail more than 500 miles" http://web.mit.edu/jemorris/humor/500-miles

: I'm legally required to link [http://catb.org/jargon/html/story-of-mel.html The Story Of Mel] and [http://catb.org/jargon/html/magic-story.html A story about 'magic'] [[User:Blacksilver|Blacksilver]] ([[User talk:Blacksilver|talk]]) 12:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

: The effect of travel time over media is central to the plot in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hummingbird_Project The Humming Bird Project]. It's also a key factor in high frequency trading, as [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=d8BcCLLX4N4&feature=emb_logo Tom Scott explains in his video].[[User:Vfp15|Vfp15]] ([[User talk:Vfp15|talk]]) 14:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

While I don't believe that ghosts have power over computers, I do believe that many of the seemingly random "hiccups" in my computer programs are caused by sunspots. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 22:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Disagree strongly that this has anything to do with seeing patterns where they don't exist. Modern network troubleshooting tools will show you exactly the order that packets were received, and the time they were received at. Although it would be hard to induce the problem described, if it '''were''' induced, you could indeed see it quite clearly and objectively in a packet capture. This comic is more about some of the brain-breakingly twisted ways networking can go awry and all the impossible things it can make you want to believe in the quest to make sense of what we are seeing. [[User:DevAudio|DevAudio]] ([[User talk:DevAudio|talk]]) 23:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

: I will correct myself slightly - it would seem from the mouseover text that he is finding a false pattern, but it's not impossible for what he said to be true, it would just require laboratory conditions and someone playing a prank. He could also be seeing a real pattern with some kind of crazy cause involving a sound transducer and either EMI or some intentional sabotage. Yeah, that's waaaay off in left field, but so is the network data Cueball may be actually be seeing. On the whole, I would not fight someone who chose to believe Cueball is seeing a false pattern with the clapping. It's a reasonable interpretation for anyone who hasn't seen the insane things I have when troubleshooting networks. I HAVE seen ghost packets. (It was a weird glitch causing a switch to replay packets from hosts that weren't even connected anymore, not actual paranormal activity.) [[User:DevAudio|DevAudio]] ([[User talk:DevAudio|talk]]) 23:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I don't think lag is about how long transmission of a packet takes, which is instead referred to as {{w|network delay}}. Furthermore, from the referenced Wikipedia page, network delay is experienced in each "hop" of the data packet from node to node and includes the following delays: processing delay (time to process the packet header), queuing delay (time packet spends in routing queue), transmission delay (time to push the packet onto the link), and propagation delay (time to travel to destination based on the speed of the link). IMHO, a laggy network connection is one where the network delay is longer than normal due to a temporary problem in one or more of these areas. A connection that is always slow because of low link bandwidth is not laggy, it's just slow. Others may disagree with me. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 03:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
: Lag is an application-layer concept (being the time from a user doing something to trigger an action to when the effects of that action start to be observed). The network-layer equivalent is ''latency'' and it is one of the fundamental limits on what you can do with remote resources (and the one that is very hard to do anything about, unlike bandwidth where you can just get more by spending money). --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.53|141.101.99.53]] 02:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
:: I don't disagree with anything you stated. However, in this instance, Randall's use of the word "laggy" is clearly not related to bandwidth because the odd and even packets are not seeing the same latency. This suggests the "laggy" packet transfers are suffering due to something else that is related to one of the other three causes of latency in my original comment. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 13:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Isn't Randall using the scale in the wrong direction? I mean "normal problems" make your brain stop working if you debug them "none" to "some" while "Networking problems" only make your brain stop working if you debug them "a lot". If I am wrong. In what way should I read the axis? thx [[User:OK-Randall|OK-Randall]] ([[User talk:OK-Randall|talk]]) 09:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
: It's not a measure of "how much debugging" causes your brain to stop working, but instead is a measure of "how much your brain stops working" when debugging them. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 14:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
::Ah yes, I get it now, it's another example of Randall's ambiguous wording (after [https://www.explainxkcd.com/2258 someone who knows Jupiter is within earshot]). I initially read it as "(how much debugging them) (makes your brain stop working)", whereas Randall probably meant "(how much) (debugging them makes your brain stop working)".[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.91|162.158.154.91]] 13:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
:::Same here, and also after reading your replies - i still don't really get my head around the intended axis. But thankfully i am not alone ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.79|141.101.69.79]] 18:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
::::It really should have been done as a bar chart. The measurement is how much your brain stops working. There would then be bars for different types of problems. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2259: Networking Problems

2020-01-24T18:02:55Z

Aaron Rotenberg: An anecdotal example.

Talk:2144: Adjusting a Chair

2019-05-02T15:13:49Z

Aaron Rotenberg: GAN comment.

I believe "degrees of freedom" is referring to the how the term is used in scientific theories, where degrees of freedom refers to how many variables exist in the theory to "tune" its predictions. A theory with many degrees of freedom is less constrained in what it can predict, like with the Big Bang theory of cosmology. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 15:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
:I stand by my definition on mechanical degrees of freedom, aka axes of rotation/extension/motion. [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 19:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
::That's definitely the correct meaning for this. See {{w|Degrees of freedom (mechanics)}} and {{w|Six degrees of freedom}}. And maybe specifically number of degrees of freedom on robotic arms (which tends to be number between 3 and 14). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This feels like it would have been a good concept for an April Fools comic if it were made to be interactive [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.13|108.162.242.13]] 16:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

So, English question, somebody corrected the explanation on this. Is it "maneuver" or "manoeuvre"? I think it's a matter of British or American English, and I'm not sure what the wiki prefers. [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 19:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Clearly this chair is one of the products that [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Beret_Guy's_Business Beret Guy's Business] sells. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.195|162.158.62.195]] 23:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the "Two hours later" caption a [https://www.google.com/search?q=two+hours+later+spongebob+meme reference] to SpongeBob?
: I'd say these type of time passing descriptions are more or less the same age as comic books. I didn't even know this is a meme, now... Example in the fourth panel at 2:44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSKp8cjpEUo ;) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

But can it do [https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CookedThisChicken-mobile.jpg this]? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.186.22|172.69.186.22]] 13:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The chair in the last panel looks like something a GAN (generative adversarial neural network) would come up with. It has lots of very chair-ish parts, so it must be a chair, right? [[User:Aaron Rotenberg|Aaron Rotenberg]] ([[User talk:Aaron Rotenberg|talk]]) 15:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:1732: Earth Temperature Timeline

2016-11-14T02:53:57Z

Aaron Rotenberg: /* Fact checking the chart on Stack Exchange */ new section

'''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)
::Thank you [[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]])

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. [[User:JSalsman|JSalsman]] ([[User talk:JSalsman|talk]]) 06:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
::: please explain how the Guardian graph you posted on imgur has to do with better scenarios. The title: "Cuts required for 50% chance of not exceeding 2°C". The footer: "CO2 emissions since 1850 (red); exponential growth (blue); cuts to hit climate target (dashed)." It says that in order to '''possibly''' reach the "optimistic" +2° scenario (Randall's 2nd line, not the 1st one), we would need to cut anthropogenic CO2 to about 1/10th our current level, which is ridiculously unlikely to happen. The other graphs you posted are just hypothetical extrapolations about energy production that, even if they're trustworthy (which I doubt) don't reference any climate scenarios at all, much less ones better than the timeline. Until you can post a cogent explanation, I will assume you are trolling and undo your edits. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 17:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
:::: If you extrapolate [http://i.imgur.com/G6OSyYE.jpg] to 2023-4, renewables dominate, right? Wind has been in competitive equilibrium with coal since 1995, and solar hit grid parity early this year and is expected to continue falling in price about as fast at least until 2035. Is there any reason to believe fossil fuels won't be abandoned by 2030? [[User:JSalsman|JSalsman]] ([[User talk:JSalsman|talk]]) 02:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
::::: Exactly zero words in your explanation discuss how the linked graphs show the existence of a better scenario than the ones listed in the timeline. Your very first graph, from the Guardian, explicitly says '''50% chance of not exceeding 2°C''', which is Randall's middle scenario. That means '''it supports exactly what Randall is saying.''' It says absolutely nothing about a scenario better than the "best case" timeline. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 21:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
::::: Do you understand the words that I am saying? The words that I have been saying from the start of this conversation? I don't f***ing care about pie in the sky energy projects. '''Even if your energy claims are correct, they don't say a single d**n thing about beating the +1.2°C curve.'''. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 21:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::: I apologize. I confused the +1° mark with +2°. The labels are so far above at the top. You are correct. I will forgo uploading the graphs as we are now in agreement. [[User:JSalsman|JSalsman]] ([[User talk:JSalsman|talk]]) 22:23, 3 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)

ICYMI, [https://www.cato.org/ Cato] provides an [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/ IPCC MAGICC] [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/UserMan5.3.v2.pdf climate model] simulator for [https://www.cato.org/blog/current-wisdom-we-calculate-you-decide-handy-dandy-carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator anyone to examine]. FWIW, I side with {{w|Bjorn Lomborg}}, who famously champions a [http://www.lomborg.com/ middle way] in climate science for the sake of [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/09/19/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-lets-get-our-priorities-straight/ downtrodden peoples around the world]. Should we reconsider this [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1732:_Earth_Temperature_Timeline#Explanation explanation] in this light? [[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]])

== Fact checking the chart on Stack Exchange ==

I posted a question on Earth Sciences Stack Exchange about how the {{w|Younger Dryas}} fits into this comic: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/q/9103/6973

There was also an existing question about the chart's general accuracy: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/q/8746/6973

--[[User:Aaron Rotenberg|Aaron Rotenberg]] ([[User talk:Aaron Rotenberg|talk]]) 02:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)