explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1958: Self-Driving Issues

2018-02-23T00:35:14Z

Run, you clever boy: /* Trivia */

{{comic
| number = 1958
| date = February 21, 2018
| title = Self-Driving Issues
| image = self_driving_issues.png
| titletext = If most people turn into murderers all of a sudden, we'll need to push out a firmware update or something.
}}

==Explanation==

[[Cueball]] explains being worried about {{w|autonomous car|self-driving cars}}, noting that it may be possible to fool the sensory systems of the vehicles. This is a common concern with {{w|AI|AIs}}; since they think analytically and have little to no capability for abstract thought, they can be fooled by things a human would immediately realize is deceptive.

However, Cueball quickly assumes that his argument actually doesn't hold up when comparing AI drivers to human drivers, as both rely on the same guidance framework. Human drivers follow signs and road markings, and must obey the laws of the road just as an AI must. Therefore, an attack on the road infrastructure could impact both AIs and humans. However, humans and AIs are not equally vulnerable. For example, a fake sign or a fake child could appear to a human as an obvious fake but fool an AI. A creative attacker could put up a sign with CAPTCHA-like text that would be readable by humans but not by an AI.

Cueball further wonders why, in this case, nobody tries to fool human drivers as they might try to fool an AI, but [[White Hat]] and [[Megan]] point out the most obvious answer: most {{w|Road traffic safety|road safety systems}} benefit from humans not actively trying to maliciously sabotage them simply to cause accidents.

The title text continues the line of reasoning, noting that if most people did suddenly become murderers, the AI might be needed to be upgraded in order to deal with the presumable increase in people trying to cause car crashes by fooling the AI - a somewhat narrowly-focused solution given that a world full of murderers would probably have many more problems than that. As Megan sees humans as a 'component' of the road safety system, it might also be suggesting a firmware update for the buggy people who have all become murderers, one that would fix their murderous ways. We are not currently at a point where we can create and apply instantaneous firmware updates for large populations; even combining all the behavioral modification tools at our disposal -- {{w|psychiatry}}, {{w|cognitive behavioral therapy}}, {{w|hypnosis}}, {{w|mind-altering drugs}}, {{w|prison}}, {{w|CRISPR}}, etc. -- is not enough to perform such a massive undertaking.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is speaking while standing alone in a slim panel.]
:Cueball: I worry about self-driving car safety features.

:[In a frame-less panel it turns out that Cueball is standing between White Hat and Megan, holding his arms out towards each of them, while he continues to speak.]
:Cueball: What's to stop someone from painting fake lines on the road, or dropping a cutout of a pedestrian onto a highway, to make cars swerve and crash?

:[Zoom in on Cueball's head as he continues to contemplate the situation holding a hand to his chin, while looking in White Hat's direction. Megan replies from off-panel behind him.]
:Cueball: Except... those things would also work on human drivers. What's stopping people '''''now? '''''
:Megan (off-panel): Yeah, causing car crashes isn't hard.

:[Zoom back out to show all three of them again.]
:White Hat: I guess it's just that most people aren't murderers?
:Cueball: Oh, right. I always forget.
:Megan: An underappreciated component of our road safety system.

==Trivia==
The [[title text]] was published with a typo: "murderers" was misspelled as "muderers."

The theme of human fear and overreaction to the advent of more or less autonomous robots also features in [[1955: Robots]].

Self-driving cars is a [[:Category:Self-driving cars|recurring subject]] on xkcd.

A variation on the idea that humans are mentally "buggy" is suggested in [[258: Conspiracy Theories]], though in that case divine intervention is requested to implement the "firmware upgrade".

This comic appeared one day after the Electronic Frontier Foundation co-released a report titled [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/malicious-use-artificial-intelligence-forecasting-prevention-and-mitigation The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation]. The report cites subversions and mitigations of AI such as ones used in self-driving cars. However, the report tends toward overly technical means of subversion. Randall spoofs the tenor of the report through his mundane subversions and over-the-top mitigations.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Self-driving cars]]

1958: Self-Driving Issues

2018-02-23T00:33:11Z

Run, you clever boy: /* Trivia */

{{comic
| number = 1958
| date = February 21, 2018
| title = Self-Driving Issues
| image = self_driving_issues.png
| titletext = If most people turn into murderers all of a sudden, we'll need to push out a firmware update or something.
}}

==Explanation==

[[Cueball]] explains being worried about {{w|autonomous car|self-driving cars}}, noting that it may be possible to fool the sensory systems of the vehicles. This is a common concern with {{w|AI|AIs}}; since they think analytically and have little to no capability for abstract thought, they can be fooled by things a human would immediately realize is deceptive.

However, Cueball quickly assumes that his argument actually doesn't hold up when comparing AI drivers to human drivers, as both rely on the same guidance framework. Human drivers follow signs and road markings, and must obey the laws of the road just as an AI must. Therefore, an attack on the road infrastructure could impact both AIs and humans. However, humans and AIs are not equally vulnerable. For example, a fake sign or a fake child could appear to a human as an obvious fake but fool an AI. A creative attacker could put up a sign with CAPTCHA-like text that would be readable by humans but not by an AI.

Cueball further wonders why, in this case, nobody tries to fool human drivers as they might try to fool an AI, but [[White Hat]] and [[Megan]] point out the most obvious answer: most {{w|Road traffic safety|road safety systems}} benefit from humans not actively trying to maliciously sabotage them simply to cause accidents.

The title text continues the line of reasoning, noting that if most people did suddenly become murderers, the AI might be needed to be upgraded in order to deal with the presumable increase in people trying to cause car crashes by fooling the AI - a somewhat narrowly-focused solution given that a world full of murderers would probably have many more problems than that. As Megan sees humans as a 'component' of the road safety system, it might also be suggesting a firmware update for the buggy people who have all become murderers, one that would fix their murderous ways. We are not currently at a point where we can create and apply instantaneous firmware updates for large populations; even combining all the behavioral modification tools at our disposal -- {{w|psychiatry}}, {{w|cognitive behavioral therapy}}, {{w|hypnosis}}, {{w|mind-altering drugs}}, {{w|prison}}, {{w|CRISPR}}, etc. -- is not enough to perform such a massive undertaking.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is speaking while standing alone in a slim panel.]
:Cueball: I worry about self-driving car safety features.

:[In a frame-less panel it turns out that Cueball is standing between White Hat and Megan, holding his arms out towards each of them, while he continues to speak.]
:Cueball: What's to stop someone from painting fake lines on the road, or dropping a cutout of a pedestrian onto a highway, to make cars swerve and crash?

:[Zoom in on Cueball's head as he continues to contemplate the situation holding a hand to his chin, while looking in White Hat's direction. Megan replies from off-panel behind him.]
:Cueball: Except... those things would also work on human drivers. What's stopping people '''''now? '''''
:Megan (off-panel): Yeah, causing car crashes isn't hard.

:[Zoom back out to show all three of them again.]
:White Hat: I guess it's just that most people aren't murderers?
:Cueball: Oh, right. I always forget.
:Megan: An underappreciated component of our road safety system.

==Trivia==
The [[title text]] was published with a typo: "murderers" was misspelled as "muderers."

The theme of human fear and overreaction to the advent of more or less autonomous robots also features in [[1955: Robots]].

Self-driving cars is a [[:Category:Self-driving cars|recurring subject]] on xkcd.

A variation on the idea that humans are mentally "buggy" is suggested in [[258: Conspiracy Theories]], though in that case divine intervention is requested to implement the "firmware upgrade".

This comic appeared one day after the Electronic Frontier Foundation co-released a report titled [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/malicious-use-artificial-intelligence-forecasting-prevention-and-mitigation The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation]. The report cites subversions and mitigations of AI such as ones used in self driving cars. However, the report tends toward overly technical means of subversion. Randall spoofs the tenor of the report through his mundane subversions and over-the-top mitigations.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Self-driving cars]]

1958: Self-Driving Issues

2018-02-23T00:29:29Z

Run, you clever boy: /* Trivia */

{{comic
| number = 1958
| date = February 21, 2018
| title = Self-Driving Issues
| image = self_driving_issues.png
| titletext = If most people turn into murderers all of a sudden, we'll need to push out a firmware update or something.
}}

==Explanation==

[[Cueball]] explains being worried about {{w|autonomous car|self-driving cars}}, noting that it may be possible to fool the sensory systems of the vehicles. This is a common concern with {{w|AI|AIs}}; since they think analytically and have little to no capability for abstract thought, they can be fooled by things a human would immediately realize is deceptive.

However, Cueball quickly assumes that his argument actually doesn't hold up when comparing AI drivers to human drivers, as both rely on the same guidance framework. Human drivers follow signs and road markings, and must obey the laws of the road just as an AI must. Therefore, an attack on the road infrastructure could impact both AIs and humans. However, humans and AIs are not equally vulnerable. For example, a fake sign or a fake child could appear to a human as an obvious fake but fool an AI. A creative attacker could put up a sign with CAPTCHA-like text that would be readable by humans but not by an AI.

Cueball further wonders why, in this case, nobody tries to fool human drivers as they might try to fool an AI, but [[White Hat]] and [[Megan]] point out the most obvious answer: most {{w|Road traffic safety|road safety systems}} benefit from humans not actively trying to maliciously sabotage them simply to cause accidents.

The title text continues the line of reasoning, noting that if most people did suddenly become murderers, the AI might be needed to be upgraded in order to deal with the presumable increase in people trying to cause car crashes by fooling the AI - a somewhat narrowly-focused solution given that a world full of murderers would probably have many more problems than that. As Megan sees humans as a 'component' of the road safety system, it might also be suggesting a firmware update for the buggy people who have all become murderers, one that would fix their murderous ways. We are not currently at a point where we can create and apply instantaneous firmware updates for large populations; even combining all the behavioral modification tools at our disposal -- {{w|psychiatry}}, {{w|cognitive behavioral therapy}}, {{w|hypnosis}}, {{w|mind-altering drugs}}, {{w|prison}}, {{w|CRISPR}}, etc. -- is not enough to perform such a massive undertaking.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is speaking while standing alone in a slim panel.]
:Cueball: I worry about self-driving car safety features.

:[In a frame-less panel it turns out that Cueball is standing between White Hat and Megan, holding his arms out towards each of them, while he continues to speak.]
:Cueball: What's to stop someone from painting fake lines on the road, or dropping a cutout of a pedestrian onto a highway, to make cars swerve and crash?

:[Zoom in on Cueball's head as he continues to contemplate the situation holding a hand to his chin, while looking in White Hat's direction. Megan replies from off-panel behind him.]
:Cueball: Except... those things would also work on human drivers. What's stopping people '''''now? '''''
:Megan (off-panel): Yeah, causing car crashes isn't hard.

:[Zoom back out to show all three of them again.]
:White Hat: I guess it's just that most people aren't murderers?
:Cueball: Oh, right. I always forget.
:Megan: An underappreciated component of our road safety system.

==Trivia==
The [[title text]] was published with a typo: "murderers" was misspelled as "muderers."

The theme of human fear and overreaction to the advent of more or less autonomous robots also features in [[1955: Robots]].

Self-driving cars is a [[:Category:Self-driving cars|recurring subject]] on xkcd.

A variation on the idea that humans are mentally "buggy" is suggested in [[258: Conspiracy Theories]], though in that case divine intervention is requested to implement the "firmware upgrade".

This comic appeared one day after the Electronic Frontier Foundation co-released a report titled [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/malicious-use-artificial-intelligence-forecasting-prevention-and-mitigation The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation]. The report cites subversions and mitigations of AI such as ones used in self driving cars. However, the report tends toward overly technical means of subversions. Randall spoofs the tenor of the report through his mundane subversions and over-the-top mitigations.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Self-driving cars]]

Talk:1758: Astrophysics

2016-11-11T21:18:57Z

Run, you clever boy:

"''Two days before the release of this comic the YouTube channel Space Time from PBS Digital Studios released a new video with the title [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UNLgPIiWAg Did Dark Energy Just Disappear?]. This was based on the press coverage the paper [http://www.nature.com/articles/srep35596 Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae] got, which relates to the one referenced in this comic for dark matter.''" This doesn't seem relevant. Dark energy is totally unrelated to dark matter. [[User:Schroduck|Schroduck]] ([[User talk:Schroduck|talk]]) 14:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:I agree. I don't see any connection here either.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.37|108.162.237.37]] 16:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
::It is the idea that a paper seems to prove a theory wrong and then the press goes out presenting it like a proof instead of asking someone to explain to them why it doesn't fit the data. That is what this comic is about - not dark matter. See the title text. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"What is the flip the table over reference in title text. To make other do the same through mirror neruons? Still new explanation. Add more if you can" "The title text also uses Mirror neurons as a reference to a joke: it suggests to "flip this table", just as a mirror flips the image in front of it." I too want to think there is a joke here about mirror behavior or something but I just don't get it. Somebody's got to come up with a clearer, and funnier, example![[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 16:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems like awkward timing since https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269 was posted 3 days ago, a non-MOND non-dark matter theory coming from Prof. Erik Verlinde, and this particular theory starts from first principles yet matches behavior of galaxies. [[Anon]] 16:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:The comic doesn't mention MOND that is only in the explanation here. It just say that all data fits with dark matter. The idea is that the department is tired of all the "proofs" that dark matter doesn't exist. Maybe Randall thinks that this new paper is just the next in line and note as explained above this paper has not been peer reviewed. So unless you're and expert and could peer review it then his theory may not fit the data and that is Randall's point. But I'm sure Randall [[955: Neutrinos|would get your]] dark matter is still on the table after this paper... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

MOND is but one theory among [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theories_of_gravitation many classical and quantum gravitational theories] with differing predictions for galactic rotation and lensing anomalies. There are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Alternative_theories non-gravitation theories] as well. It might behoove some intrepid sole to make a table of theories and dark matter alternatives. [[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]])

Perhaps [[Randall]] is echoing his fellow cartoonist, {{w|Scott Adams}}, when he points out the [http://blog.dilbert.com/post/136818042136/trump-and-climate-science-master-persuader hypocrisy in science reporting]. Recently, [http://www.tau.ac.il/~kochin/ Michael S. Kochin] exposed government [http://amgreatness.com/2016/09/26/she-blinded-me-with-science/ meddling in science reportage] among other inconvenient truths. Anyone with an NSF, DoE or EPA grant knows the pressures, as [http://www.henrypayne.com/ Henry Payne], another cartoonist, [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne points out]. 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]. Additionally, [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]. Should we reconsider this explanation and the [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1732:_Earth_Temperature_Timeline#Explanation explanation] for Randall’s [https://www.xkcd.com/1732/ Earth Temperature Timeline] in this light? [[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]])

The current explanation doesn't cover the failure of previous experiments to detect dark matter, despite the investment of time, money and effort.  Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it's fair to say that dark matter as an explanation for observations does technically lack direct evidence/detection.  – [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.215|141.101.98.215]] 20:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:That's the rub, isn't it? Even [http://pos.sissa.it/archive/conferences/050/067/ACAT_067.pdf LHC] and [https://losc.ligo.org/tutorials/ LIGO] detections rely on theoretical templates to enhance event rates. [[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]])

Talk:1758: Astrophysics

2016-11-11T21:04:58Z

Run, you clever boy:

Talk:1732: Earth Temperature Timeline

2016-11-11T21:00:55Z

Run, you clever boy:

'''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]])

Talk:1732: Earth Temperature Timeline

2016-11-11T20:53:56Z

Run, you clever boy:

'''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, 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 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]])

Talk:1758: Astrophysics

2016-11-11T20:30:36Z

Run, you clever boy:

"''Two days before the release of this comic the YouTube channel Space Time from PBS Digital Studios released a new video with the title [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UNLgPIiWAg Did Dark Energy Just Disappear?]. This was based on the press coverage the paper [http://www.nature.com/articles/srep35596 Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae] got, which relates to the one referenced in this comic for dark matter.''" This doesn't seem relevant. Dark energy is totally unrelated to dark matter. [[User:Schroduck|Schroduck]] ([[User talk:Schroduck|talk]]) 14:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:I agree. I don't see any connection here either.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.37|108.162.237.37]] 16:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
::It is the idea that a paper seems to prove a theory wrong and then the press goes out presenting it like a proof instead of asking someone to explain to them why it doesn't fit the data. That is what this comic is about - not dark matter. See the title text. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"What is the flip the table over reference in title text. To make other do the same through mirror neruons? Still new explanation. Add more if you can" "The title text also uses Mirror neurons as a reference to a joke: it suggests to "flip this table", just as a mirror flips the image in front of it." I too want to think there is a joke here about mirror behavior or something but I just don't get it. Somebody's got to come up with a clearer, and funnier, example![[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 16:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems like awkward timing since https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269 was posted 3 days ago, a non-MOND non-dark matter theory coming from Prof. Erik Verlinde, and this particular theory starts from first principles yet matches behavior of galaxies. [[Anon]] 16:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:The comic doesn't mention MOND that is only in the explanation here. It just say that all data fits with dark matter. The idea is that the department is tired of all the "proofs" that dark matter doesn't exist. Maybe Randall thinks that this new paper is just the next in line and note as explained above this paper has not been peer reviewed. So unless you're and expert and could peer review it then his theory may not fit the data and that is Randall's point. But I'm sure Randall [[955: Neutrinos|would get your]] dark matter is still on the table after this paper... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

MOND is but one theory among [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theories_of_gravitation many classical and quantum gravitational theories] with differing predictions for galactic rotation and lensing anomalies. There are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Alternative_theories non-gravitation theories] as well. It might behoove some intrepid sole to make a table of theories and dark matter alternatives. [[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]])

Perhaps [[Randall]] is echoing his fellow cartoonist, {{w|Scott Adams}}, when he points out the [http://blog.dilbert.com/post/136818042136/trump-and-climate-science-master-persuader hypocrisy in science reporting]. Recently, [http://www.tau.ac.il/~kochin/ Michael S. Kochin] exposed government [http://amgreatness.com/2016/09/26/she-blinded-me-with-science/ meddling in science reportage] among other inconvenient truths. Anyone with an NSF, DoE or EPA grant knows the pressures, as [http://www.henrypayne.com/ Henry Payne], another cartoonist, [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne points out]. FWIW, I side with {{w|Bjorn Lomborg}}, who famously champions a [http://www.lomborg.com/ middle way] in climate science for the sake of downtrodden peoples around the world. Additionally, 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]. Should we reconsider this explanation and the [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1732:_Earth_Temperature_Timeline#Explanation explanation] for Randall’s [https://www.xkcd.com/1732/ Earth Temperature Timeline] in this light? [[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]])

Talk:1733: Solar Spectrum

2016-09-17T18:50:59Z

Run, you clever boy: ‎ Brief comment on absorption spectra and electron quantum state transitions (revision 3)

Sun in sunglasses is also in whatif "Into the sun" and I'm 99% sure this is not the only xkcd appearance of that... --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.119|162.158.86.119]] 11:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is Randall using JPEG for the second time in a row? Gosh, the comics look horrifying when zoomed in. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.244.67|108.162.244.67]] 12:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:It looks like a .PNG to me, maybe the .jpg was temporary for an upload deadline? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.127|108.162.241.127]] 12:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
::The one on this page has always been a png file (see [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1733:_Solar_Spectrum&oldid=127003 the first revision]). This also means that whoever wrote the complaint must have had access to [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/File:solar_spectrum.png this same file], which has not been updated here since. Of course Randall may have had another version up first, but that seems highly unlikely... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Are the spectral lines actually accurate apart from the sunglasses? Wouldn't surprise me to much... (Meh, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines, believably close). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.10|141.101.105.10]] 12:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I feel we need an explanation of the concept of spectral lines for those readers not familiar with absorption spectra [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.91|141.101.70.91]] 13:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy#Absorption_spectrum According to Wikipedia], absorption lines occur because solar radiation within the sun’s [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Photosphere photosphere] is absorbed at frequencies that match the energy difference between two quantum mechanical states of electrons bound to atoms or molecules. The absorption that occurs due to the transition between these two states is referred to as an absorption line and a spectrum is typically composed of many lines. These lines are dark because the light at those frequencies has been absorbed. In the case of an atom, absorption typically occurs when an electron is boosted from a less energetic inner orbital to a more energetic outer orbital in the process of absorbing a photon of light. Emission spectra are due to the opposite process.

:Please consider the possibility that the title text mention of Transitions may hinge on the absorption process's quantum state transitions. [[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]]) 18:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the spectral lines of transition metals - not pictures of the sun wear glasses. The transition lenses reference is a play on words.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.154|108.162.218.154]] 13:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:Can we figure out what sunglasses he is referring to by comparing the spectral absorption of different brands? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.119|108.162.246.119]] 14:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:Any good links to "permanent" images of a sun with sunglasses? Guess there is none of Wikipedia? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:I agree this refers to "Transitions" light-reacting prescription sunglasses / regular reading glasses. However, Google won't give me a sun wearing sunglasses picture unless I type in "sun" and "sunglasses". Not for Transitions or Reactolite, not for weather forecasts, not for emojis. With eyes yes, big smile too, but not shades. I suppose because it actually is a stupid thing for the sun to have. Otherwise, nearest I get: http://www.essilor.com/en/BrandsAndProducts/Lenses/Photochromics/Pages/CrizalTransitions.aspx :-) "30% faster" (than what? taking off the glasses?) Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.90|141.101.98.90]] 15:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

See: http://imgur.com/a/35RDC [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.147|162.158.203.147]] 14:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there a category for comics without characters? Are there enough comics to need a new category? [[User:GizmoDude|GizmoDude]] ([[User talk:GizmoDude|talk]]) 14:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:There are many many comics without characters, so it would be a huge job to make such a category and they do not necessarily have anything in common like two comics with [[Blondie]] for instance does. So I would say no. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:"Charts" looks right, seems implicitly to cover "infographics" (btw I agree with worrying about readers who don't know what spectral lines actually are although clearly everyone writing here does, or thinks so). Another possible edition for other cases is "Landscapes" but those in fact tend to have people in (or Mars rovers or such), also landscape in the sense of vista may be covered by "Large drawings" unless that specifically means "Image is larger than the pane on screen", since there also isn't a Scroll it" category. Alternatively... "Spectacles". Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.90|141.101.98.90]] 15:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ya'll should keep in mind the large number of multivitamins that use rainbows as part of their branding and often some form of spectra/spectrum as part of the brand name. Here's a relevant image: http://centrum.com/sites/default/files/wheel_silver_adults_0.png [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.65|173.245.48.65]] 17:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:Except Centrum is the only brand I've seen that does that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.61|141.101.70.61]] 08:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There's another image of a Sun with sunglasses (and a giant banana) at http://what-if.xkcd.com/129/ [[User:Jojonete|Jojonete]] ([[User talk:Jojonete|talk]]) 22:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

And perhaps we should acknowledge John Finnemore's terrific sketch about J M W Turner painting sunglasses on the sun (transcribed here: http://j-f-s-p.livejournal.com/5403.html). {{unsigned ip|141.101.70.49}}

Given that all the lines for the sunglasses are in the red-orange spectrum I took it as a joke about glasses <a href=https://www.google.com/search?q=orange+wraparound&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=orange+wrap+around+glasses>similar to these.</a> Sorry I can't find the exact model I've seen in ads from the early 90s of wraparound over regular glasses that were orangish (old style Blue Blockers.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.128|108.162.216.128]] 14:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The idea of the sun wearing transitions lenses became even more silly when I did a little research and found that the silver chloride that they often make transitions lenses with actually has a lower melting point (455°C) than glass itself typically has (1400°C to 1600°C.) I'm not sure that this has any relevance, but I was trying to find a plausible connection between the fabrication of transitions lenses as opposed to standard lenses and the use a sun (a sentient sun) might have for them. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.83|173.245.50.83]] 15:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Sam

Talk:1733: Solar Spectrum

2016-09-17T18:37:07Z

Run, you clever boy: Brief comment on absorption spectra and electron quantum state transitions (revision 2)

Sun in sunglasses is also in whatif "Into the sun" and I'm 99% sure this is not the only xkcd appearance of that... --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.119|162.158.86.119]] 11:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is Randall using JPEG for the second time in a row? Gosh, the comics look horrifying when zoomed in. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.244.67|108.162.244.67]] 12:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:It looks like a .PNG to me, maybe the .jpg was temporary for an upload deadline? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.127|108.162.241.127]] 12:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
::The one on this page has always been a png file (see [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1733:_Solar_Spectrum&oldid=127003 the first revision]). This also means that whoever wrote the complaint must have had access to [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/File:solar_spectrum.png this same file], which has not been updated here since. Of course Randall may have had another version up first, but that seems highly unlikely... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Are the spectral lines actually accurate apart from the sunglasses? Wouldn't surprise me to much... (Meh, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines, believably close). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.10|141.101.105.10]] 12:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I feel we need an explanation of the concept of spectral lines for those readers not familiar with absorption spectra [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.91|141.101.70.91]] 13:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy#Absorption_spectrum According to Wikipedia], absorption lines occur because solar radiation from the sun’s [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Photosphere photosphere] is absorbed at frequencies that match the energy difference between two quantum mechanical states of electrons bound to atoms or molecules. The absorption that occurs due to this transition between two states is referred to as an absorption line and a spectrum is typically composed of many lines. In the case of an atom, absorption typically occurs when an electron is boosted from a less energetic inner orbital to a more energetic outer orbital thereby absorbing a photon. Emission spectra are due to the opposite process.

:Please consider the possibility that the title text mention of Transitions may hinge on the absorption process's quantum state transitions. [[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]]) 18:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the spectral lines of transition metals - not pictures of the sun wear glasses. The transition lenses reference is a play on words.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.154|108.162.218.154]] 13:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:Can we figure out what sunglasses he is referring to by comparing the spectral absorption of different brands? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.119|108.162.246.119]] 14:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:Any good links to "permanent" images of a sun with sunglasses? Guess there is none of Wikipedia? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:I agree this refers to "Transitions" light-reacting prescription sunglasses / regular reading glasses. However, Google won't give me a sun wearing sunglasses picture unless I type in "sun" and "sunglasses". Not for Transitions or Reactolite, not for weather forecasts, not for emojis. With eyes yes, big smile too, but not shades. I suppose because it actually is a stupid thing for the sun to have. Otherwise, nearest I get: http://www.essilor.com/en/BrandsAndProducts/Lenses/Photochromics/Pages/CrizalTransitions.aspx :-) "30% faster" (than what? taking off the glasses?) Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.90|141.101.98.90]] 15:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

See: http://imgur.com/a/35RDC [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.147|162.158.203.147]] 14:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there a category for comics without characters? Are there enough comics to need a new category? [[User:GizmoDude|GizmoDude]] ([[User talk:GizmoDude|talk]]) 14:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:There are many many comics without characters, so it would be a huge job to make such a category and they do not necessarily have anything in common like two comics with [[Blondie]] for instance does. So I would say no. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:"Charts" looks right, seems implicitly to cover "infographics" (btw I agree with worrying about readers who don't know what spectral lines actually are although clearly everyone writing here does, or thinks so). Another possible edition for other cases is "Landscapes" but those in fact tend to have people in (or Mars rovers or such), also landscape in the sense of vista may be covered by "Large drawings" unless that specifically means "Image is larger than the pane on screen", since there also isn't a Scroll it" category. Alternatively... "Spectacles". Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.90|141.101.98.90]] 15:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ya'll should keep in mind the large number of multivitamins that use rainbows as part of their branding and often some form of spectra/spectrum as part of the brand name. Here's a relevant image: http://centrum.com/sites/default/files/wheel_silver_adults_0.png [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.65|173.245.48.65]] 17:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:Except Centrum is the only brand I've seen that does that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.61|141.101.70.61]] 08:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There's another image of a Sun with sunglasses (and a giant banana) at http://what-if.xkcd.com/129/ [[User:Jojonete|Jojonete]] ([[User talk:Jojonete|talk]]) 22:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

And perhaps we should acknowledge John Finnemore's terrific sketch about J M W Turner painting sunglasses on the sun (transcribed here: http://j-f-s-p.livejournal.com/5403.html). {{unsigned ip|141.101.70.49}}

Given that all the lines for the sunglasses are in the red-orange spectrum I took it as a joke about glasses <a href=https://www.google.com/search?q=orange+wraparound&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=orange+wrap+around+glasses>similar to these.</a> Sorry I can't find the exact model I've seen in ads from the early 90s of wraparound over regular glasses that were orangish (old style Blue Blockers.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.128|108.162.216.128]] 14:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The idea of the sun wearing transitions lenses became even more silly when I did a little research and found that the silver chloride that they often make transitions lenses with actually has a lower melting point (455°C) than glass itself typically has (1400°C to 1600°C.) I'm not sure that this has any relevance, but I was trying to find a plausible connection between the fabrication of transitions lenses as opposed to standard lenses and the use a sun (a sentient sun) might have for them. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.83|173.245.50.83]] 15:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Sam

Talk:1733: Solar Spectrum

2016-09-17T18:13:54Z

Run, you clever boy: Brief comment on absorption lines due to electron state transitions (revision 1)

Sun in sunglasses is also in whatif "Into the sun" and I'm 99% sure this is not the only xkcd appearance of that... --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.119|162.158.86.119]] 11:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is Randall using JPEG for the second time in a row? Gosh, the comics look horrifying when zoomed in. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.244.67|108.162.244.67]] 12:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:It looks like a .PNG to me, maybe the .jpg was temporary for an upload deadline? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.127|108.162.241.127]] 12:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
::The one on this page has always been a png file (see [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1733:_Solar_Spectrum&oldid=127003 the first revision]). This also means that whoever wrote the complaint must have had access to [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/File:solar_spectrum.png this same file], which has not been updated here since. Of course Randall may have had another version up first, but that seems highly unlikely... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Are the spectral lines actually accurate apart from the sunglasses? Wouldn't surprise me to much... (Meh, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines, believably close). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.10|141.101.105.10]] 12:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I feel we need an explanation of the concept of spectral lines for those readers not familiar with absorption spectra [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.91|141.101.70.91]] 13:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy#Absorption_spectrum According to Wikipedia], absorption lines occur because solar radiation from the sun’s [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Photosphere photosphere] is absorbed at frequencies that match the energy difference between two quantum mechanical states of electrons bound to atoms or molecules. The absorption that occurs due to a transition between two states is referred to as an absorption line and a spectrum is typically composed of many lines.[[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]]) 18:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the spectral lines of transition metals - not pictures of the sun wear glasses. The transition lenses reference is a play on words.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.154|108.162.218.154]] 13:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:Can we figure out what sunglasses he is referring to by comparing the spectral absorption of different brands? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.119|108.162.246.119]] 14:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:Any good links to "permanent" images of a sun with sunglasses? Guess there is none of Wikipedia? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:I agree this refers to "Transitions" light-reacting prescription sunglasses / regular reading glasses. However, Google won't give me a sun wearing sunglasses picture unless I type in "sun" and "sunglasses". Not for Transitions or Reactolite, not for weather forecasts, not for emojis. With eyes yes, big smile too, but not shades. I suppose because it actually is a stupid thing for the sun to have. Otherwise, nearest I get: http://www.essilor.com/en/BrandsAndProducts/Lenses/Photochromics/Pages/CrizalTransitions.aspx :-) "30% faster" (than what? taking off the glasses?) Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.90|141.101.98.90]] 15:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

See: http://imgur.com/a/35RDC [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.147|162.158.203.147]] 14:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there a category for comics without characters? Are there enough comics to need a new category? [[User:GizmoDude|GizmoDude]] ([[User talk:GizmoDude|talk]]) 14:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:There are many many comics without characters, so it would be a huge job to make such a category and they do not necessarily have anything in common like two comics with [[Blondie]] for instance does. So I would say no. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:"Charts" looks right, seems implicitly to cover "infographics" (btw I agree with worrying about readers who don't know what spectral lines actually are although clearly everyone writing here does, or thinks so). Another possible edition for other cases is "Landscapes" but those in fact tend to have people in (or Mars rovers or such), also landscape in the sense of vista may be covered by "Large drawings" unless that specifically means "Image is larger than the pane on screen", since there also isn't a Scroll it" category. Alternatively... "Spectacles". Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.90|141.101.98.90]] 15:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ya'll should keep in mind the large number of multivitamins that use rainbows as part of their branding and often some form of spectra/spectrum as part of the brand name. Here's a relevant image: http://centrum.com/sites/default/files/wheel_silver_adults_0.png [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.65|173.245.48.65]] 17:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:Except Centrum is the only brand I've seen that does that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.61|141.101.70.61]] 08:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There's another image of a Sun with sunglasses (and a giant banana) at http://what-if.xkcd.com/129/ [[User:Jojonete|Jojonete]] ([[User talk:Jojonete|talk]]) 22:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

And perhaps we should acknowledge John Finnemore's terrific sketch about J M W Turner painting sunglasses on the sun (transcribed here: http://j-f-s-p.livejournal.com/5403.html). {{unsigned ip|141.101.70.49}}

Given that all the lines for the sunglasses are in the red-orange spectrum I took it as a joke about glasses <a href=https://www.google.com/search?q=orange+wraparound&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=orange+wrap+around+glasses>similar to these.</a> Sorry I can't find the exact model I've seen in ads from the early 90s of wraparound over regular glasses that were orangish (old style Blue Blockers.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.128|108.162.216.128]] 14:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The idea of the sun wearing transitions lenses became even more silly when I did a little research and found that the silver chloride that they often make transitions lenses with actually has a lower melting point (455°C) than glass itself typically has (1400°C to 1600°C.) I'm not sure that this has any relevance, but I was trying to find a plausible connection between the fabrication of transitions lenses as opposed to standard lenses and the use a sun (a sentient sun) might have for them. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.83|173.245.50.83]] 15:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Sam

Talk:1733: Solar Spectrum

2016-09-17T17:55:56Z

Run, you clever boy:

Sun in sunglasses is also in whatif "Into the sun" and I'm 99% sure this is not the only xkcd appearance of that... --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.119|162.158.86.119]] 11:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is Randall using JPEG for the second time in a row? Gosh, the comics look horrifying when zoomed in. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.244.67|108.162.244.67]] 12:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:It looks like a .PNG to me, maybe the .jpg was temporary for an upload deadline? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.127|108.162.241.127]] 12:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
::The one on this page has always been a png file (see [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1733:_Solar_Spectrum&oldid=127003 the first revision]). This also means that whoever wrote the complaint must have had access to [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/File:solar_spectrum.png this same file], which has not been updated here since. Of course Randall may have had another version up first, but that seems highly unlikely... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Are the spectral lines actually accurate apart from the sunglasses? Wouldn't surprise me to much... (Meh, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines, believably close). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.10|141.101.105.10]] 12:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I feel we need an explanation of the concept of spectral lines for those readers not familiar with absorption spectra [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.91|141.101.70.91]] 13:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Absorption lines occur, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy#Absorption_spectrum according to Wikipedia], because: "Radiation is more likely to be absorbed at frequencies that match the energy difference between two quantum mechanical states of [electrons bound to atoms or] molecules. The absorption that occurs due to a transition between two states is referred to as an absorption line and a spectrum is typically composed of many lines." [[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]]) 17:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the spectral lines of transition metals - not pictures of the sun wear glasses. The transition lenses reference is a play on words.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.154|108.162.218.154]] 13:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:Can we figure out what sunglasses he is referring to by comparing the spectral absorption of different brands? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.119|108.162.246.119]] 14:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:Any good links to "permanent" images of a sun with sunglasses? Guess there is none of Wikipedia? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:I agree this refers to "Transitions" light-reacting prescription sunglasses / regular reading glasses. However, Google won't give me a sun wearing sunglasses picture unless I type in "sun" and "sunglasses". Not for Transitions or Reactolite, not for weather forecasts, not for emojis. With eyes yes, big smile too, but not shades. I suppose because it actually is a stupid thing for the sun to have. Otherwise, nearest I get: http://www.essilor.com/en/BrandsAndProducts/Lenses/Photochromics/Pages/CrizalTransitions.aspx :-) "30% faster" (than what? taking off the glasses?) Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.90|141.101.98.90]] 15:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

See: http://imgur.com/a/35RDC [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.147|162.158.203.147]] 14:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there a category for comics without characters? Are there enough comics to need a new category? [[User:GizmoDude|GizmoDude]] ([[User talk:GizmoDude|talk]]) 14:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:There are many many comics without characters, so it would be a huge job to make such a category and they do not necessarily have anything in common like two comics with [[Blondie]] for instance does. So I would say no. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:"Charts" looks right, seems implicitly to cover "infographics" (btw I agree with worrying about readers who don't know what spectral lines actually are although clearly everyone writing here does, or thinks so). Another possible edition for other cases is "Landscapes" but those in fact tend to have people in (or Mars rovers or such), also landscape in the sense of vista may be covered by "Large drawings" unless that specifically means "Image is larger than the pane on screen", since there also isn't a Scroll it" category. Alternatively... "Spectacles". Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.90|141.101.98.90]] 15:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ya'll should keep in mind the large number of multivitamins that use rainbows as part of their branding and often some form of spectra/spectrum as part of the brand name. Here's a relevant image: http://centrum.com/sites/default/files/wheel_silver_adults_0.png [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.65|173.245.48.65]] 17:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:Except Centrum is the only brand I've seen that does that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.61|141.101.70.61]] 08:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There's another image of a Sun with sunglasses (and a giant banana) at http://what-if.xkcd.com/129/ [[User:Jojonete|Jojonete]] ([[User talk:Jojonete|talk]]) 22:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

And perhaps we should acknowledge John Finnemore's terrific sketch about J M W Turner painting sunglasses on the sun (transcribed here: http://j-f-s-p.livejournal.com/5403.html). {{unsigned ip|141.101.70.49}}

Given that all the lines for the sunglasses are in the red-orange spectrum I took it as a joke about glasses <a href=https://www.google.com/search?q=orange+wraparound&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=orange+wrap+around+glasses>similar to these.</a> Sorry I can't find the exact model I've seen in ads from the early 90s of wraparound over regular glasses that were orangish (old style Blue Blockers.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.128|108.162.216.128]] 14:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The idea of the sun wearing transitions lenses became even more silly when I did a little research and found that the silver chloride that they often make transitions lenses with actually has a lower melting point (455°C) than glass itself typically has (1400°C to 1600°C.) I'm not sure that this has any relevance, but I was trying to find a plausible connection between the fabrication of transitions lenses as opposed to standard lenses and the use a sun (a sentient sun) might have for them. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.83|173.245.50.83]] 15:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Sam

Talk:1733: Solar Spectrum

2016-09-17T17:53:42Z

Run, you clever boy: Brief comment on absorption lines relation to atomic electron transitions

Sun in sunglasses is also in whatif "Into the sun" and I'm 99% sure this is not the only xkcd appearance of that... --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.119|162.158.86.119]] 11:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is Randall using JPEG for the second time in a row? Gosh, the comics look horrifying when zoomed in. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.244.67|108.162.244.67]] 12:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:It looks like a .PNG to me, maybe the .jpg was temporary for an upload deadline? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.127|108.162.241.127]] 12:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
::The one on this page has always been a png file (see [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1733:_Solar_Spectrum&oldid=127003 the first revision]). This also means that whoever wrote the complaint must have had access to [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/File:solar_spectrum.png this same file], which has not been updated here since. Of course Randall may have had another version up first, but that seems highly unlikely... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Are the spectral lines actually accurate apart from the sunglasses? Wouldn't surprise me to much... (Meh, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines, believably close). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.10|141.101.105.10]] 12:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I feel we need an explanation of the concept of spectral lines for those readers not familiar with absorption spectra [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.91|141.101.70.91]] 13:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Absorption lines occur, according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy#Absorption_spectrum , because: "Radiation is more likely to be absorbed at frequencies that match the energy difference between two quantum mechanical states of [electrons bound to atoms or] molecules. The absorption that occurs due to a transition between two states is referred to as an absorption line and a spectrum is typically composed of many lines." [[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]]) 17:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the spectral lines of transition metals - not pictures of the sun wear glasses. The transition lenses reference is a play on words.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.154|108.162.218.154]] 13:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:Can we figure out what sunglasses he is referring to by comparing the spectral absorption of different brands? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.119|108.162.246.119]] 14:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:Any good links to "permanent" images of a sun with sunglasses? Guess there is none of Wikipedia? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:I agree this refers to "Transitions" light-reacting prescription sunglasses / regular reading glasses. However, Google won't give me a sun wearing sunglasses picture unless I type in "sun" and "sunglasses". Not for Transitions or Reactolite, not for weather forecasts, not for emojis. With eyes yes, big smile too, but not shades. I suppose because it actually is a stupid thing for the sun to have. Otherwise, nearest I get: http://www.essilor.com/en/BrandsAndProducts/Lenses/Photochromics/Pages/CrizalTransitions.aspx :-) "30% faster" (than what? taking off the glasses?) Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.90|141.101.98.90]] 15:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

See: http://imgur.com/a/35RDC [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.147|162.158.203.147]] 14:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there a category for comics without characters? Are there enough comics to need a new category? [[User:GizmoDude|GizmoDude]] ([[User talk:GizmoDude|talk]]) 14:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:There are many many comics without characters, so it would be a huge job to make such a category and they do not necessarily have anything in common like two comics with [[Blondie]] for instance does. So I would say no. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:"Charts" looks right, seems implicitly to cover "infographics" (btw I agree with worrying about readers who don't know what spectral lines actually are although clearly everyone writing here does, or thinks so). Another possible edition for other cases is "Landscapes" but those in fact tend to have people in (or Mars rovers or such), also landscape in the sense of vista may be covered by "Large drawings" unless that specifically means "Image is larger than the pane on screen", since there also isn't a Scroll it" category. Alternatively... "Spectacles". Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.90|141.101.98.90]] 15:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ya'll should keep in mind the large number of multivitamins that use rainbows as part of their branding and often some form of spectra/spectrum as part of the brand name. Here's a relevant image: http://centrum.com/sites/default/files/wheel_silver_adults_0.png [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.65|173.245.48.65]] 17:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:Except Centrum is the only brand I've seen that does that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.61|141.101.70.61]] 08:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There's another image of a Sun with sunglasses (and a giant banana) at http://what-if.xkcd.com/129/ [[User:Jojonete|Jojonete]] ([[User talk:Jojonete|talk]]) 22:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

And perhaps we should acknowledge John Finnemore's terrific sketch about J M W Turner painting sunglasses on the sun (transcribed here: http://j-f-s-p.livejournal.com/5403.html). {{unsigned ip|141.101.70.49}}

Given that all the lines for the sunglasses are in the red-orange spectrum I took it as a joke about glasses <a href=https://www.google.com/search?q=orange+wraparound&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=orange+wrap+around+glasses>similar to these.</a> Sorry I can't find the exact model I've seen in ads from the early 90s of wraparound over regular glasses that were orangish (old style Blue Blockers.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.128|108.162.216.128]] 14:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The idea of the sun wearing transitions lenses became even more silly when I did a little research and found that the silver chloride that they often make transitions lenses with actually has a lower melting point (455°C) than glass itself typically has (1400°C to 1600°C.) I'm not sure that this has any relevance, but I was trying to find a plausible connection between the fabrication of transitions lenses as opposed to standard lenses and the use a sun (a sentient sun) might have for them. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.83|173.245.50.83]] 15:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Sam

1733: Solar Spectrum

2016-09-17T17:43:10Z

Run, you clever boy: Added commas and a t to one line

{{comic
| number = 1733
| date = September 15, 2016
| title = Solar Spectrum
| image = solar_spectrum.png
| titletext = I still don't understand why the Sun paid the extra money for Transitions lenses.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Someone knowing more about the Fraunhofer lines could maybe improve the [[#Table of spectrum|table]] (mainly the comments).}}
This comic's release day was postponed from the scheduled Wednesday release to a [[:Category:Thursday comics|Thursday release]] because [[Randall]]] noticed the extreme popularity of the previous comic on Monday: [[1732: Earth Temperature Timeline]]. Randall even explained this in the header text, see [[1732#Popularity_of_comic|this trivia item]] from the previous comic.

This comic depicts the {{w|Fraunhofer lines}}, i.e. the {{w|spectral lines}} seen when sunlight is split in a {{w|spectrometer}}. These appear as black gaps in the rainbow of light, caused by light being absorbed by {{w|Chemical element|elements}} in the {{w|Sun}}. The frequencies of light that an atom absorbs depend on the exact arrangement of electron orbitals around it - because each element has a different pattern of orbitals, each one has a distinctive pattern in the absorption spectrum. The chart shows most of the main lines in the visible spectrum and identifies the elements linked to them.

The image of the Fraunhofer lines from Wikipedia is shown below in the section with a [[#Table of spectrum|table]] of these lines. Here it can be seen that all the lines that are labeled with elements are correctly labeled. Also all lines shown in the part of the spectrum included in the comic are included. Ten of the lines included are not labeled in the picture on Wikipedia (at least not with an element, two of the three "h" labels are not in the table on Wikipedia). Six of these also have no label in the comic. But the other four line's label ''Those giant sunglasses'' constitute the joke of the comic. There seem to be only one clear error in the comic and that is the fifth line labeled Sunglasses, the middle of the lines, which is actually a Hydrogen line (C in the picture below). But the line next to it to the right is one of those not labeled in either pictures and it seems likely that it was this line Randall meant to be a Sunglass line...

All ten extra lines (including both the labeled and unlabeled ones) seem to correspond to the [http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~koppen/discharge/silicon.jpg spectrum of silicon], and '''the joke then refers to the {{w|silicon dioxide}} (aka glass)''' used in the lenses of the Sun's sunglasses. Of course, this means that the glasses have been ionized and turned into plasma by the heat of the sun.

The idea of a sun with sunglasses is a reference to pictures/clipart of the sun wearing sunglasses, often used to denote good weather. But Randall has specifically used this picture in his [[what if?]] ''{{what if|115|Into the Sun}}'' in the fourth image. The title text of that image even references the fact that those sunglasses will block the light to Earth:
:A partial solar eclipse is when the Earth moves across the part of the Sun blocked by its sunglasses.
So this comic is a direct callback to this what if? post.

There is another joke in drawing a sun with sunglasses because sunglasses are meant to protect your eyes from the sun, so what should they protect the Sun's eye from, Star light...? Also, any glasses worn by the sun, would they not become sun glasses?

{{w|Transitions Optical|Transitions}}® is a brand of {{w|Photochromic lens|photochromic lenses}}; however, photochromic lenses are often referred to as "transition lenses", so the title text does not necessarily refer to the brand. Photochromic lenses are a type of plastic lens used in prescription spectacles that allow the lens to turn dark when exposed to UV light such as that found in sunlight. The sun choosing to get transition lens would prove a waste of money as the lenses would be permanently transitioned to be dark, so a pair of ordinary sunglasses would likely have proved more cost effective. (Always assuming they do not turn into plasma when getting close to the sun...)

===Table of spectrum===
:This is the official image for {{w|Fraunhofer lines}} (solar spectrum) on Wikipedia:
:[[File:Fraunhofer_lines_From_Wikipedia.png]]
:The graph is a typical spectral lines chart, with a long rainbow band (from {{w|ultraviolet}} to the left to {{w|infrared}} on the right both colors appearing black as they are not visible.) The black lines in it, indicating the traces of different elements. Noe that the comic only covers the visible part of this spectrum.

*In the table below are the official labels from the picture above. If there are no label this is noted with ''none''.
**'''Note that they are labeled from right to left!'''
*Then the element causing the line is mentioned. ''Unlabeled'' is used if the line is not mentioned in the table from Wikipedia.
*Then follows the wavelength. It is given with decimals if it is noted in the table from Wikipedia. Else it has been read off manually from the picture above.
*Then follows the label given in this comic, with unlabeled meaning that it is not labeled in the comic but still shown.
**If the line is not even included in the xkcd comic "N/A" will be used.
**A number will be given after the xkcd label listing which number line on xkcd that has used this label. (Note going from left to right in the numbering).
*Finally a comment can be made on this.
**If the two labels fit, then ''agreement'' is noted.
{| class="wikitable"
!Designation
!Element
!Wavelength ({{w|nanometer|nm}})
!xkcd label
!Comment
|-
|A
|{{w|Oxygen|O}}
|759.370
|N/A
|This line is outside comics range. So are the two unlabeled lines shown in the spectrum in the picture above around 720 and 730 nm. There are also even more oxygen lines further out in the infrared part of the spectrum which is not even included in the picture above.
|-
|None
|Unlabeled
|690
|Those giant sunglasses 5
|This is the fifth of the five xkcd sunglass lines. This line is not labeled in the picture above. Wavelength read off manually
|-
|B
|O
|686.719
|Oxygen 2
|Agreement
|-
|None
|Unlabeled
|577
|Those giant sunglasses 4
|This is the fourth of the five xkcd sunglass lines. This line is not labeled in the picture above. Wavelength read off manually.
|-
|None
|Unlabeled
|660
|Unlabeled
|This line is not labeled either in the comic or in the picture above. Wavelength read off manually. It seems like this one was supposed to be one of the sunglasses lines, and then by mistake the arrow points to the labeled line C below.
|-
|C
|{{w|hydrogen|H}}
|656.281
|Those giant sunglasses 3
|This is the third of the five xkcd sunglass lines. This is actually the {{w|Hα}} line belonging to the {{w|hydrogen}} {{w|Balmer series}}. Seems like a mistake, and more likely it was meant for the arrow to point to the unlabeled line mentioned here above.
|-
|None
|Unlabeled
|645
|Those giant sunglasses 2
|This is the second of the five xkcd sunglass lines. This line is not labeled in the picture above. Wavelength read off manually.
|-
|a
|O
|627.661
|Oxygen 1
|Agreement
|-
|D1
|{{w|Sodium|Na}}
|589.592
|Sodium 2
|Agreement. There are only one label (Sodium) in the comic above these two close lines.
|-
|D2
|Na
|588.995
|Sodium 1
|Agreement. There are only one label (Sodium) in the comic above these two close lines.
|-
|D3 or d
|{{w|Helium|He}}
|587.5618
|N/A
|This line is so close to the nearest sodium line that only one line is visible, so only one is shown, both in the comic and in the picture above.
|-
|None
|Unlabeled
|577
|Those giant sunglasses 1
|This is the first of the five xkcd sunglass lines. This line is not labeled in the picture above. Wavelength read off manually.
|-
|None
|Unlabeled
|554
|Unlabeled
|Agreement. This line is not labeled either in the comic or in the picture above. Wavelength read off manually.
|-
|None
|Unlabeled
|549
|Unlabeled
|Agreement. This line is not labeled either in the comic or in the picture above. Wavelength read off manually.
|-
|None
|Unlabeled
|537
|Unlabeled
|Agreement. This line is not labeled either in the comic or in the picture above. Wavelength read off manually.
|-
|E2
|{{w|Iron|Fe}}
|527.039
|Iron 5
|Agreement.
|-
|b1
|{{w|Magnesium|Mg}}
|518.362
|Magnesium 2
|Agreement. See b below. There are only one label (Magnesium) in the comic above these two close lines.
|-
|b2
|Mg
|517.270
|N/A
|These two magnesium lines are so close that only one is visible in the spectrum, so only one is shown, both in the comic and in the picture above.
|-
|b3
|Fe
|516.891
|N/A
|This iron line and the next magnesium line are so close that only one is visible in the spectrum, so only one is shown, both in the comic and in the picture above. There is only one label for both visible lines showing them to be magnesium, even though there are four lines one of which (this one is Iron).
|-
|b4
|Mg
|516.733
|Magnesium 1
|Agreement. See b above. There are only one label (Magnesium) in the comic above these two close lines.
|-
|c
|Fe
|495.761
|Iron 4
|Agreement.
|-
|F
|H
|486.134
|Hydrogen 3
|Agreement with {{w|Hβ}}.
|-
|h
|Unlabeled
|476
|Unlabeled
|Agreement. This line is also unlabeled in the table on Wikipedia. "h" is used between H and g below. The wavelength is manually read off from the image.
|-
|d
|Fe
|466.814
|Iron 3
|Agreement.
|-
|e
|Fe
|438.355
|Iron 2
|Agreement.
|-
|f
|H
|434.047
|Hydrogen 2
|Agreement with {{w|Hγ}}.
|-
|G
|Fe
|430.790
|Iron 1
|Agreement.
|-
|g
|{{w|Calcium|Ca}}
|430.774
|Calcium 3
|Agreement.
|-
|h
|H
|410.175
|Hydrogen 1
|Agreement with {{w|Hδ}}.
|-
|H
|Ca
|396.847
|Calcium 2
|Agreement.
|-
|K
|Ca
|393.366
|Calcium 1
|Agreement.
|-
|None
|Unlabeled
|389
|N/A
|This is the last line in the picture above. It is not included in the comic. There are even more lines outside the visible spectrum deeper into the ultraviolet which are not even shown in the picture above.
|}

==Transcript==
:[A chart shows the visible colored spectrum of the sun from deep violet to deep red. Along the spectrum are shown 28 black spectral lines of different thickness. Above the chart is a caption:]
:The Sun's spectral lines

:[Above the chart there are four and below the chart there are two labels, each label has one or more arrows pointing to different black lines. The two that has only one arrow points to two close lines marking them both. Only 22 lines are labeled like this, the other 6 are not labeled. The labels in reading order, with the number of arrows noted behind in square brackets:]
:Calcium [3] Iron [5] Sodium [1] Oxygen [2]
:Hydrogen [3] Magnesium [1] Those giant sunglasses [5]

==Trivia==
*Even though this comic was released on a Thursday, the scheduled Friday comic [[1734: Reductionism]] was still released as planned.
**This was also the first time this occurred on xkcd - see [[1734:_Reductionism#Trivia|this trivia item]] from the next comic.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:1596: Launch Status Check

2015-10-29T00:35:38Z

Run, you clever boy:

Looks like a Falcon Heavy to me. :) So I guess the bird is some kind of falcon. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.147|162.158.34.147]] 08:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
:Could it be related to this? [http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/21/first-flight-of-falcon-heavy-delayed-again First flight of Falcon Heavy delayed again.] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.121|108.162.229.121]] 10:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, during rocket launches they use visual inspection to ensure nothing is close to the launch vehicle. I don't know if large birds are an issue for a rocket, but I can well imagine they are. In classical XKCD fashion the characters totally go overboard on that tangent. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.160|162.158.91.160]] 08:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:Rockets generally produces lot of noise and hot gasses. I doubt any bird is stupid enough to stay around THAT. Also, there is no air intake on rockets - it's hitting the air intake of motors which is dangerous to aircraft. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 14:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
::Birds have damaged aircraft windscreens. I believe the bipod ramp that brought down Columbia was smaller than a large bird. It's not at all clear that a bird will be able to take evasive action. Rockets accelerate hard, and a birds normal collision avoidance is to dive, which doesn't help when a rocket is headed straight up.

Unrelated: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/behindscenes/roadkill_prt.htm --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.101|198.41.235.101]] 20:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It could be a reference to "The Martian" where a bird flies into view on the Live Feed as they are about to launch the supply probe. It later fails when it tries to go sideways. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 10:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
:Reference and coincidence are not synonyms. '''reference:''' a thing you say or write that mentions somebody/something else [http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/reference_1]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.17|108.162.221.17]] 15:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I changed the transcript a little - it's clear from the comic that there are at least four people involved, as opposed to a back-and-forth between two people.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.29|173.245.53.29]] 17:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah... the person who discretely (and/or discreetly!) added the link the Atlas V, regarding the rocket profile, I think you've nailed it. Looks very much more like the New Horizons launch stack than any of the alternatives I've so far reviewed. (I checked Atlas V, when looking around, but must have missed the half-height double-booster-set/large-shroud picture further down that page. For better comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NewHorizons_Rocket_Bly.jpg ) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.75.185|141.101.75.185]] 18:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what exactly does Randall's drawing having a resemblance to a type of real-life rocket have anything to do with the point of the comic? The comic is more centered on the foolishness of Ground Control then what kind of rocket is being used. Or maybe it's that very same Ground Control writing the explanation and getting distracted so easily ( ._.)..... [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 23:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Let us not forget the brouhaha over Space Frog ([http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/nasa-rocket-launch-accidentally-lifts-frog-space/story?id=20237426 ABC News Coverage]) and Space Bat ([http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts119/launchbat.html NASA Press Release]). Twitter exploded over Space Frog. --[[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]]) 00:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1596: Launch Status Check

2015-10-29T00:29:28Z

Run, you clever boy:

Looks like a Falcon Heavy to me. :) So I guess the bird is some kind of falcon. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.147|162.158.34.147]] 08:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
:Could it be related to this? [http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/21/first-flight-of-falcon-heavy-delayed-again First flight of Falcon Heavy delayed again.] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.121|108.162.229.121]] 10:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, during rocket launches they use visual inspection to ensure nothing is close to the launch vehicle. I don't know if large birds are an issue for a rocket, but I can well imagine they are. In classical XKCD fashion the characters totally go overboard on that tangent. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.160|162.158.91.160]] 08:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:Rockets generally produces lot of noise and hot gasses. I doubt any bird is stupid enough to stay around THAT. Also, there is no air intake on rockets - it's hitting the air intake of motors which is dangerous to aircraft. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 14:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
::Birds have damaged aircraft windscreens. I believe the bipod ramp that brought down Columbia was smaller than a large bird. It's not at all clear that a bird will be able to take evasive action. Rockets accelerate hard, and a birds normal collision avoidance is to dive, which doesn't help when a rocket is headed straight up.

Unrelated: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/behindscenes/roadkill_prt.htm --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.101|198.41.235.101]] 20:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It could be a reference to "The Martian" where a bird flies into view on the Live Feed as they are about to launch the supply probe. It later fails when it tries to go sideways. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 10:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
:Reference and coincidence are not synonyms. '''reference:''' a thing you say or write that mentions somebody/something else [http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/reference_1]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.17|108.162.221.17]] 15:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I changed the transcript a little - it's clear from the comic that there are at least four people involved, as opposed to a back-and-forth between two people.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.29|173.245.53.29]] 17:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah... the person who discretely (and/or discreetly!) added the link the Atlas V, regarding the rocket profile, I think you've nailed it. Looks very much more like the New Horizons launch stack than any of the alternatives I've so far reviewed. (I checked Atlas V, when looking around, but must have missed the half-height double-booster-set/large-shroud picture further down that page. For better comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NewHorizons_Rocket_Bly.jpg ) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.75.185|141.101.75.185]] 18:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what exactly does Randall's drawing having a resemblance to a type of real-life rocket have anything to do with the point of the comic? The comic is more centered on the foolishness of Ground Control then what kind of rocket is being used. Or maybe it's that very same Ground Control writing the explanation and getting distracted so easily ( ._.)..... [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 23:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Let us not forget the brouhaha over Space Frog ([http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/nasa-rocket-launch-accidentally-lifts-frog-space/story?id=20237426 ABC News Coverage]) and Space Bat ([http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts119/launchbat.html NASA Press Release]). --[[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]]) 00:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1596: Launch Status Check

2015-10-29T00:28:12Z

Run, you clever boy:

Looks like a Falcon Heavy to me. :) So I guess the bird is some kind of falcon. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.147|162.158.34.147]] 08:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
:Could it be related to this? [http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/21/first-flight-of-falcon-heavy-delayed-again First flight of Falcon Heavy delayed again.] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.121|108.162.229.121]] 10:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, during rocket launches they use visual inspection to ensure nothing is close to the launch vehicle. I don't know if large birds are an issue for a rocket, but I can well imagine they are. In classical XKCD fashion the characters totally go overboard on that tangent. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.160|162.158.91.160]] 08:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:Rockets generally produces lot of noise and hot gasses. I doubt any bird is stupid enough to stay around THAT. Also, there is no air intake on rockets - it's hitting the air intake of motors which is dangerous to aircraft. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 14:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
::Birds have damaged aircraft windscreens. I believe the bipod ramp that brought down Columbia was smaller than a large bird. It's not at all clear that a bird will be able to take evasive action. Rockets accelerate hard, and a birds normal collision avoidance is to dive, which doesn't help when a rocket is headed straight up.

Unrelated: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/behindscenes/roadkill_prt.htm --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.101|198.41.235.101]] 20:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It could be a reference to "The Martian" where a bird flies into view on the Live Feed as they are about to launch the supply probe. It later fails when it tries to go sideways. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 10:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
:Reference and coincidence are not synonyms. '''reference:''' a thing you say or write that mentions somebody/something else [http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/reference_1]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.17|108.162.221.17]] 15:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I changed the transcript a little - it's clear from the comic that there are at least four people involved, as opposed to a back-and-forth between two people.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.29|173.245.53.29]] 17:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah... the person who discretely (and/or discreetly!) added the link the Atlas V, regarding the rocket profile, I think you've nailed it. Looks very much more like the New Horizons launch stack than any of the alternatives I've so far reviewed. (I checked Atlas V, when looking around, but must have missed the half-height double-booster-set/large-shroud picture further down that page. For better comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NewHorizons_Rocket_Bly.jpg ) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.75.185|141.101.75.185]] 18:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what exactly does Randall's drawing having a resemblance to a type of real-life rocket have anything to do with the point of the comic? The comic is more centered on the foolishness of Ground Control then what kind of rocket is being used. Or maybe it's that very same Ground Control writing the explanation and getting distracted so easily ( ._.)..... [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 23:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Let us not forget the brouhaha over Space Frog [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/nasa-rocket-launch-accidentally-lifts-frog-space/story?id=20237426 ABC News Coverage] and Space Bat [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts119/launchbat.html NASA Press Release]. --[[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]]) 00:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1524: Dimensions

2015-05-14T14:30:03Z

Run, you clever boy:

This almost seems to be making fun of the frivolity with which people discuss the existence of multiple dimensions without realizing what that actually means. Anyone else get that feeling?

Reminds me of http://xkcd.com/417/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patema_Inverted which make fun of dimensions too. {{unsigned ip|108.162.230.59}}
:Great - I will add 417. please sign you comment with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

My first thought about Title Text was that moving sideways (standard x or y axis) would be bad, but not as bad as moving upwards (standard z axis). Z direction would be my least favourite! --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.57|141.101.104.57]] 08:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The explanation looks more and more like a discussion. Four dimensions or eleven? I see that string theory "predicts 10 or 26 dimensions" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime). I think someone (but not me) should rewrite the discussion in a more comprehensive way.[[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 08:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

We might had a link to the 2 what-if related to move steadlily in one direction : http://what-if.xkcd.com/135/ and http://what-if.xkcd.com/64/ {{unsigned ip|188.114.101.12}}

Isn't the alt text a reference to the fact that a cartoon only has two physical dimensions? That's how time can be in his top three. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.113|141.101.99.113]] 09:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"Being pushed in one of the other directions could be lethal, if you where pushed hard enough against a rock, over a cliff or in front of a truck..."
Being pushed in the dimension of time is also ultimately fatal though. Push someone through time for long enough and they'll certainly die. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.92.8|141.101.92.8]] 09:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Why the hang up on fixed coordinate systems even though there isn't even a practical way to establish one. (To the best of my knowledge distance can only be measured relative to some object.) it's more likely that the top three dimensions would be along the lines of North/South, East/West and time which is a much more practical point of view.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.183|108.162.237.183]] 11:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

''So if it is in the top three out of four, it must be number one...''.
I don't agree. What if Randall would hate going to Zazane galaxy or Ottzello galaxy (X axis), but wouldn't mind going to Xanthrus spiral or Rizoku galazy (Y axis) [http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/spore/images/6/61/INTERGALACTIC_MAP-2.png/revision/latest?cb=20100616044044]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.144|108.162.238.144]] 13:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
:The argument would be that this is an arbitrary/anthropocentric classification of X, Y and Z that the universe neither confirms nor denies as the 'true' direction of the three dimensions (which can be in any direction, so long as each is perpendicular to the two others, in a Euclidean sense).
:(And personally. as opposed to the current description. I tend to think of x/y as the horizontal plane and z as vertical motion (up or down, depending on utility), in everyday use, although I'm flexible and will subscribe to one or other standard (and handedness of unit directions!) when dealing with other modelling systems. It's all easily convertible-between.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.79|141.101.99.79]] 17:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I was going to say that if we think of three dimensions simplistically as length-width-height, it might make sense for someone to have a least-favorite spatial dimension--maybe width, since we're always fighting increases in that one. But, I REALLY like the idea above that time would be in the "top three" dimensions for a TWO-dimensional comic-strip character! (Note that Randall plays with this in the Wired comic series linked above, noting that in a comic strip, a small movemement indicates movement through space, but a large one--like between panels--indicates time: see panel #15 in the series) Clever and Randall-esque idea!! I suggest adding this idea to the main text and taking out some of the other discussion around this point.[[User:Jv|Jv]] ([[User talk:Jv|talk]]) 16:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Could it be that the title text is purely playing with words, as in any list of length n (4 dimensions in the world of the comic), one can only have n-1 favourites, so Cueball can only have a top / favourite 3? [[User:Mb|Mb]] ([[User talk:Mb|talk]]) 20:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"Moving forward in time will also eventually be lethal by causing old age, ... But it is only possible to avoid these dangers by sidestepping them in one of the three spatial dimensions." - Wait! I can sidestep '''death'''? AWESOME! [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 20:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The explanation says his favourite co-ords could still be x,y and z. Shouldn't that really by r, phi, theta since that's the best system for a spherical Earth? Also, I don't think you need to mention special relativity, even in classical physics you consider time to be the fourth dimension, you just lack a co-ordinate transformation between space and time. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.193|141.101.98.193]] 15:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the statement: “pushed inexorably forward through time” not strike anyone as important to discuss and explain? A book by Dan Falk describes the ramifications were one able to move volitionally through time: http://tinyurl.com/l2btjfd.

The Greeks held that time flowed like a river through the present from the past. Others (?) suggest that time flowed from the future into the present. Randall poses that we are pushed forward through time. Who or what does the pushing? With what purpose? To what end?

Pushing suggests we’re unwilling to go forward. But so does pulling. Pulling, by the way, might imply gravitational forces at work. However, those almost never end well. [[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]]) 14:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1524: Dimensions

2015-05-14T14:28:26Z

Run, you clever boy: Pushing Isn't the Only Alternative

Talk:1381: Margin

2014-06-13T14:48:32Z

Run, you clever boy:

Isn't it possible that a mathematician knows about the existance or the proof of something, but doen't know how to technically do it? In this case, the margin remark would be accurate and not so funny. They have found a proof of existance for infinite information compression, but not yet discovered an actual method to do it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.56|141.101.104.56]] 05:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, when there's no example, it's called a {{w|pure existence theorem}}. If you actually demonstrate an example, that is a {{w|constructive proof}}. [[User:Mattflaschen|Mattflaschen]] ([[User talk:Mattflaschen|talk]]) 05:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
::Actually the proof of the Shannon-Hartley theorem is non-constructive. It tells you the data rate of the best possible channel coding, but does not tell you how to achieve it! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.47|108.162.215.47]] 07:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Setting font-size to 0 would be the same as not ''printing'' any information at all, you'll still use the same number of bits and be able to send the text to other computers which can read the information. The Shannon-Hartley theorem is, as far as I can see from the wikipedia article, about analogue channels anyway. --[[User:Buggz|Buggz]] ([[User talk:Buggz|talk]]) 06:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this also a reference to {{w|Jan Sloot}}'s digital compression mechanism where a movie would fit into 8 kbyte? [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 07:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This was my first time editing Explain XKCD, but I fear I may have went too far in replacing the current explanation of the title-text with my own and removing the incomplete tag. Is it OK? [[User:YatharthROCK|YatharthROCK]] ([[User talk:YatharthROCK|talk]]) 08:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
:I think you title text explain seems fine (I have not checked on the Shannon theorem.) But I think it is too soon to make this explain marked as complete. So I have undone that. Great to have one more to edit the explain so keep up the good work. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the problem behind Fermat's Last Theorem "deceptively simple" or "deceptively difficult"? I've never quite worked out which way it should be. Unlike "cheap at half the price" which really should be "cheap at twice the price" and the effect of putting in the word "only" into "glass ... half full/empty". But I bet you all could care less (or, more accurately, "''couldn't'' care less", because you already do not care at all), right? ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.232|141.101.98.232]] 11:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
:I believe the correct wording would be "deceptively difficult". Deceptively simple would imply that the problem looked quite difficult on the surface, but once work had begun it was found to be quite simple. Fermat's last theorem goes the other way. It is simply stated with very few elements, so it would seem the proof should be easily constructed, but is actually quite difficult.

Is it at all possible that the exclamation: "oh," represents the discovery of an earlier proof (perhaps even better than the one purported) all ready in the margin? That would explain the next exclamation: "never mind." This is a comic after all. And what's with the unreadable Lorem Ipsum text (perhaps a proof in itself)? Of course, the unhappy face (after "never mind") is a visual image compression mechanism that may deserve comment as well. [[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]]) 14:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

== Why bury descriptions of the beautiful inspiration behind these great comics in an afterthought "trivia" section? ==

I think explanations of the beautiful inspirations for these comics (like Fermat's last theorem, here) should be highlighted in the main part of the article, not buried below the transcript and demeaned with the label "trivia". [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 12:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1381: Margin

2014-06-13T14:42:24Z

Run, you clever boy:

Isn't it possible that a mathematician knows about the existance or the proof of something, but doen't know how to technically do it? In this case, the margin remark would be accurate and not so funny. They have found a proof of existance for infinite information compression, but not yet discovered an actual method to do it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.56|141.101.104.56]] 05:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, when there's no example, it's called a {{w|pure existence theorem}}. If you actually demonstrate an example, that is a {{w|constructive proof}}. [[User:Mattflaschen|Mattflaschen]] ([[User talk:Mattflaschen|talk]]) 05:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
::Actually the proof of the Shannon-Hartley theorem is non-constructive. It tells you the data rate of the best possible channel coding, but does not tell you how to achieve it! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.47|108.162.215.47]] 07:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Setting font-size to 0 would be the same as not ''printing'' any information at all, you'll still use the same number of bits and be able to send the text to other computers which can read the information. The Shannon-Hartley theorem is, as far as I can see from the wikipedia article, about analogue channels anyway. --[[User:Buggz|Buggz]] ([[User talk:Buggz|talk]]) 06:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this also a reference to {{w|Jan Sloot}}'s digital compression mechanism where a movie would fit into 8 kbyte? [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 07:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This was my first time editing Explain XKCD, but I fear I may have went too far in replacing the current explanation of the title-text with my own and removing the incomplete tag. Is it OK? [[User:YatharthROCK|YatharthROCK]] ([[User talk:YatharthROCK|talk]]) 08:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
:I think you title text explain seems fine (I have not checked on the Shannon theorem.) But I think it is too soon to make this explain marked as complete. So I have undone that. Great to have one more to edit the explain so keep up the good work. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the problem behind Fermat's Last Theorem "deceptively simple" or "deceptively difficult"? I've never quite worked out which way it should be. Unlike "cheap at half the price" which really should be "cheap at twice the price" and the effect of putting in the word "only" into "glass ... half full/empty". But I bet you all could care less (or, more accurately, "''couldn't'' care less", because you already do not care at all), right? ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.232|141.101.98.232]] 11:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
:I believe the correct wording would be "deceptively difficult". Deceptively simple would imply that the problem looked quite difficult on the surface, but once work had begun it was found to be quite simple. Fermat's last theorem goes the other way. It is simply stated with very few elements, so it would seem the proof should be easily constructed, but is actually quite difficult.

Is it at all possible that the exclamation: "oh," represents the discovery of an earlier proof (perhaps even better than the one purported) all ready in the margin? That would explain the next exclamation: "never mind." This is a comic after all. And what's with the unreadable Lorem Ipsum text (perhaps a proof in itself)? [[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]]) 14:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

== Why bury descriptions of the beautiful inspiration behind these great comics in an afterthought "trivia" section? ==

I think explanations of the beautiful inspirations for these comics (like Fermat's last theorem, here) should be highlighted in the main part of the article, not buried below the transcript and demeaned with the label "trivia". [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 12:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1381: Margin

2014-06-13T14:36:50Z

Run, you clever boy: Obvious oversight or no?

Isn't it possible that a mathematician knows about the existance or the proof of something, but doen't know how to technically do it? In this case, the margin remark would be accurate and not so funny. They have found a proof of existance for infinite information compression, but not yet discovered an actual method to do it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.56|141.101.104.56]] 05:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, when there's no example, it's called a {{w|pure existence theorem}}. If you actually demonstrate an example, that is a {{w|constructive proof}}. [[User:Mattflaschen|Mattflaschen]] ([[User talk:Mattflaschen|talk]]) 05:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
::Actually the proof of the Shannon-Hartley theorem is non-constructive. It tells you the data rate of the best possible channel coding, but does not tell you how to achieve it! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.47|108.162.215.47]] 07:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Setting font-size to 0 would be the same as not ''printing'' any information at all, you'll still use the same number of bits and be able to send the text to other computers which can read the information. The Shannon-Hartley theorem is, as far as I can see from the wikipedia article, about analogue channels anyway. --[[User:Buggz|Buggz]] ([[User talk:Buggz|talk]]) 06:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this also a reference to {{w|Jan Sloot}}'s digital compression mechanism where a movie would fit into 8 kbyte? [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 07:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This was my first time editing Explain XKCD, but I fear I may have went too far in replacing the current explanation of the title-text with my own and removing the incomplete tag. Is it OK? [[User:YatharthROCK|YatharthROCK]] ([[User talk:YatharthROCK|talk]]) 08:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
:I think you title text explain seems fine (I have not checked on the Shannon theorem.) But I think it is too soon to make this explain marked as complete. So I have undone that. Great to have one more to edit the explain so keep up the good work. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the problem behind Fermat's Last Theorem "deceptively simple" or "deceptively difficult"? I've never quite worked out which way it should be. Unlike "cheap at half the price" which really should be "cheap at twice the price" and the effect of putting in the word "only" into "glass ... half full/empty". But I bet you all could care less (or, more accurately, "''couldn't'' care less", because you already do not care at all), right? ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.232|141.101.98.232]] 11:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
:I believe the correct wording would be "deceptively difficult". Deceptively simple would imply that the problem looked quite difficult on the surface, but once work had begun it was found to be quite simple. Fermat's last theorem goes the other way. It is simply stated with very few elements, so it would seem the proof should be easily constructed, but is actually quite difficult.

Is it at all possible that the exclamation: "oh," represents the discovery of an earlier proof (perhaps even better than the one purported) all ready in the margin? That would explain the next exclamation: "never mind." This is a comic after all. [[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]]) 14:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

== Why bury descriptions of the beautiful inspiration behind these great comics in an afterthought "trivia" section? ==

I think explanations of the beautiful inspirations for these comics (like Fermat's last theorem, here) should be highlighted in the main part of the article, not buried below the transcript and demeaned with the label "trivia". [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 12:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Run, you clever boy

2014-05-12T20:00:35Z

Run, you clever boy: Created page with "I agree with [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/User:Someone_Else_37 Someone Else 37]. I created this page because I don't like having the red link show up whenever I ..."

I agree with [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/User:Someone_Else_37 Someone Else 37]. I created this page because I don't like having the red link show up whenever I post a comment on talk pages. Thank you Someone Else 37.

User talk:Run, you clever boy

2014-05-10T18:04:23Z

Run, you clever boy:

User talk:Run, you clever boy

2014-05-10T18:01:45Z

Run, you clever boy: Run, you clever boy user page

Talk:1365: Inflation

2014-05-10T01:07:13Z

Run, you clever boy: Axis of evil relevant to comic explanation?

Space Jam! - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.225.147|108.162.225.147]] 04:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.63.186|173.245.63.186]] 04:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117705/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.63.186|173.245.63.186]] 04:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My first guess was a reference to the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6zqHKd265E Chaos Dunk], but the specific reference to Michael Jordan makes me doubt that. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.61|108.162.221.61]] 01:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a reference to the 'SH' (for Stephen Hawking) found in WMAP data? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18489-found-hawkings-initials-written-into-the-universe.html [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.85|173.245.53.85]] 23:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I got "basketball" and "Space Jam", but I didn't get why it said Spalding on it. From reading the explanation, I'm guessing it's a brand. Thanks, because I never would have made the connection. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 05:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

<strike>Why did Randall choose a basketball? A rugby ball or an american football would fit the shape better</strike> [[User:Condor70|Condor70]] ([[User talk:Condor70|talk]]) 06:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
:Because of the curving lines like a basketball on the image. [[User:Fizzle|Fizzle]] ([[User talk:Fizzle|talk]]) 06:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
::Added the reasoning for choosing a basketball to represent the universe [[User:Condor70|Condor70]] ([[User talk:Condor70|talk]]) 08:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
:::I have never heard of the Basketball version - in DK I have mainly heard of it like a balloon. The link is to a book - could someone find a link to a short article where this analogy is used? Also I agree that if you do not know a basketballs lines you would never think of that from the image - as it much more looks like an American football due to the shape. Of course the Space Jam/Michael Jordan title text makes it clear that it is a basketball. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
::::The only other reference I could find is [http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/inflation.html]. I remember the analogy from a Discovery Channel program.[[User:Condor70|Condor70]] ([[User talk:Condor70|talk]]) 15:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
:This is no basketball! The lines on a basketball are different. On a basketball every line intersects exactly 4 times with other lines. {{unsigned ip|141.101.97.203}}
::Looks like a basketball (example [http://tf3dm.com/imgd/l20568-official-nba-spalding-basketball-86751.jpeg]). Remember that the Mollweide projection distorts the lines.[[User:Condor70|Condor70]] ([[User talk:Condor70|talk]]) 15:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
:::Person two comments above is correct. Take either the east or west hemisphere (according to the orientation of the globe as presented in this comic) and then rotate it 90 degrees (on the globe, not on the silly eliptical projection) and ''then'' you have the basketball I grew up with. Has it changed in the last 20 years? Condor70's linked image doesn't show enough of the ball's surface to be conclusive on this point. Images on Wikipedia seem to indicate the rib/seam pattern may vary by ball manufacturer; the “official” NBA/Spalding ball image there doesn't show enough of the ball's surface either. — Vid the Kid [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.77|108.162.216.77]] 17:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
::::The lines are exactly like the example I mentioned. Line 1 makes a complete circle top to bottom, lines 2 and 3 are not circles, but curved, also top to bottom and line 4 is also a circle and intersects all lines twice by going front to back. In the image you see line 4 as a horizontal line, lines 1 and 2 as circles and line 3 is split, partly visible on the left and partly on the right.[[User:Condor70|Condor70]] ([[User talk:Condor70|talk]]) 05:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Should the image not be updated to the current one on XKCD? Then this image could be saved on XKCD and linked to from the explanation on the error. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What's a basketball? (explain like i'm five <duck>) [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 14:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Megan is not looking at the "actual image captured by the BICEP2 instrument", because BICEP2 has only a 20 degree field of view (targed at the "Southern Hole") http://www.caltech.edu/content/building-bicep2-conversation-jamie-bock {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.73}}
:Correct. The image is from the WMAP.[[User:Condor70|Condor70]] ([[User talk:Condor70|talk]]) 15:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

When I look at the comic at xkcd.com, the bottom image is reversed and 'SPALDING' is backwards (and so thus hard to make out). Is this true for anyone else? --[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 15:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
: Noted above, I think. Haven't checked out any explanation but I'm betting someone pointed out "but, it'd have to backwards, as viewed from inside", thus Randall reversed it. A pity, because you're right about it being not as readable. (I'm ''used'' to mirror-writing... but combined with the rest of the image noisiness (unflipped) the reversed version comes out more like "Spajjing" or even "Soajjing", to me, the right-way-round one not suffering from inconveniently-placed splodges ruining the effect.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 16:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"''The concept of an expanding universe is often explained by comparing it with a basketball''"
: "Often" ??? I get that a basketball is used in the comic, to allow for the Space Jam joke. But in all the explanations of an expanding universe I've ever seen, nobody has ever used a basketball. It's always been a balloon. Which makes a great deal more sense since a balloon, unlike a basketball, is something folks typically see actually expand. Claiming a basketball is "often" used seems forced here, an attempt to wedge in a unneeded justification for the Comcast's punchline. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.84|199.27.128.84]] 17:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
::Comcast is offended by your implications regarding their punchline. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 05:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If I understand the basketball analogy correctly you can neiter be inside nor outside the ball, so why would it matter if the logo is reversed or not? You can't actually see the entire ball from anywhere in the universe. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.62|173.245.53.62]] 17:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
:True, but then you'd see the logo edge-on, which would make it impossible to read and ruin the joke. --[[User:Someone Else 37|Someone Else 37]] ([[User talk:Someone Else 37|talk]]) 22:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This could also be a joke on the {{w|Holographic Principle}}, where everything inside a volume (such as the universe or the interior of a basketball) can be encoded into a surface surrounding that volume. Here, Randall seems to propose that WMAP has seen through the universe to its surface, and revealed its true nature. --[[User:Someone Else 37|Someone Else 37]] ([[User talk:Someone Else 37|talk]]) 22:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Is the so-called Axis of Evil relevant here? The gist is that the CMB is spuriously (?) aligned with the ecliptic plane. See Wikipedia for overview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle#Ecliptic_alignment_of_cosmic_microwave_background_anisotropy), Sabine Hossenfelder's Backreaction blog for details (http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2006/12/anomalous-alignments-in-cosmic.html), and consider adding this png to explanation, please (http://www.phys.cwru.edu/projects/mpvectors/images/paper3/map_teg_3.png). Also, the AoE has a basketball like appearance. [[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]]) 01:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)