3001: Temperature Scales

|< < Prev Comic #3001 (October 21, 2024)

Temperature Scales

Title text: In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed.

Explanation

This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by an EXPONENTIAL TEMPERATURE SYSTEM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon. If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

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

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

Unit	Water Freezes	Water Boils	Notes	Cursedness	Explanation
Celsius	0	100	Used in most of the world	2/10	Celsius is defined (indirectly, these days, by way of comparison to Kelvin) so that the freezing and boiling points of pure water at standard atmospheric pressure are 0 and 100 degrees respectively. This (along with Kelvin) is considered the least cursed temperature system (at least from those where the ranking values make any sense), likely due to Randall's background. Notably it is still considered a 2/10, implying an inherent degree of cursedness for all systems.
Kelvin	273.15	373.15	0K is absolute zero	2/10	Kelvin is a scientific unit of measure invented by Lord Kelvin that intends to use the same scale as degrees Celsius, but is offset by 273.15, in order to set the zero point is set to absolute zero (by way of using the Boltzmann constant, as of 2019). Kelvin and Celsius are, by far, the most common units used in scientific measurements and calculations. Their utility and inherent logical is likely what makes them the least "cursed".
Fahrenheit	32	212	Outdoors in most places is between 0–100	3/10	Fahrenheit is officially used in several countries across the globe, and unofficially in several others. It was originally defined from the Rømer scale[citation needed] by multiplying its values by 4, recalibrating the scale for the melting of ice and body temperature[citation needed] and slightly changed the number for better divisibility. At this point, it was noticed that the boiling point of water seemingly became around 212 °oF instead of the 256 it was supposed to and redefined the scale so that the freezing point of water became exactly 32 °F and its boiling point exactly 212 °F. Despite this somewhat chaotic development and arbitrary fixed points, it gained usage, primarily in Anglophone countries, likely due to the scale being intuitively useful for some common functions (the range roughly matches the typical span of weather conditions, and the 100 point is near normal human body temperature). While it was largely displaced by the Celsius scale, the US (Randall's home country) continues to typically use it. It is ranked as slightly more cursed than Celsius[citation needed]
Réaumur	0	80	Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100	3/8	A historical French system used in some places until the early 20th century. In modern times mostly used in cheesemaking. The rating (3/8) is a joke on the boiling point of water in standard atmosphere being 80 instead of 100 as it is in Celsius; converting this to an out-of-ten scale would give 3.75/10, labelling it as more cursed than Fahrenheit but less so than Rømer.
Rømer	7.5	60	Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design	4/10	Created by the Danish astronomer Ole Christensen Rømer in around 1702, while the Fahrenheit scale was proposed in 1724.
Rankine	491.7	671.7	An absolute scale, with 0°R set to absolute zero, but using the Fahrenheit scale.	6/10	Randall has shown disdain for this before, like in 2292: Thermometer. The scale is mostly obsolete, but is still occasionally used in legacy industrial operations where absolute temperature scales are required.
Newton	0	33-ish	Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in"	7-ish/10	Created by Isaac Newton, measuring "degrees of heat". The rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
Wedgwood	–8	–6.7	Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about	9/10	Created by potter Josiah Wedgwood in the 18th century. The measurement was based on the shrinking of clay when heated above red heat, but was found to be very inaccurate. Randall has a typo, as the scale is called Wedgwood (without the e).
Galen	–4?	4??	Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?)	4/–4	Galen, in his medical writings, is said to have proposed a standard "neutral" temperature made up of equal quantities of boiling water and ice; on either side of this temperature were four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold, respectively. The rating (4/–4) is a joke about the scale being defined between positive and negative 4, and could be interpreted as –100% cursedness.
Real Celsius	100	0	In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are colder; others later flipped it	10/0	As most scales' temperatures can be indefinitely large but there exists an absolute minimum temperature, defining the scale in this way (giving an absolute maximum but allowing indefinitely negative values) is indeed cursed, as nearly all possible temperatures will be negative. The rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. This might be interpreted as "infinitely cursed", or else just Not a Number. The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a column of mercury at the temperature of boiling water, and further measurements then made of the amount it reduced in height under cooler conditions. This direction 'survives' in the historic Delisle scale, which predates (and arguably helped greatly inspire, though with a different factor) the classic version of °C. The version originally used by Anders was only 'corrected' posthumously, but nobody seemed bothered enough to do the same with Delisle's scale.
Dalton	0	100	A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton	53.9/50	John Dalton proposed a logarithmic temperature scale. The scale is defined so that absolute zero is at negative infinity, with the exponent chosen to match Celsius at 0 and 100. While Dalton temperature is defined for all positive and negative numbers, the nonlinear scale is difficult to work with since the amount of heat represented by a change of one degree Dalton is not constant. Degrees Dalton differs from Celcius by as much as 3.9 degrees between 0 and 100, but diverges much more for more extreme temperatures. The rating (53.9/50) is a joke about the unit, as 53.9 Dalton would be 50 degrees Celsius — i.e. the cursedness could be understood as 50/50 (or 10/10, entirely cursed), but perhaps instead as 107.8% (even more than entirely cursed).
°X (Randall's new temperature scale as defined in the title text)	41.9	154.4	Title text: "In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed."	∞ (estimated)	Usually temperature records are measured 1 m above ground as surface temperatures can be much higher. It is uncertain if Randall actually meant surface or just normal temperature records as the ones mentioned here. The record lowest temperature on Earth is –89.2°C (–128.6°F), recorded at the Vostok Research Station in Antarctica on July 21, 1983. This would then be set to 0°X unless it is surface temperature instead. The hottest ever average temperature of Earth as of 2024 is 17.16°C (62.9°F.) on 22 July 2024. [1][2][3]. However it is the average temperature not the record temperature that should be used. This would then be set to 50°X but the question is if this should change on a daily basis or depend on a yearly average? But definitely not the highest ever average that should be used. Also again this is not the average surface temperature. The record highest temperature is 56.7°C (134.1°F), recorded on July 10, 1913 at Furnace Creek Ranch in Death Valley, California. This is though disputed and 54°C (129.2 °F) seems a more reasonable record, which has been recorded more than once in recent years. This would then be set to 100°X unless it is surface temperature instead. Surface temperatures on the ground of up to 90°C has been recorded, in Furnace Creek up to 94°C (201°F). See also 2701: Change in Slope.

Transcript

This transcript is incomplete. Please help editing it! Thanks.

Temperature Scales

[A table with five columns, labelled: Unit, water freezing point, water boiling point, notes, cursedness. There are eleven rows below the labels.]

[Row 1:] Celsius, 0, 100, Used in most of the world, 2/10

[Row 2:] Kelvin, 273.15, 373.15, 0K is absolute zero, 2/10

[Row 3:] Fahrenheit, 32, 212, Outdoors in most places is between 0–100, 3/10

[Row 4:] Réaumur, 0, 80, Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100, 3/8

[Row 5:] Rømer, 7.5, 60, Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design, 4/10,

[Row 6:] Rankine, 491.7, 671.7, Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero, 6/10

[Row 7:] Newton, 0, 33-ish, Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in", 7-ish/10

[Row 8:] Wedgewood, –8, –6.7, Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about, 9/10

[Row 9:] Galen, –4?, 4??, Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?), 4/–4

[Row 10:] Real Celsius, 100, 0, In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are colder; others later flipped it, 10/0

[Row 11:] Dalton, 0, 100, A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton, 53.9/50

 add a comment! ⋅  add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅  refresh comments!

Discussion

Shouldn't Rankine say "0ºR is set to absolute zero"? 172.70.230.29 (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Yep. 162.158.186.253 04:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

yo,i thought comic 300 was anticlimactic so randall would make this one COOL but sadly not Same. Hope he does something cool for 3072.172.69.134.225 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

really he didn't do anything special for this either? come ON randall if you don't do something cool for comic 3072 i will come to your house personally and yell at you RadiantRainwing (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
What's random about Fahrenheit? (Answer: nothing.) 0F is the freezing point of brine, 100F (or 98.7) is the human body temperature. 172.68.54.65 00:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What concentration of brine? (And which specific salt... No, not NaCl, as you might presume but NH₄Cl!)

And body temperature varies a lot ('typically' 36.5–37.5°C or 97.7–99.5°F, though even this range is thought to be too small), across genders, individuals, time of day and which orifices/surfaces you try to measure it from. (Originally, it was set so that 90°F was to be the 'best guess' of human body temperature. It gradually changed, including via various compounded misunderstandings so that the best you can say is that 100°F is arbitrarily slightly above most afebrile human body temperature measurements.)

Celsius might be a bit off (arguments about triple-point or STP freezing, etc), but it still has far more physical logic to it. 172.70.160.188 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Randall, for my comfort, Fahrenheit is the least cursed. It's the best scale to use for my personal use, especially when hearing the weather report and deciding what to wear outdoors: temp in the 80's - no jacket. temp in 70's - maybe a windbreaker if it's breezy. 60's - sweater weather. 50's - medium weight coat. 40's - winter coat. 30'3 - winter coat with scarf and gloves. 20's - multiple layers. teens - stay indoors. None of the other scales provide such convenient distinctions for my daily life. Kelvin is great for astro physics or super conductivity, but useless for any common uses. Celsius is great for hanging out with the Euro crowd but still not so useful to scale my home thermostat. I judge Fahrenheit as 1.0 for cursedness. Rtanenbaum (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I conveniently use Celsius in tens, also. Negative °C: Cold; 0-10°C: Nippy; 10-20°C: Generally pleasant; 20-30°C: Too warm to exert oneself; 30°C+: Definitely too warm. 172.70.86.205 15:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm most disappointed that Delisle scale was not represented... 172.70.160.188 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I was so hoping for a Planck temperature quip. Like: "Water freezing point: 0; Water boiling point: 0; Notes: 1 = highest possible temperature (1.4E32K) where thermal radiation creates black holes; Cursedness: 0/0" 162.158.164.184 01:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Same here. Freezing is 0.000000000000000000000000000001928 and boiling is 0.0000000000000000000000000000026338. DanielLC (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow, those are even smaller than the IEEE floating point representations of 1-1.0/3*3! 162.158.90.109 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong in my comment on the last comic. sigh. -P?sych??otic?pot??at???o (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's actually spelled Wedgwood scale, not Wedgewood. Wilh3lm (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I still call the modern version of the "Celsius" scale "centigrade", but if people start nitpicking, I'm happy to switch to "Carolus" to avoid ambiguity. For some reason that tends to annoy people more though. 172.68.22.191 01:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Every temperature scale is equally "random" as every other scale. People always say that Celsius is so much better because it's defined by the phase changes of water. Okay, cool...why should THAT of all things be what we use as the base for a system of temperature measurement? And, who cares? I'm a Homo sapiens, not a water molecule. If anything we should use the freezing and melting points of humans as our two reference points for temperature (which, I must say, Fahrenheit approximates better than Celsius, assuming 0 and 100 are your points "A" and "B"). Pie Guy (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Every temperature scale is arbitrary, but since boiling and freezing water is a thing humans have a lot of experience with it makes sense to use that as the reference point. At least it makes more sense than whatever the coldest recorded temperature in Fahrenheit's home town was, because he didn't like negative numbers 172.70.250.23 03:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Planck temperature (as above) is probably the least arbitrary, and some would say it is to some extent free from arbitrariness. However, it's completely impractical for everyday use (as above.) 172.69.34.138 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Do the physics of black holes or neutron stars involve Planck temperatures greater than 0.0000001? Liv2splain (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Chat Gippity told me:

Black holes and neutron stars do not typically involve temperatures reaching the Planck scale. While both objects exhibit extreme physical conditions, their temperatures are far below the Planck temperature, even though they can be incredibly high compared to everyday phenomena.

- **Neutron stars** have surface temperatures in the range of millions of Kelvin, and the core can reach even higher, possibly up to a few billion Kelvin. These temperatures are still vastly lower than the Planck temperature.

- **Black holes**, especially the smaller ones, can emit Hawking radiation, with temperatures inversely proportional to their mass. However, the temperature of even a very small black hole is still far below the Planck temperature. Hawking radiation is not expected to reach temperatures close to the Planck scale under normal circumstances.

The Planck temperature (TP=1) represents an energy scale so extreme that no known physical models, including those describing black holes and neutron stars, operate near or above this threshold. Temperatures reaching **0.0000001 TP** (or 1.416 × 10^26 K) would still be beyond current observational and theoretical frameworks related to these cosmic objects. A quantum theory of gravity would be required to describe physics at or near the Planck temperature, which remains speculative and is far beyond the conditions found in black holes or neutron stars.

Liv2splain (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If the °X scale is based on the temperatures of Earth from all time (for some definition of "Earth"), then the scale is very hard to define and highly impractical. The earth appears to have gotten to more than 2,300 Kelvin (hot enough to melt steel and platinum and to boil lead) and while I can't find any sources for the lowest temperature, I imagine it is lower than -100°C. The recorded minimum, maximum and average temperatures appear to be around -89.2 °C, 56.7 °C and 15 °C respectively. This would make the scale somewhat useful, but this would make typical values between 41 °X (cold winter's day) and 68 °X (hot summers day) which I think is pretty cursed. I recommend the clearly superior °Y, based around average temp at 0 °Y, low at -100 °Y and high at 100 °Y. These would be measured by the yearly high, low and mean temperatures averaged per person. Then saying "It's 2 times colder than yesterday" would have some reasonable meaning. --198.41.236.147 04:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

"Record ... surface temperature" implies it was recorded. 172.68.22.9 04:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

How do you all feel about adding an additional column for room temperature 22C/72F?

Unit	Room temperature
Celsius	22
Kelvin	295
Fahrenheit	72
Réaumur	18
Rømer	18
Rankine	531
Newton	7
Wedgwood	-7
Galen	0
Real Celsius	78
°X	58

Or 0.00000000000000000000000000000208 °Planck, lol. 108.162.245.211 05:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel like decigalens would be the most practical unit. Who's with me? 162.158.186.5 06:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's interesting; calculating the equilibrium temperature (with 2.05 and 4.24 being used for the heat capacities of ice and boiling water) gives 67... If I use water that's about to freeze and steam, I get 31. 172.69.0.178 07:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Would you please explain in more detail? Liv2splain (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The equilibrium temperature of a mixture (?) of equal quantities of ice at 0 C and water at 100 C (with the heat capacities 2.05 and 4.24) is 67 C; if I use the data for water at 0 C and steam, I get 31 C. Additionally, if I use equal volumes, I get 68 (which isn't much different.) 172.69.0.178 17:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding the X scale - when it‘s defined by *three* (somewhat, implying average is real and not just calculated by (max-min)/2)) independent points, how will linearity be achieved? 162.158.155.76 05:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Or click "[Expand]" in the bottom right table cell Derivation.

Please see 2701: Change in Slope. 172.70.206.179 05:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, "a linear scale between each point":

Here you go. Liv2splain (talk) 06:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The reference for the average surface temperature, https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html, suggests it has increased above 15°C. What value should we use in late 2024? Liv2splain (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The World Meteorological Organization, Carbon Brief, and Copernicus Climate Change Service suggest 17.16°C. Liv2splain (talk) 07:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Updated water temperatures, Derivation, and graph. So we've already had more than the +2°C warming we were trying to avoid in 2019? Liv2splain (talk) 08:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding [4], are the average surface temperatures from the sources supposed to be yearly or overall averages? Liv2splain (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

where is the interactive epic 3000 comic we should've gotten? This one's cool but 1000 seemed to have more effort in it and 2000 was at least tangetially related. Does Randall just not like making these anymore and is only making more comics as a business? 108.162.238.185 12:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The comic is free on the website and it doesn't have ads; although the comic is part of his "brand" there are many more profitable things he could be doing with his time, and yet he continues to update it every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. I just don't like the idea of claiming that a creative person "should" produce any particular thing to satisfy their fans. He's a busy guy! Maybe he's working on a book, or a Scientific American article, or a TV show. He's under no obligation to give us anything, and maybe one day he'll stop making xkcd altogether; that's his choice. Sorry to single you out; I know a lot of people feel the same way as you do, but to me it doesn't make sense. He's not a content machine--he's a guy who started posting sketches on the internet. Dextrous Fred (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded overly brash, I wasn't trying to imply "wahhh no special entry wahhh", I was just wondering if Randall still likes to make these or if he doesn't, mainly because he just didn't do anything special, which feels like he just didn't care. I wasn't trying to imply Randall should just do it for the fans108.162.238.80 17:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this the first list-style comic where every single entry is real? (Usually he has several joke entries.) 172.70.114.182 14:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)