Now on ScienceBlogs: Where Were You When...?
A blag for math, physics and the New Enlightenment
Blake Stacey is a physics boffin and science-fiction writer who wandered the Earth and eventually settled in the nation-state of Denial.
« Social and Administrative Notes | Main | The Downside of Monomania »
Posted on: January 5, 2009 12:19 PM, by Blake Stacey
Today's xkcd was insufficiently nerdy for me.
Yes, that's right.
In order to make the comic adequately reflect what I do on a daily basis, I have at least to modify the temperature conversion chart:
Additionally, I should note that temperature ranges also map to clothing styles: between about 276 and 285 kelvins, I look like a Carl Sagan impersonator. For several kelvins below that, I'm a film-noir refugee. Eventually, I break out the Cossack fur hat.
Find more posts in: 
Physical Science
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/89575
Uncertain Principles 11.08.2009
Neurotopia 11.09.2009
The Primate Diaries 11.09.2009
Stoat 11.07.2009
Tomorrow's Table 11.07.2009
![[sex and science]](http://www.sunclipse.org/downloads/sexandscience3.png)
Comments
Also, it should be noted that at -40ºC no conversion is needed.
Posted by: Martín Pereyra | January 5, 2009 1:27 PM
And that, in this case, the raptor on the hoverboard is trying to catch up with a DeLorean.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 5, 2009 1:32 PM
Kelvins?
Posted by: Sili | January 5, 2009 4:24 PM
Sure, why not? It's basically a unit, like the joule.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 5, 2009 4:30 PM
Spit doesn't clunk at 233.
That is, as long as you are cleaning up for Munro, you might as well fix that, too.
Posted by: Jonathan | January 6, 2009 2:31 AM
When I think in Kelvins, though, "cold" is 104 ...
Posted by: mollishka | January 6, 2009 8:37 AM
I was amused by the fact that a caption weighs 100 grams (as much as a cellphone), at least when placed above a cat.
Posted by: Ben | January 6, 2009 4:10 PM
I suppose it's just a rounding issue, but Usain Bolt's new world record in the 100-meter dash at last year's Olympics was 9.76 seconds--so 10.2459 m/s, not 10.
Sure, sure, the idea is to establish reference points, but from a purely nerdy standpoint, doesn't it matter that a "human" running 10 m/s would have been running at the back of that race, and thus would clearly not be the "fastest human"?
Posted by: Rieux | January 7, 2009 12:00 AM