The quick brown °C jumps over the lazy °F. Temperature rises in TIL over the use temperature scales. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
90 ups - 34 downs = 56 votes
37 comments submitted at 02:48:45 on May 19, 2014 by WildCivil
The quick brown °C jumps over the lazy °F. Temperature rises in TIL over the use temperature scales. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
90 ups - 34 downs = 56 votes
37 comments submitted at 02:48:45 on May 19, 2014 by WildCivil
Some people seem not to grasp that whatever you're used to is the more intuitive scale. Whether it be 180 cm or 71 inches, 10°C or 50F, or 10€ or $14, whatever you're used to is what you have feel is more obvious.
Fahrenheit's scale from 0-100 works perfectly for weather. In a temperate climate, 0F is roughly the coldest it will get all year, and 100 is roughly the hottest. 70, a "C average" by grade scale, is room temperature. It all works out fine.
Neither system is objectively better, but Fahrenheit-weather is sensible, unlike what "lol arbitrary as fuck 0-212" celsius pushers might have to say about it.
> 0F is roughly the coldest it will get all year, and 100 is roughly the hottest.
Depends hugely on where you live. When I lived in Oslo, Norway, the hottest temperature I ever experienced was something like 30C (86F), and the coldest something like -25C (-13F). And Oslo isn't especially cold compared to a lot of places in the Nordics (or Russia or Canada, for that matter).
While here in Trondheim the range is considerably narrower. Coldest in the last twelve months was -16C (3F), and hottest was 26C (80F). 100F is unheard of. Literally; the highest temperature ever recorded in Norway was 35.6C (96.1F). On the other hand, the coldest recorded was -51.4C (-60.5F).
The idea of a 0 to 100 scale covering normal temperature is nonsensical.
> The idea of a 0 to 100 scale covering normal temperature is nonsensical.
Exactly, especially since you could say almost the same for Celsius:
It is working perfectly for weather, +40C and -40C are also roughly the coldest and warmest, and it have the advantage that "when it's under 0 you should be careful where you walk/drive because it's probably icy".
By the way: hello norwegian friend, had a good syttende mai?
Exactly. There's no real advantage to either system beyond celsius being based on the properties of water. Basically everything else is purely subjective.
Yeah, 17th may was nice. Great weather here; just short of being too hot. Unlike today; going outside in a suit would be horrible today. Something like 24C outside.
Also, Celsius converts very nicely to Kelvin, which is a plus for any scientists/engineers. Although I'd imagine American and Myanmarian scientists probably use metric units anyway.
Worth noting that that's purely due to Kelvin being based on Celsius though. It's not an inherent advantage of the Celsius scale itself, just an advantage of popularity.
Oh, absolutely. Not that popularity isn't a valid advantage, though.
I believe there's an alternative 'Kelvin' for Fahrenheit, the Rankine scale.
Popularity is a significant advantage, definitely. I'd say it is really Celsius' biggest advantage.
No one uses Rankine though, not even Americans.
I have a 4-year biochemistry degree from a major American university, and I had never heard of the Rankine scale before. So yeah, not used here at all
The properties of water under 1 atmospheric pressure. It's pretty much all subjective.
Most of humanity luckily lives in areas with roughly 1 atm.
I spent a week in Norway a few years back. I don't remember where in Norway it was but the temperature was a consistent -19 °C (It was late December).
Could be pretty much anywhere other than the western or southern coast, that. Anywhere inland will get that cold frequently, while the coast is a lot milder.
Do different climates not exist in your world?
Where I grew up, 0°F was the absolute coldest it could get, and 80°F was the absolute hottest. The range was more likely to be something like 10°F to 70°F on the average year.
>Fahrenheit's scale from 0-100 works perfectly for weather. In a temperate climate,
Why exactly should a temperature scale be chosen based on a temperate climate? Most people don't live in a temperate climate. Where I am now it goes over 100F every hot season and never goes below 60F even in the depths of winter.
>0F is roughly the coldest it will get all year, and 100 is roughly the hottest.
Even in my home country, which is a temperate climate, we never see either of those two extremes. Temperatures range between around -5C (~25F) (really unbelievably cold, the entire country shuts down until it warms up a bit, senior citizens die) and +25C (~75F) (really really hot, Jaysus you'd melt in that, senior citizens die).
>70, a "C average" by grade scale, is room temperature. It all works out fine.
Or 20 in Celsius. Are you honestly arguing that 70 is somehow "inherently" better as a number than 20?
>Neither system is objectively better, but Fahrenheit-weather is sensible, unlike what "lol arbitrary as fuck 0-212" celsius pushers might have to say about it.
It is honestly whatever you grew up with and are used to, the idea that weather "makes more sense" in Fahrenheit is really really stupid. Fahrenheit is utterly meaningless for weather for me, I have no idea what those numbers mean.