Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I like Fahrenheit better, It's nice to have the temperatures take the full range of 0-100, Celsius is too condensed and results in too many negative temperatures. And says, 40s or 70s in °F are similar enough you could use them to describe approximate temperatures, you can't do that in Celsius.
The frequent complaint about Fahrenheit is it's arbitrary, maybe but its arbitarness results in most annual temperatures in a temperate location fitting nicely between 0°F to 100°F. Some oceanic and tropical locations have a narrower range, but it'd even narrower in °C. Ok, so the temperature of boiling water is 212°F. So what? That temperature is never encountered on weather in earth. Remember 32°F is freezing is not hard. One of the biggest benefits of the metric system is simple conversion between units (e.g. meters to kilometers) But temperatures are never converted between different units within the same system (I'm excluding Kelvin since it's only used for scientific applications and not that much for meteorology).
The problem is we are set in or ways as Americans. For example, football is measured in yards. We'd need to convert the length to meters which wouldn't be clean. It would be about 81 meters off the the top my head. Then you have driving distance which would throw people off too. At least km/h is on your speedometer though.
When Canada went metric football remained in yards and the field remained 110 yards long. I believe golf courses are still in yards too. We still buy 2X4s but when was the last time they were 2 inches by 4 inches.
I grew up before the metric system and learnt both the Imperial and the American systems of meaurments. Liquid mesurements are differnt as the Imperail gallon is 160 fl oz. When we converted metric it took some time to get comfortable but it is easily do able. For a long time I used Celicus for outside temp and F for inside as the thermostats in the places I lived were of the older time. Now I somtimes convert and sometimes do not and I still have an old F termostat but if I bought a new one that was changeable I would go for the metric one. It was a bit odd driving in Scotland with the distance in miles and the fuel in litres.
Cameras lenses are given in millimeters, the bolts in most cars are metric and science in primarily metric. It is all very learnable and although it would be odd for people already used of the Imperial system if a change was made there would always be a time that most people would not know it and others are too young to know Imperial and will grow up with the metric system.
To be fair, that's a matter of what you're used to. If you grew up with Celsius you would have an intuitive feel for temperatures given in Celsius. Learning a new system is like learning a new language.
Well, of course. You get used to whatever system you use. My point was that in Fahrenheit, people have a "feel" for ALL the temperatures from 0 to 100. This is not true for Celsius, which negates the supposed benefit of having a 0 to 100 scale.
Think of it this way. It's a really, really blazing hot day. You ask people who are not familiar with either Fahrenheit or Celsius, "On a scale of 0 to 100, how hot do you think it is?"
Someone says, "About 98!"
Someone else answers, "Um, 95!"
Or, maybe, "100! This is as hot as it gets!"
These estimates all fit nicely with the Fahrenheit scale. Is anyone going to say, "On a scale of 0 to 100, today feels like a 37" ?
That's the point. 0-100 for air temperature in Fahrenheit is intuitive on a human level. 0-100 in Celsius is not.
Well, of course. You get used to whatever system you use. My point was that in Fahrenheit, people have a "feel" for ALL the temperatures from 0 to 100. This is not true for Celsius, which negates the supposed benefit of having a 0 to 100 scale.
Think of it this way. It's a really, really blazing hot day. You ask people who are not familiar with either Fahrenheit or Celsius, "On a scale of 0 to 100, how hot do you think it is?"
Someone says, "About 98!"
Someone else answers, "Um, 95!"
Or, maybe, "100! This is as hot as it gets!"
These estimates all fit nicely with the Fahrenheit scale. Is anyone going to say, "On a scale of 0 to 100, today feels like a 37" ?
That's the point. 0-100 for air temperature in Fahrenheit is intuitive on a human level. 0-100 in Celsius is not.
All that you have pointed out above does indeed happen exactly the same with celcius, we can say how hot or cold we think it is without needing a scale of 0 to 100... We have a "feel" for all temperatures that are likely to ever be expected too...
All that you have pointed out above does indeed happen exactly the same with celcius, we can say how hot or cold we think it is without needing a scale of 0 to 100... We have a "feel" for all temperatures that are likely to ever be expected too...
Sure, okay, that's been established... But WHY then is it so great that you have a scale in which "0 is freezing water" and "100 is boiling water" ? How does that logical metric 0-100 scale benefit you in any way or help you use your system better on a daily basis?
It makes little sense to boast about the logic of a system based on water temperature when 99% of the time, what 99% of people on Earth are measuring is air temperature.
I agree. When I've asked people why Celsius is so much better than Fahrenheit, they always state, "Because freezing water is 0 and boiling water is 100." Well, so what? How often are you taking the temperature of water? How does that help you when what you are measuring almost all the time is air temperature?
When people use the Fahrenheit scale, they have an intuitive grasp of the actual feeling of temperatures from 0 all the way to 100. And the ranges in groups of 10 are useful. Say the temps are in the 70s, or in the 90s, and I will know exactly what you mean.
In Celsius, it makes no sense to say the temperature is in the 20s. That's way too wide a range to be useful. You have to be precise all the time. Or, ask about Celsius temps of 60, 70, or 80 and people will just look at you blankly because they have no idea what those temperatures are like in real life. Numbers between 40 and 100 are basically never used. All those wasted numbers, just so you can say water boils at 100.
We would say the low, mid or high 20s so that is more precise than saying the 20s. When the temps are in the 30s I know that our house will not stay cool for long and it is hot, when it does get into the 40s I know it is too hot, when the tempertaure gets below -25 it is time to plug in the car. What about oven temperatures? One can make an arguement why they way they are used to doing something, or how they measure something is more logical or intuitive but all it really means is that is what they are used to doing. I was not particularily fond of when we converted in Canada but now that I am so used to it I like the systme better but I still do some things in Imperial measurements. As far as driving distances so, time is a more useful one to me as when someone asks how long to the next city the response is often 4 hours to city A or 5 and a half to city b than it is to be in km or miles.
The arguements against the metric system seems to boil down to "I am used to the Imperial system so it is better". Personally I do not care which system you use as I can convert but neither system weather is more intuituve or more nature and certain not more exact. The offical measurements for the high and the low of the day end up being recorded to one decimal point but who needs that precision? 39.9 is not much hotter than 39.7.
When you get below 0C and get -1C, -2C, then you know it is really cold, as it doesn't happen all the time. 10C works as a barrier between cold and cool, 20C works as a barrier between mild and pleasant, 30C works as a barrier between warm and hot.. 40C works as a barrier between very hot and unbearable.
We don't get -10C, -20C etc like a lot of the US does. Our temperatures for most of the year are between 30F and 80F
Average oven temperatures are well above 100 in both F and C... 0-100 scale is irrelevant for oven temperatures.
I have no argument at all that other metric measurements are more logical and easier to use than imperial measurements. I just don't think that superiority extends to F vs C.
I also have no argument that once you are used to C, it becomes intuitive. I do disagree that it is inherently better and more logical than F.
Well the rest of the world thinks it is inherently better & more logical...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But WHY then is it so great that you have a scale in which "0 is freezing water" and "100 is boiling water" ? How does that logical metric 0-100 scale benefit you in any way or help you use your system better on a daily basis?
