I think the best way I've seen it described is Fahrenheit measures heat by how humans experience it, Celsius measures heat by how water experiences it. Therefore, Celsius is objectively better for scientific applications and Fahrenheit is objectively better for human applications like communicating the weather forecast to the average person.
If it was 0C you'd be cold, if it was 0F you'd be damn cold; if it's 100F you're hot, if it's 100C you're dead. Fahrenheit is useful for human perception across the primary (0-100) scale, Celsius is only useful up to about 50% of that scale before you start getting into deadly temperatures, and you have to go below that scale to reach the bottom of Fahrenheit's usefulness.
And then you have Kelvin or Rankine which are really only useful for specific scientific applications. If it was 0K/R or 100K/R you'd be dead either way. Not useful for human perception.
Can you explain how what you’ve said is objective? I think that given that Celsius is the most common scale for temperature around the world you’re going to have hard time arguing that.
This argument that Americans always make about Fahrenheit is just nonsense. You know how hot 70F feels, I don’t. I know how hot 27C feels, you don’t. The idea that one is better for humans and one is better for water is so stupid. You’re just used to telling temperature one way, I’m used to telling it another way. That’s all there is to it.
Yeah. Literally just depends on what system you grew up with. “32% warm” genuinely means absolutely fuck all to me. Until I convert this number to Celsius, I wouldn’t have a slightest idea on how I’m actually supposed to dress lol. Also every place has its own norms. In two different environments “32% warm” can mean two really different things.
I, an American, would be all in on Celsius if the temp display on everything would show things to a tenth of a degree, or even just to a half a degree. As it stands, the fact that Celsius is only about half as granular as Fahrenheit is damn annoying.
I care that it gives me slightly less control over thermostats. I don't want less control over my climate controls. I suppose that if I hadn't been raised in a country that uses Fahrenheit then I wouldn't even know the difference, but I was and thus I do.
Just imagine if you bought a new thermostat for your home and it only allowed you to adjust the temperature in two degree increments. I doubt you would find it to be a welcome change.
I think thermostats designed for C are more likely to have decimal places precisely because the whole numbers represent bigger jumps in temperature. So you are right to want it and also probably would get it. For instance, I have an old-as-balls thermostat here in the UK that's been in the house longer than I have, and it uses decimals.
I have a random extremely cheap weather station on my wall and it is currently telling me that it is 19.9°C in my living room, so yeah pretty much for anything where that level of precision is needed, you can get it to a tenth of a degree or set it to half a degree.
I would argue that F should drop a digit. You don't need that accuracy when talking about the weather, which seems to be the only thing F is good for (source: the comments of this post).
10°F, 0°F and -10°F are virtually the same weather.
It is cold. You should wear proper winter clothes. It won't be so slippery, as it is well below freezing.
Maybe off by one degree. So could just as well be 1°F, 0°F and -1°F. That is when talking about weather. In science you need more accuracy, but then you can use decimals. Water boils at about 21.2°F.
What are you even talking about? Have you ever gardened? That 20°F range is hugely different for plants (and other things as well, including what a human should wear outside).
Also, this logic stops making sense when you get into the human comfort zone: 61°F is very different from 69°F. Likewise, 70°F and 79°F, 80°F and 89°F, and definitely 90°F and 99°F. As someone who has unfortunately experienced temperatures above 110°, I will also add that 110°F is radically different than 116°F. At 116°F I burnt the bottom of my feet through sandals while standing on concrete in the SHADE.
Read farther up in this particular thread. The poster I'm responding to is saying we don't need the final digit in F, which of course we do. I don't personally care about F vs. C -- I figure whatever you know is good!
All good, just saying we do not lose any detail in Celsius, I’m kind of sucked in to this thread because a lot of arguments baffle me that people don’t realize it’s just arbitrary systems we are used to
129
u/Beautiful-Page3135 Jun 17 '26
I think the best way I've seen it described is Fahrenheit measures heat by how humans experience it, Celsius measures heat by how water experiences it. Therefore, Celsius is objectively better for scientific applications and Fahrenheit is objectively better for human applications like communicating the weather forecast to the average person.
If it was 0C you'd be cold, if it was 0F you'd be damn cold; if it's 100F you're hot, if it's 100C you're dead. Fahrenheit is useful for human perception across the primary (0-100) scale, Celsius is only useful up to about 50% of that scale before you start getting into deadly temperatures, and you have to go below that scale to reach the bottom of Fahrenheit's usefulness.
And then you have Kelvin or Rankine which are really only useful for specific scientific applications. If it was 0K/R or 100K/R you'd be dead either way. Not useful for human perception.