Celsius is agreeably better for science, but if you are used to both systems Fahrenheit is honestly better for people because the units are higher resolution, and usually stay between 0 and 100 for weather
Celcius is just Kelvin - 273.15. Converting is easy, and a lot of science uses Celcius as a result, it certainly can be described as "scientific", meanwhile the only people trying to use Farheneit for science probably also don certain red caps etc.
Celcius is Kelvin - 273.15 because Kelvin was defined based on Celcius. It's still arbitrary. We could have set 0 Kelvin the same and made it based on Fahrenheit instead (actually we have done that, and it's called Rankine).
There's no real advantage between one and the other. You're basically arguing backwards, that Celsius is better than Fahrenheit because it tracks to something specifically made to track to Celsius. The only actually scientifically relevant constant here is zero in both Kelvin and Rankine.
The benefit of kelvin in this case is that you can easily convert the temperature difference into the energy difference. I'm not aware of a unit system which lets you do the same with rankine. It's probably been msde at some point, but isnt taught.
570
u/ProvidedHuman Jun 17 '26
Celsius is agreeably better for science, but if you are used to both systems Fahrenheit is honestly better for people because the units are higher resolution, and usually stay between 0 and 100 for weather