SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the There's-nothing-hotter-than-ITS-90 dept.
At face value, measuring the temperature using Celsius instead of Fahrenheit seems to make sense. After all, the freezing point of water in Celsius is a perfect 0 degrees C — not that inexplicable 32 degrees, as in Fahrenheit. Also, the boiling point of water in Celsius is right at 100 degrees (Okay, 99.98, but what's a couple hundredths of a degree among friends?), instead of the awkward 212 degrees Fahrenheit.
But Fahrenheit may be the best way to measure temperature after all. Why? Because most of us only care about air temperature, not water temperature.
Celsius is great for measuring the temperature of water. However, we're human beings who live on dry ground. As a result, it's best to use a temperature gauge that's suited to the air, as opposed to one that's best used for water. This is one reason why Fahrenheit is superior.
Fahrenheit is also more precise. The ambient temperature on most of the inhabited world ranges from -20 degrees Fahrenheit to 110 degrees Fahrenheit — a 130-degree range. On the Celsius scale, that range is from -28.8 degrees to 43.3 degrees — a 72.1-degree range. This means that you can get a more exact measurement of the air temperature using Fahrenheit because it uses almost twice the scale.
A precise reading of temperature is important to us because just a little variation can result in a perceivable level of discomfort. Most of us are people who are easily affected even by even slight changes in the thermometer, and the Fahrenheit scale is more sensitive to those changes.
It seems the author is saying that nobody uses fractions of degrees in day-to-day life, so Fahrenheit is a better scale because it has smaller increments. I'm not sold on this, because you'll get the same temperature variation within a room whether you set your air-conditioning system to 21°C or 70°F, and people will complain that they prefer the room to be a bit warmer/cooler/whatever.
Does anyone here have another reason for advocating the continued use of the Fahrenheit scale ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:17PM (12 children)
I don't understand what you mean by "our number system is optimized."
BTW In Phoenix right now it's 105°F or 41°C [weather.gov]
(Score: 2) by rondon on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:22PM (9 children)
I did a poor job of phrasing there. I meant that our system of presenting numbers is often optimized for values from 0 to 100. One example is percentages, which are nearly always presented in that form. Another would be cash, which is denominated in bills from 1 to 100. It seems like humans have a propensity to use that scale more often than others, except for maybe the 1 to 10 scale, which 1 to 100 is simply a more precise representation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:35PM (1 child)
I'm not that dumb I can tie my own shoes.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @09:32PM
But I can fuck your bitch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:54PM (4 children)
The Celsius scale was originally designed with 0 degrees as the boiling point of water and 100 degrees for the temperature of melting ice (it's now the reverse). The Fahrenheit scale was originally designed [straightdope.com] with 32 degrees as the temperature of melting ice and 96 degrees as human body temperature (it's now based on a melting point of 32 degrees and a boiling point of 212 degrees for water). "Zero was the temperature of a mix of ice, water, and ammonium chloride....100 means nothing on the Fahrenheit scale, 96 used to mean something but doesn't anymore, and 0 is colder than it ever gets in Denmark."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @12:47AM (3 children)
96 is a great number because it's 3 times 32 and there's a ton of factors. That's somewhat less important in modern times with so much easy access to computational power that it's not an issue. But it's quite nice when doing math in your head.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday July 28 2017, @09:31PM (2 children)
Except than doing multiples of non-absolute temperature values, no matter whether Celsius, Fahrenheit, Reaumur or whatever, does not make the slightest sense, therefore divisibility of temperatures doesn't matter.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 29 2017, @12:46AM (1 child)
Sure it does, it makes precisely as much sense as taking multiples of absolute temperature values. If you want to estimate how long you need to let boiling water sit out until it's cool enough for brewing tea, you would be doing multiplication with non-absolute temperatures.
Granted, people don't usually do that, but it's a reason why having nice numbers is nice.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday July 29 2017, @06:24AM
You won't let your water cool down from body temperature to the freezing point of water for making tea, so for your "use case" the divisibility of the temperature difference between those two values is irrelevant.
Not to mention that the cooling process is driven be the temperature difference between the water and the surrounding (which depending on the circumstances may be more divisible in either scale).
Also note that the ideal brewing temperature is actually a temperature range, so in both scales, you can just pick a number from your range that eases your calculation.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Thursday July 27 2017, @11:05PM
Perhaps that's because it's from the Latin per centum, which literally means [thefreedictionary.com] "one one-hundredth part" or "on the basis of a rate/proportion per hundred".
For counterexamples, we have human weight, with pounds ranging approximately from 0 to ~200+, kg 0 to 90, stone 0 to 14, with higher values for fat somewhat larger than average people.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday July 28 2017, @01:37PM
Here's my take on it all [fyngyrz.com]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday July 27 2017, @09:56PM (1 child)
No, Fahrenheit is correct for Phoenix too.
The simple rule with Fahrenheit is: if it's below 0 or above 100, it's too extreme for humans to live in. Which means the Phoenix is uninhabitable for part of the year. Does it really matter if it's 110 or 118? No, either one is much too hot to be outside.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @11:55PM
But people can survive in below-zero and above-100 temperatures just fine. Unless you mean those are temps where people die of exposure, in which case you're wrong, it's more like 45 to 110