We all subjectively are more used to our scales, and what numbers mean “very hot” and “very cold” are very varied based on your physiology, adaptation to the climate and the relative humidity.
For water, however, freezing pretty bang on zero (slight variation due to pressure), and you get enough days below zero water of different amounts will start freezing. Which I’d argue is an objective benefit over Fahrenheit for weather. Water freezing at zero is a useful distinction.
Negative? Freezing. Looks great on a graph with an X axis for time and y for temp. To get the equivalent nice graph in Fahrenheit gotta put a line at whatever weird number lines up with freezing.
A random city which I thought may be dipping below zero. That’s interesting, there’s a line at freezing, almost like that’s useful or something.
Putting a line that’s not zero, look at what Fahrenheit needs to do to mimic a fraction of our power!
Point of order, the Celsius chart also has a line.
Without a scale on the axis it’s kinda necessary with both so I’m not sure that conveyed your point too well.
Celsius is good because of how it fits with the rest of metric and the units stay pretty rather often, and because everyone else uses it.
That it makes water freeze at zero is kinda the smaller bit. As you mention, charts can just have lines on them because you can’t see the axis and it’s really not that hard to remember 32 vs 0. Hell, I remember both. Also 100, 212 and 451. Had to lookup 233 though, I don’t remember that one.
My point here is that both graphs have a line at freezing (°F and °C). My point is that freezing is a useful differentiation when it comes to weather. Celcius is suitably set to have freezing at zero, a nice round number, which then is negative when water starts to freeze.
It’s not that hard to remember, sure, and both systems work okay, but I dislike when people pretend there aren’t objective (however slight) advantages to Celcius for every day use.
I’d challenge anyone to find a benefit to Fahrenheit that isn’t subjective, for every day use. (Because as noted, Celcius obviously wipes the floor with Fahrenheit in scientific use)
I feel people are clutching at straws trying to justify why Fahrenheit is “better”, or even “as good” for everyday use. But heck, they should just live with the fact they just like it, and that’s fine. (Just keep it to themselves because they’ll get weirdos like me on the internet who will tell them they’re wrong).
Definitely agree. We’re comfortable with what we grew up with and there’s nothing wrong with that.
For water, however, freezing pretty bang on zero … Which I’d argue is an objective benefit over Fahrenheit for weather.
Ehhh, only if you have to think of freezing as zero. For us Fahrenheiters, “above 0” is cold but manageable with a coat. “below 0” means don’t go outside unless you have to. That’s a pretty convenient gauge to me.
Negative? Freezing. Looks great on a graph
Of course. If you’re plotting shit on a graph then you’re likely doing lab work, and I’ll agree that celsius is a great scale. Not for daily “how’s the weather” use though.
For water, however, freezing pretty bang on zero … Which I’d argue is an objective benefit over Fahrenheit for weather.
Ehhh, only if you have to think of freezing as zero. For us Fahrenheiters, “above 0” is cold but manageable with a coat. “below 0” means don’t go outside unless you have to. That’s a pretty convenient gauge to me.
Notice how 0 means something concrete for celcius, and for Fahrenheit it’s just your subjective feeling. I’d argue this is an objective benefit, which mean celcius takes the cake for weather too (and it’s a tie or Celcius in every othe case, also). Ice forming means it gets slippery. Having a distinct indication of a negative symbol and emphasis on freezing at zero, I’d argue, is starting to be objectively more useful, since nothing in particular changes state at 0 °F which is of daily use.
Negative? Freezing. Looks great on a graph
Of course. If you’re plotting shit on a graph then you’re likely doing lab work, and I’ll agree that celsius is a great scale. Not for daily “how’s the weather” use though.
But I gave you weather graphs 🙁, this isn’t lab work in the slightest, that’s real-world everyday stuff. And funnily enough the Fahrenheit graph had a line at freezing too. Just not at 0.
Celcius is absolutely for “how’s the weather” use, and it’s even slight better for “how’s the weather”.
We all subjectively are more used to our scales, and what numbers mean “very hot” and “very cold” are very varied based on your physiology, adaptation to the climate and the relative humidity.
For water, however, freezing pretty bang on zero (slight variation due to pressure), and you get enough days below zero water of different amounts will start freezing. Which I’d argue is an objective benefit over Fahrenheit for weather. Water freezing at zero is a useful distinction.
Negative? Freezing. Looks great on a graph with an X axis for time and y for temp. To get the equivalent nice graph in Fahrenheit gotta put a line at whatever weird number lines up with freezing.
A random city which I thought may be dipping below zero. That’s interesting, there’s a line at freezing, almost like that’s useful or something.
Putting a line that’s not zero, look at what Fahrenheit needs to do to mimic a fraction of our power!
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/canada/quebec/hourly
Point of order, the Celsius chart also has a line.
Without a scale on the axis it’s kinda necessary with both so I’m not sure that conveyed your point too well.
Celsius is good because of how it fits with the rest of metric and the units stay pretty rather often, and because everyone else uses it.
That it makes water freeze at zero is kinda the smaller bit. As you mention, charts can just have lines on them because you can’t see the axis and it’s really not that hard to remember 32 vs 0. Hell, I remember both. Also 100, 212 and 451. Had to lookup 233 though, I don’t remember that one.
My point here is that both graphs have a line at freezing (°F and °C). My point is that freezing is a useful differentiation when it comes to weather. Celcius is suitably set to have freezing at zero, a nice round number, which then is negative when water starts to freeze.
It’s not that hard to remember, sure, and both systems work okay, but I dislike when people pretend there aren’t objective (however slight) advantages to Celcius for every day use.
I’d challenge anyone to find a benefit to Fahrenheit that isn’t subjective, for every day use. (Because as noted, Celcius obviously wipes the floor with Fahrenheit in scientific use)
I feel people are clutching at straws trying to justify why Fahrenheit is “better”, or even “as good” for everyday use. But heck, they should just live with the fact they just like it, and that’s fine. (Just keep it to themselves because they’ll get weirdos like me on the internet who will tell them they’re wrong).
Definitely agree. We’re comfortable with what we grew up with and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Ehhh, only if you have to think of freezing as zero. For us Fahrenheiters, “above 0” is cold but manageable with a coat. “below 0” means don’t go outside unless you have to. That’s a pretty convenient gauge to me.
Of course. If you’re plotting shit on a graph then you’re likely doing lab work, and I’ll agree that celsius is a great scale. Not for daily “how’s the weather” use though.
Notice how 0 means something concrete for celcius, and for Fahrenheit it’s just your subjective feeling. I’d argue this is an objective benefit, which mean celcius takes the cake for weather too (and it’s a tie or Celcius in every othe case, also). Ice forming means it gets slippery. Having a distinct indication of a negative symbol and emphasis on freezing at zero, I’d argue, is starting to be objectively more useful, since nothing in particular changes state at 0 °F which is of daily use.
But I gave you weather graphs 🙁, this isn’t lab work in the slightest, that’s real-world everyday stuff. And funnily enough the Fahrenheit graph had a line at freezing too. Just not at 0.
Celcius is absolutely for “how’s the weather” use, and it’s even slight better for “how’s the weather”.