4 ms·
Temperature near 0°C is very important when we travel (meteo, ...). Temperature near 100°C is important when we cook (eggs, pasta, rice). We can leave hands in
by reacweb 4y ago
Temperature near 0°C is very important when we travel (meteo, ...).
Temperature near 100°C is important when we cook (eggs, pasta, rice).
We can leave hands in water at 50°C. Above, it slightly start to cause burns.
This is a range that make a lot of sense IMHO.
- bmitc 4y ago0 degrees C is certainly nice for freezing, but Celsius loses its usefulness, in my opinion, at the upper ranges. Fahrenheit is okay though, because 32 isn't that hard of a number and 0 degrees F is a big milestone because it's a big (i.e., dangerous) milestone in outside temperatures. > Temperature near 100°C is important when we cook (eggs, pasta, rice). When does that matter on the scale being used? Someone else mentioned this, but I've never known anyone to be taking direct measurements of these things when cooking aside from baking. It's pretty clear when water is boiling. > We can leave hands in water at 50°C. Above, it slightly start to cause burns. When has that been useful and dependent upon a temperature measurement (and thus a temperature scale)?
- Symbiote 4y agoYou are putting far too much weight in arbitrary numbers, probably due to personal familiarity. 0°F is a big milestone? I'll claim 1°F should be the milestone instead, or -5.4°F, or 2.33333°F. 15°C or 12°C or something is an important temperature if you live in the tropics without a heating system.
- wartijn_ 4y ago> You are putting far too much weight in arbitrary numbers, probably due to personal familiarity bmitc reacted to the comment that said "Temperature near 100°C is important when we cook (eggs, pasta, rice)." By asking when that info is important. They are not the one here that put weight in arbitrary numbers, at least in that last comment.
- cameronh90 4y agoI don't feel like either Celsius or Fahrenheit are any more natural than the other in most contexts. It just comes down to what you're used to. They're both relatively arbitrary. I'm not sure why 0f is a big dangerous milestone in outdoor temperature. Is -18c/-1f really that different to -17c/1f? If anything, there's a much stronger argument that 0c is the dangerous milestone because that's when you get ice. Really the only temperatures I care about on a day to day basis are like, freezing temperature (0c/32f), room temperature (20c/70f-ish) and various benchmark outdoor temperatures, like 30c/90f being hot and 40c/100f being potentially dangerous. You can +- a few C either way on any of those (except freezing) and it doesn't really make a difference. Cooking, even baking, is usually fine within around 10c. Sous vide is apparently a lot more sensitive but I've never done that. Very occasionally I deal with something something like a kettle thermostat or boiler thermostat, where I might choose something like 100c/212f or 50c/120f respectively. I also use an IR thermometer for cooking pancakes, pizza and monitoring my wood stove - but neither Farenheit or Celcius are any more useful in that context.
- bmitc 4y agoI agree with all that for the most part. Having used Celsius at various times, I still feel Fahrenheit is better for outdoor temperatures because of the range, but yea, there's undeniably a bias there no matter how much I think I reason about it. I think the idea that it is indeed relatively arbitrary probably summarizes a more accurate reaction to the comment I originally replied to.
- SeanLuke 4y agoNope. Have you ever used a thermometer to measure the temperature of water for boiling pasta and rice? Ask yourself why.