4 ms·

> 0° C: It's cold outside but not really that cold. > These things are the case for humans Who says so? 0 °C is very cold by many people's standards. About h

> 0° C: It's cold outside but not really that cold. > These things are the case for humans Who says so? 0 °C is very cold by many people's standards. About half the human population lives within the tropics. In fact I'd like to see Americans walk around in the UK wearing just a T-shirt and bermudas when it's barely above freezing, and insist 'it's not really that cold, it's only 32 °F'.

ghaff 1y ago
Maybe this is the perspective of someone who has spent a lot of time in the northern US, but it's cold but really not that cold. I might even run outside briefly in bare feet in the snow. But, yes, get to 0 degrees F and you're in bitter cold territory although, of course it gets colder in the northern Midwest/mountains/etc. And my contractor has been in shorts and a T in 40s-ish weather this week. The point is that F degrees seems a pretty human scale that doesn't usually need a lot of decimals or minus signs for routine purposes. That it doesn't correspond to a couple of water transitions at standard pressure/temperature is sort of irrelevant. Of course, I and many other people are perfectly happy with using Celsius/Kelvin degrees for various purposes.
- magicalhippo 1y ago
  The minus sign is quite practical though. When winter is coming, if it's 3 deg C outside, I typically don't need to worry about ice. If it's -3 deg C outside, I need to worry about ice. When winter is waning, if it's been icy and it's -3 deg C outside, I typically don't need to worry about water on top of the ice. If it's 3 deg C outside, I typically do need to worry about water on top of the ice making it super slippery.
AnthonyMouse 1y ago
Again, it's not about where you live. 0°F is approximately the temperature at which the risk of frostbite becomes significant. 100°F is approximately the temperature at which the risk of heat-related illnesses becomes significant. Temperatures in between are far less hazardous to humans, even if the numbers near the edges are starting to get uncomfortable.

ghaff 1y ago

Maybe this is the perspective of someone who has spent a lot of time in the northern US, but it's cold but really not that cold. I might even run outside briefly in bare feet in the snow. But, yes, get to 0 degrees F and you're in bitter cold territory although, of course it gets colder in the northern Midwest/mountains/etc. And my contractor has been in shorts and a T in 40s-ish weather this week. The point is that F degrees seems a pretty human scale that doesn't usually need a lot of decimals or minus signs for routine purposes. That it doesn't correspond to a couple of water transitions at standard pressure/temperature is sort of irrelevant. Of course, I and many other people are perfectly happy with using Celsius/Kelvin degrees for various purposes.

magicalhippo 1y ago
The minus sign is quite practical though. When winter is coming, if it's 3 deg C outside, I typically don't need to worry about ice. If it's -3 deg C outside, I need to worry about ice. When winter is waning, if it's been icy and it's -3 deg C outside, I typically don't need to worry about water on top of the ice. If it's 3 deg C outside, I typically do need to worry about water on top of the ice making it super slippery.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

Again, it's not about where you live. 0°F is approximately the temperature at which the risk of frostbite becomes significant. 100°F is approximately the temperature at which the risk of heat-related illnesses becomes significant. Temperatures in between are far less hazardous to humans, even if the numbers near the edges are starting to get uncomfortable.