> But Celsius as a temperature scale is no more logical than Fahrenheit Celsius is more logical: (1) the endpoints of Celsius are boiling/melting point of wat

> But Celsius as a temperature scale is no more logical than Fahrenheit Celsius is more logical: (1) the endpoints of Celsius are boiling/melting point of water (at standard atmospheric pressure). The lower endpoint of Fahrenheit is the lowest temperature Fahrenheit could achieve using a mixture of water, ice and ammonium chloride-using the freezing point of pure water is more logical than using the freezing point of an ammonium chloride solution-water is fundamental to all known life, ammonium chloride solutions don’t have the same significance (and why ammonium chloride instead of sodium chloride or potassium chloride? of the salts readily available to Fahrenheit, the ammonium chloride solution had the lowest freezing point) (2) Fahrenheit initially put 90 degrees between his two “endpoints” (ammonium chloride solution freezing point and human body temperature), then he increased it to 96. Celsius having 100 degrees between its endpoints is more logical than 90 or 96 (3) while for both Celsius and Fahrenheit, there is error in the definition of their endpoints (the nominal values are different from the real values, because our ability to measure these things accurately was less developed when each scale was originally devised, and some unintentional error crept in)-the magnitude of that error is smaller for Celsius than for Fahrenheit (4) nowadays, all temperature units are officially defined in terms of Kelvin - and Celsius has a simpler relation to Kelvin than Fahrenheit (purely additive versus requiring both addition and multiplication) (5) Celsius is the global standard for everyday (non-scientific) applications, not Fahrenheit, and it is more logical to use the global standard than a rarely used alternative whose advantages are highly debatable at best