> Fahrenheit's 0-100 is for now approximately the range of "normal" weather for the continental US, which is a useful if accidental property for Fahrenheit as a

> Fahrenheit's 0-100 is for now approximately the range of "normal" weather for the continental US, which is a useful if accidental property for Fahrenheit as a weather temperature system. Only if you live in the continental US - and even the continental US has parts where that generalisation doesn’t hold true. From a global perspective, there’s nothing special weather-wise about 0 Fahrenheit or 100 Fahrenheit-where I live, it has literally never been that cold (our record daily minimum is positive even in Celsius), while days of 38 Celsius or above are infrequent but far from exceptional. As a global standard, Fahrenheit has no meteorological advantage over Celsius - and indeed, Celsius is the global standard for meteorology, used by >95% of the planet > Standardizing would be helpful for sure, but it's not obvious that it would be worth the headache of making the switch given that the only real advantage to Celsius for most use cases is the mere fact that it's a standard. You are ignoring all the costs incurred by immigrants and international travellers having to learn to juggle two different systems in their heads, the obstacle it poses to international communication (e.g. “40 degree day” means radically different things in American vs Australian English), products having to support both units and then having configuration settings to change them, people being inconvenienced when they can’t work out how to change the units setting, publications forced to include both units to ensure all readers understand, etc. Those costs are ongoing and cumulative over time, whereas the cost of switching is a once-off which most of the world has already paid