3 ms·

I agree this is an improvement, but you'd still have a bunch of negative number days in the populated northern and southern hemispheres, which Farenheit further

I agree this is an improvement, but you'd still have a bunch of negative number days in the populated northern and southern hemispheres, which Farenheit further improves upon.

fastball 1y ago
Yes that is marginally better in Farenheit, but centering on the freezing point of water seems more useful overall. Then you'd also end up with the coldest spots on earth never being less than -200C and the hottest spots never being more than 200C which is nice symmetry.
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  > but centering on the freezing point of water seems more useful overall But why? Knowing the freezing point of water (at sea level, mind you) is only rarely useful to me in daily life. I think the eutectic point of salt and water (that is, the lowest point at which it's possible to cause ice on the roads to melt by adding salt to them) is marginally more useful; this happens to be about -6F or about -21 C. Perhaps it's a bit more important for farmers who need to know whether their crops will freeze overnight, but as a lifelong city/suburbs dweller who knows next to nothing about agriculture I couldn't really say. At any rate, most people are not farmers. I'm asking this somewhat rhetorically: I don't really care about Celsius vs. Fahrenheit. The pros and cons between the two are so vastly outweighed by the utility of having a global standard that I really wish the US would switch. I'm just pointing out that I don't think that one particular physical property of one particular substance makes for a very strong argument either way.
  - fastball 1y ago
    I think water freezing without salt is much more common than freezing with it. For example knowing the freezing point of water is useful for setting your fridge/freezer temperature.
    - fastball 1y ago
      Also: "below 0C my pipes might burst" Or: "below 0C my plants might die" Or: "below 0C the pond will start to freeze over"

I agree this is an improvement, but you'd still have a bunch of negative number days in the populated northern and southern hemispheres, which Farenheit further improves upon.

fastball 1y ago

Yes that is marginally better in Farenheit, but centering on the freezing point of water seems more useful overall. Then you'd also end up with the coldest spots on earth never being less than -200C and the hottest spots never being more than 200C which is nice symmetry.

School-Cotton 1y ago
> but centering on the freezing point of water seems more useful overall But why? Knowing the freezing point of water (at sea level, mind you) is only rarely useful to me in daily life. I think the eutectic point of salt and water (that is, the lowest point at which it's possible to cause ice on the roads to melt by adding salt to them) is marginally more useful; this happens to be about -6F or about -21 C. Perhaps it's a bit more important for farmers who need to know whether their crops will freeze overnight, but as a lifelong city/suburbs dweller who knows next to nothing about agriculture I couldn't really say. At any rate, most people are not farmers. I'm asking this somewhat rhetorically: I don't really care about Celsius vs. Fahrenheit. The pros and cons between the two are so vastly outweighed by the utility of having a global standard that I really wish the US would switch. I'm just pointing out that I don't think that one particular physical property of one particular substance makes for a very strong argument either way.
- fastball 1y ago
  I think water freezing without salt is much more common than freezing with it. For example knowing the freezing point of water is useful for setting your fridge/freezer temperature.
  - fastball 1y ago
    Also: "below 0C my pipes might burst" Or: "below 0C my plants might die" Or: "below 0C the pond will start to freeze over"