• imaqtpieA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    8 months ago

    Sure, water is a really good system and it works well.

    And for F that range is -40 to 104. See how you get 64 extra degrees of precision and nearly all of them are double digit numbers? No downside.

    Furthermore F can use its base 10 system to describe useful ranges of temperature such as the 20s, 60s, etc. So you have 144 degrees instead of just 80, and you also have the option to utilize a more broad 16 degree scale that’s also built in.

    You might say that Celsius technically also has an 8 degree scale(10s, 30s), but I would argue that the range of 10 degrees Celsius is too broad to be useful in the same way. In order to scale such that 0C is water freezing and 100C boiling, it was necessary for the units to become larger and thus the 10C shorthand is much less descriptive than the 10F shorthand, at least for most human purposes.

    Fahrenheit stays winning in my book.

    • GojuRyu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      It could easily be argued that weather having to deal in so high numbers is a con for F and the positive negative distinction of C is an easy to understand system of how far from snow are we. As others I don’t believe one is particularly better than the other for the purpose of describing day to day weather. Your arguments ring hollow to me and often seem based on heuristics for F and often with the “close to this value” caveat making it seem like a stretch.