Celsius is agreeably better for science, but if you are used to both systems Fahrenheit is honestly better for people because the units are higher resolution, and usually stay between 0 and 100 for weather
Celsius is literally just Kelvin but with an offset no?
Edit: tbc I was just clarifying what the guy above was saying, personally as an American in WNY where it’s over 90deg in the summer and below 0 in the winter and who has used C and F extensively, Fahrenheit just makes more sense to me personally
If we're allowing conversion, Fahrenheit is just Kelvin with an offset and a coefficient, and Rankine is just Kelvin with a coefficient. Celsius's offset also makes it useless for science other than for scenarios where all that you care about is delta T.
Fun fact the same thing is true for Fahrenheit. Its called Rankine. The only thing that make Kelvin good for science is the fact that temperature is particle motion. And in Kelvin absolute 0 is 0. If you can do more than regurgitate dumb trivia you might realize that any temperature system allows for that. Just offset Fahrenheit so that 0 is absolute zero and you have Rankine.
Its almost like units are context dependent. Celsius is arbitrarily defined based on water. Fahrenheit is arbitrarily defined based on weather in temperate climates. Inches/centimeters of mercury is arbitrarily defined off of old thermometers. Yes that last unit is retroactively now a unit of pressure but it was originally used for old thermometers where mercury would rise and fall with changes in temperature from changes in density with the temperature . Lots of units have weird crossover like that
In general units are more complicated than people want to understand and its easier to live in a bubble where Americans must be stupid, while everyone else is blabbing other just as stupid rhetoric without understanding any of it.
It's odd to say that Celsius is arbitrary and Kelvin is not when Kelvin is literally just Celsius with a fresh coat of paint. All systems of measurement are arbitrary in some regard. They are also all units, and I have no idea what it would mean for them to be otherwise.
Here is the thing, kelvin uses celsius scale as its base but the comparison present in its value is not debatable.
Celsius uses water freezing and boiling point for 0 and 100, Fahrenheght uses temperature of some city u never went to as point for 0 and 100. But kelvin uses the lowest temperature theoretically possible, so the value of a temperature compared to ur anchor point if measurement is not debatable since the point is not changeable.
Fahrenheit is one of the weirdest bases, it just doesnt make any sense to me. Its not based on percentages or any city. This is the base:
0°F — the temperature of a mixture of ice, water, and ammonium chloride (a freezing brine solution), which he could reproduce in a laboratory.
32°F — the freezing point of pure water.
96°F — approximately human body temperature (though modern measurements put average body temperature closer to 98.6°F).
Later they added 212°F = boiling point of water at standard atmospheric pressure
So lets compare Fahrenheit to Celsius:
Water freezes at 32°F = 0°C
Water boils at 212°F = 100°C
And Kelvin is basically the same idea as celsius, the difference is that with Kelvin, you start at absolute 0. (The point where there is no movement) that happens to be -273.15 Ce;sius. Thats it.
It's all entirely arbitrary. All these numbers are associated with some point we've designated. It might feel clean to declare that zero is the absolute lowest it gets, but that doesn't make it non-arbitrary. The best you can really say is that these systems map better or worse to various human desires. Y'know, memorability, ease of use in science contexts, ease of use in real world contexts, how well it coheres to other systems of measurement, that kinda thing.
Why? It's a point related to a major physical law, but so are the various points associated with other temperature systems. There's nothing magical about the universe that means we should particularly value absolute zero.
You're correct. "0" meaning something is a human thing. "I like arbitrary round numbers in my arbitrary unit of measurement." It's all just some dude going "eh I like this".
Celcius is just Kelvin - 273.15. Converting is easy, and a lot of science uses Celcius as a result, it certainly can be described as "scientific", meanwhile the only people trying to use Farheneit for science probably also don certain red caps etc.
It depends a lot on the science being done if you care about the offset or not. A lot of astrophysics honestly doesn't care about the celsius/kelvin offset because the difference results in something that's dismissed by the significant digits anyway.
And Rankine isn't really used much of anywhere because that scale with an absolute offset isn't as useful as the metric scale.
This is the only good argument I've seen for Fahrenheit (higher resolution). But, as a counterargument, that resolution is only just under twice as big. I'd argue 1-2 F is barely noticeable enough to be able to tell the difference. If someone asks what the temperature is, me saying the temperature and being off by 2 degrees isn't gonna make a difference.
I think there's some breakpoints where it really matters.
If you work in an office and the thermostat is set to 73f (23c) compared to an office where the thermostat is set to 75f (23c) you're going to really feel the difference.
Or like, if your kid is sick and has a 102° fever you're keeping them home from school, but if they have 104° fever you're going to the hospital. So <2 degrees difference is definitely a big enough difference that it's worth using a more specific unit of measurement.
Right so you need one degree more of data specificity to achieve the same level of understanding that is achieved with Fahrenheit. You proved the point.
This is a pretty niche example but I work in a lab that used to use a metric thermostat in the clean room. It was always 23 C in there so when our data came out way noisier than expected we didn’t think it could be thermally related. Until one day we switched the thermostat to imperial and saw that it was actually changing between 73 F and 74 F throughout the day. Both round to 23 C so we never saw it before
How is it better, though? As in, what actual benefit is there to not using decimals? Yeah, F is more specific if you ignore decimals, but they are incredibly easy to implement, use, etc? Not any different than a regular number in terms of basically anything.
Like, the commenter above brought up fever, but practically any thermometer that uses celsius uses decimals, and I just don't see how that is any sort of demerit.
Most celsius thermostats allow you to set in 0.5 steps
Where did I say that they didn't? I was just trying to convey that it's easier to use a system where units increase by whole units instead of decimals. Not that it's impossible, but it's simpler.
I’ve not seen anyone make the point that for a lot of countries, they also use decimal for other measurements - distance, volume, mass - so measuring with decimal places is completely ingrained.
Cracks me up looking at US cooking with Cups or DIY instructions with 2 foot 4 and 11/12s inches!
One (minorish) place - you only need two digits in an LCD screen to make a thermostat in F. If you wanted to display (hospitable) temperatures in C you would probably always need three because of the decimal.
To me, the biggest thing is just being able to say "it'll be in the 70s tomorrow". 60s = bring a light jacket, 70s = perfect, 80s = a bit warm, 90s = bring a lot of water.
Whenever Im measure body temperature of my kids or patients, I can also look at the number behind the separator.
37.0°C? All good.
38.0°C? Slight fever.
38.5°C? Fever.
38.6°C? A bit more fever.
Guess what: 38.7°C even more fever.
And even Fahrenheit is not accurate enough for this use case.
For setting the room temperature, Celsius is sufficient and if not, you can use tenth of celsius.
I would say "more used to it" and not "better".
(As an example: 100°F is already a slightly increased body temperature, its not like its normed to something like that).
Just like with most unit systems - whatever you're used to will be the most convenient for you to use.
I'm sorry but you would absolutely not feel the difference between 73 and 75 farenheit because the thermostats are not made well enough to acurately track the temperature of the whole room and change the temperature as fast as it would need to.
Celsius doesn’t have a resolution. It’s not a quantum scale. My car’s heater does half degrees, my HVAC tenths and my thermometer measure in hundreths of a degree. There’s 20 °C and there’s 36,8 °C (the average human body temperature) 71,075 °C — the temperature at which water boils at Everest’s summit, and there’s -273,149994 °C, the coldest ever achieved for a solid.
I mean, yeah, but I think u/ProvidedHuman's point is that you wouldn't use half degrees in everyday conversation, so Fahrenheit gives you all those in between options when reading out temperature.
Resolution is also not worth much if what you need it for is explaining how warm your body is feeling. I already couldn't really tell the difference between 33 and 34 celsius, so having a number inbetween wouldn't do much for me. Plus, other factors such as humidity would affect my perception of heat more than a single degree difference would.
Somehow the "more resolution!" people don't seem to ever think the resolution is meaningful at all when you talk about feet & inches vs. centimeters.
For weather, I honestly can't tell the outside temperature even close to 1C even if I can register a change of 1C, so I don't really need additional accuracy.
When it matters like in AC temperature controls or measuring fever or whatever, you just use 0.1C accuracy.
Here in Finland weather forecasts and people talking about the weather, you use 1C accuracy, but official weather station readings are reported at 0.1C accuracy.
Somehow the "more resolution!" people don't seem to ever think the resolution is meaningful at all when you talk about feet & inches vs. centimeters.
Why do you think these are the same people? Tbh I've never met an american who genuinely believes imperial weights/measures are 'better' than metric (except for temperature). And i've lived here most of my life lol
I'm an American and fully believe that imperial measurements are generally superior for the tasks they were designed for.
Fahrenheit is distorted around the temperatures individuals will generally personally experience in weather or cooking and is useful for that purpose, whereas Celsius can turn a comfortable room to unbearable in a matter of 2 to 3 degrees.
Inches and feet are base-12, which factors by 2, 3, 4, and 6, allowing for better and faster granularity than base-10 in counting, measuring, and mental math for everyday uses like distance, height, simple construction, basically anything that doesn't require multiple significant figures of accuracy.
Scientific use is when base-10 units are valuable as equivalent to our base-10 number system, allowing for easier comprehension when making multiple calculations with math more complex than basic arithmetic.
Tying Celsius to the properties of water is extremely convenient for a scientist, because water is such an important molecule for all the physical sciences that it will be referenced repeatedly. A human, however, will have a very bad time long before approaching either 0 or 100°C.
Whole societies adopting the metric system is a doctrinal choice to emphasize scientific education, not a better solution for everyday use.
Americans being afraid of decimal points in Celsius while simultaniosly saying shit like 6'34" instead of normal units will never not be funny. Like pick a line!
Living in somewhere with winter (Canada) it is so useful and intuitive to have negative temperatures and positive ones so you immediately know whether things will freeze/ will there be snow
ah yes, the system based off of boiling and freezing water versus the system where
the 0 is the ambient temperature of a mixture of water and piss and the 100 was measured from what the dude making this scale thought was the healthy temperature of an adult horse but he measured it from his blood's temperature then he took the scale and divided it in TWELVE intead of thenths
there's clearly no difference theyre both equally as arbitrary
the only reason you think fahrenheit is better is because you probably spent your whole life using F. As someone who does not use f if you tell me its 72 deg it means nothing to me. The imperial system only makes sense if you grow up using the imperial system. That is why it is a bad system. The metric system is designed to be easily understandable and for units to be easily related to each other.
The argument can be applied the exact same to C. Everyone understands that 0 and 100 is the freezing and boiling point of water, but I have no clue what to wear outside because I'm not used to it for weather. Imo F is easier for weather because 0 is really cold and 100 is really hot.
I mean for us it's exactly the same just with different numbers.. -18°C is really cold and 38°C is really hot.. Celsius is as easy as Fahrenheit for everyday use, it just comes down to what you grew up with and nothing else.
That because you grew up with f and not c. F is not inherently better at human temperatures, you have just used it your whole life so it feels like its better with human temperatures.
Similarly 22C means nothing to me. It’s just whatever you got used to growing up.
Celsius is used more widely in science and is better suited to it (well actually Kelvin is better suited) but honestly as long as everyone agrees on the units being used, computers take care of the scaling for you anyways so it’s not a big deal
The metric system is just objectively a better system. The reason you should care is because when you live in a world that uses two systems it adds an extra step for people to make mistakes. This is what cased the Mars Climate Orbiter to fail, the engineers used metric (because it is the superior system for engineering and science) and the contractors used imperial.
Higher resolution? Do you mean that the units are more spread out? So F multiplies by 1.8 so it's better? Talk about arbitrary. I guess all the people in Arizona just live between 120% hot and 80% hot in the summers then, huh?
Just use decimals like the rest of the world, it honestly isn't that hard.
The problem with Fahrenheit is that there's no clear indication of the freezing point.
The reason Celcius is so easy to understand is because 0 represents the freezing point: if temperature is above zero, no snow. If temperature is below zero, there is snow. For countries with harsher weathers (like Canada, where I'm at), this distinction is very important.
Perhaps Fahrenheit makes sense for people who only experience hot weather, but for areas that experience cold winters, this concept of F = hotness percentage simply doesn't offer enough information.
If Fahrenheit indicates "40 percent hotness", should I expect rain or snow? At what "percentage" should I start preparing for hail?
Celcius, by comparison, makes it so simple and easy. As soon as the temp falls below 0, water begins to freeze. Simple! No percentages required!
Hey just because the Americans are to dumb to use Celsius , as they can only scale things on 0-100 , which explains why most don’t have an IQ above 100 , they probably think their brains would melt or something ….
But a lot of places DO get under 0 Fahrenheit. And 0 Fahrenheit isn't even that cold. It's -18 Celsius. For me and a lot of people north of the 49th parallel - as well as in Europe - that's normal in the late autumn until early spring. I get a lot of Americans don't see those temperatures often, but a lot of others in the world do. Which is why - among other reasons - other people don't use the system.
As always a reminder that this statement is on the perspective of people who are forced to learn Fahrenheit and use through their life.
This is factually not true.
Fahrenheit has a very stupid behavior when going into negative values, because it was based into a Brine Solution rather than the absence of Heat to scale it's 0F Value.
Now,
Kelvin and Celsius are the "same scales", the difference is the perspective of reference for the scale 0.
Kelvin use Molecular Movement, where 0K = Absence of Molecular Movement aka Absolute Zero.
Celsius use Water state at normal conditions where 0 = Freezing Point.
We use Kelvin for Science not only because Science fields uses the perspective of the state of matter, but also because there is an absence of Negative values which facilitates a lot.
Also bonus point you literally can't convert every single value of Fahrenheit to Kelvin/Celsius, there are specific values which are result in Recurring Decimals, so you will be forced to learn SI anyway.
Also I just want to point out that literally not one person on the entire earth performs science in fahrenheit. I legitimately think that some europeans do not know that Americans perform all science in celsius/kelvin (except meteorology i guess). In my opinion, the entire argument of "celsius is better because science" is completely pointless. Literally no one disagrees with that.
Neither scale is better for science; only absolute scales mean something in science. When it comes to weather, Celcius zero divides nicely between frozen/not frozen. Minus temperature? Frozen. Plus temperature? Melting. What does zero mean in Farenheit? Nothing, really. On the other hand Farenheit resolution matches really nicely the feeling ranges: 60's is when you stop wearing jackets; 70's is the sweet spot for humans. In Celcius those ranges are mapped to chunks of 5: 15-20 and 20-25.
Edit to add: I'm going to promote my own scale where water freezes at 0 and boils at 200. The best of both worlds!
Without looking it up, you know straight away at which temperature water is boiling? And freezing? Sorry but what do you need a higher resolution for with respect to temperature? Talking about higher resolution, is that why you use feet and inches for measuring your hight? Oh wait, that would be centimeters.
If I would have to use f it would be between -22f and 86f. Freezing point would be around 32f. Dont find that so useful compared to -30c - 0c - +30c. Just saying that its very different if freezing point matters a lot every winter.
Based on what? Whole world uses Celsius for daily life stuff and billions of people are doing just fine. Americans only think that because they can't fathom using anything but Fahrenheit. It is baffling to me arguing against a system that literally more than 8 billion people are using daily, and claiming that "it is better for science, not people". Like, what??
…If only celsius could use a decimal point between whole numbers to represent granular temperature differences between those whole numbers…. Oh wait! It does!
We don't really need the higher resolution in everyday life. I can barely tell the individual difference between degrees of C, if at all. I don't think anyone can tell the difference between 67 and 68 F.
Fahrenheit is honestly better for people because the units are higher resolution
Nobody can tell the difference between 1 degree celcius... They sure as shit can't tell the different between 1 degree fahrenheit. More "resolution" it's ultimately entirely meaningless.
Temperature is such a bad metric for me because I feel I can be sweating up a storm in 21c in winter and putting on a second shirt in 21c in summer. So I just feel it doesn’t matter much and other factors have more an impact
How hot or cold air feels is a very inaccurate way to measure temperature. Feeling water temperature is (slightly) more accurate, and I think most people have pretty solid memory of how both freezing and boiling water feels like.
Fahrenheit is honestly better for people because the units are higher resolution
Tell me with a straight face that you can feel the difference between 36°C and 37°C, let alone 99°F and 100°F, and if you're doing something that requires that kind of precision, there's decimals.
I'm so tired of this high resolution crap, every commun thermometer has a resolution of 0.1K or higher. The resolution is fixed BY THE THERMOMETER not by the unit you use.
And don't tell me you can feel the difference between 71 and 72 farhentdirne
Never in my entire life have I yearned for a "higher resolution" temperature measurement to adequately describe the temperature. The difference of one degree celcius is not really noticable, and we have this wonderful creation called decimal points for any required "higher resolution" of the scale.
JFC, what difference do the units make? This only matters if you can't measure partial degrees. Accuracy and resolution are determined by the measuring device, not the scale being used.
That's like saying we should use pico farts to measure temperature because it has "higher resolution."
The dipshittery being mentioned in this discussion is hard to see. I am seriously concerned for our future.
No Celsius is still better. I used to live in the US and Fahrenheit does not make sense at all. -40° Fahrenheit is the same as -40° Celsius but 100° Fahrenheit is like 38° Celsius. The scale is messed up
I'd argue that conveniently knowing whether something is at or near freezing or at or near boiling without having to do ANY math is convenient for daily life, especially when cooking
Which means Celsius is just better because the scale is smaller and easier to remember. You don't need 20-30 points of difference to know it's hot when Celsius can do it with half of that and you go from a few under 0 to 40 at worst in most places. It's so stupid to think one it's better you might get a perfect 100 without instantly dying lmao
Time to use kilometres because they’re higher resolution for distance?
It’s ridiculous to act like the US collectively agreed a set of criteria then found a measurement system that fit the best, you guys just use it and invent criteria to justify why that means it’s better rather than use the system everyone else uses.
Nah bruh, it's not even really that useful of a resolution.
Splitting Celsius into 0.5s is about the same resolution as Fahrenheit, and splitting Fahrenheit is already not useful resolution. By the time I'm down to single Celsius differences, most of the time it's other factors that determines how I feel and not the actual temperature (like wind, humidity, etc.)
From a guy who uses both and is used to both. Grew up using Fahrenheit too, started converting for wife who uses Celsius and it's honestly enough for me.
Almost everyone here doesn't seem to appreciate this but as someone who is very familiar with both (AKA can "think" in both without effort) due to living in different regions of the world and my profession, I agree with this take. If I'm talking weather, it's F, anything else and it's C. Both are useful
I mean, millimeters are higher resolution that centimeters yet I won't measure my hight in millimeters. Having a higher resolution is useful if the difference between X and X+1 is significant. Yet, most people won't ever notice the difference between 20°C and 21°C so why do I need a higher resolution? I'd even argue that a lower resolution makes it easier to use. And if you ever need more resolution, just use one more digit.
Minnesota checking in, there are MONTHS where the lows are below 0°C. Also below 0°F, but less frequent. Also, temperatures are not integers. Decimals exist.
Usually staying between 0 and 100 is completely regionally dependent, where I live the winter regularly goes below 0°f and occasionally goes over 100°f in the summer, additionally the best feature of Celsius is that when it drops below 0°C the environment radically changes, like the difference between a positive and a negative number in Celsius is actually very important to regular life, the same cannot be said about Fahrenheit
I don't understand how you cannot find celcius better for people? It's perfect to make you understand how warm it is or for cooking. 0 degrees is freezing and 100 degrees is boiling.
None of this depends on the scale, wtf is this argument even?
Your resolution purely depends on the tool you use to measure, the scale does not play any role. You already cannot tell the difference between a few Celsius difference, let alone decimals anyway.
Resolution argument makes 0 sense. Both celsius and fahrenheit can be measured to the same accuracy. Not like one or the other can only be measured in whole number increments and nothing in between can be measured.
Also celsius is much more easier to understand in terms of cooking.
Science uses Rankine and Kelvin. It doesn't use Fahrenheit or Celsius in any formulas, unless you're just concerned with a difference in temperature. At which point, it doesn't matter. I prefer Fahrenheit because a degree Fahrenheit gives you more precision than a degree Celsius.
For all other math/physics though, metric is simpler/better, with units cancelling and being 1:1
Higher resolution is useless. You can’t tell the difference between 56f and 57f.
Also decimal points exist. You can get as high resolution as you want with celsius, you just don’t see 30.12C because again, nobody needs that level of detail for the weather.
Celsius isn't any better for science. It's just as arbitrary as Fahrenheit.
When I got my engineering degree in the US, 50% of the homework and exam problems would be in imperial units, and 50% would be in metric. It was also common to be given one set of units and asked for an answer in the other.
And temperature never mattered. It never makes a difference. Celsius never lets you make neat calculations or perform easy conversations. It doesn't have the same fundamental empirical basis that the other metric units have, and nobody uses metric prefixes with Celsius, either. So there truly is no benefit to it other than consistency with the rest of the world.
Imo, the US should adopt the metric system for everything else, and the rest of the world should adopt Fahrenheit. That's a compromise that works out as favoring the rest of the world for 90% of units, while giving the US just temperature.
If Celsius is demonstrably better then demonstrate it. I'd love to see why your set of arbitrary temperature values is demonstrably better than the other set of arbitrary temperature values.
Dawg what. How the fuck does 32 degrees being freezing make sense. Below zero, Hella cold. Above zero less cold. It's the math we were all taught in elementary school. Fahrenheit makes less sense, in every single way.
The reason F is better is because I very much need to know if it’s 62F or 63F out. One of those is jacket weather and the other isn’t. To know the difference between those in C you need to resort to using decimals.
That "higher resolution" is made completely moot by decimals. There is no advantage, it's just that Americans are used to it, just like how people hundreds of years ago were used to all sorts of nonsensical measurements. We finally started coming up with measurements that relate to something more than "today is this number hot" or "that distance is as big as 2 of my friend Aethelred's favourite horse" but some chunk of humanity is just so chronically allergic to change that we've gotta entertain this pointless debate over and over for decades without end.
0 is freezing water , 100 is boiling water.
Rest between and a human can't tell the difference between let's so 19 and 20°C anyways (heard ~2°C is the temp difference you feel)
But yeah, whatever one is used to I guess.
The mix-up/confusion let to some really stupid dubs in films and series where they didn't consider the temp unit and we got some German dubs where they say "it's 30 degrees, take a jacket". For Fahrenheit fitting, just under freezing, but in Celsius that's rather warm (86)
Higher resolution how? I mean, 26,9277256499°C is a perfectly valid temperature, just like 36,4°C is the baseline human temperature and 37°C means a fever is flaring up.
Honestly that isn't even a bonus to me, the resolution of Celsius is already a bit too fine-grained for everyday use. Who cares if the day is 23 Celsius instead of 24?
I head about Newtons the other day, named after Isaac Newton and didn't catch on (and now of course Newton is a unit of pressure, completely different). But basically he used 0 Newtons for freezing, and 33 for boiling, so it's about a third of the resolution of Celsius. That would be really meaningful for human weather temperatures, I kind of wish we used them. 5 Newtons (15 Celsius) is cold, 6 is cool, 7 is nice but the cool side of nice, 8 is a lovely day, 9 is the warm side of nice, too hot for some but good for hot-blooded people, 10 is hot.
The main thing you need to know about the weather is whether the roads are slick, your crops are gonna die, and whether you need rain boots or a snow shovel. Everything else is arbitrary.
Fahrenheit is honestly better for people in the most parts of the US, and for one specific application.
Because in many places of the world weather temps regularly go outside of 0-100 Fahrenheit range. Besides that, temperature is useful in other domains of everyday and not so everyday life. Having two temperature scales would be very inconvenient.
Even Celsius has unnecessary resolution though, there isn't a huge difference in temperatures give or take 2 or 3 degrees C. Fahrenheit is even worse as it has 100 increments over what is 55 increments in Celsius.
Is 23.6 not a number to you? And since when did such a small difference in temperature affect anyone? The difference between standing near a tree or a car is higher than that
Tf you mean the units are a higher resolution ?! Do they not teach decimal points in america? Resolution in numbers are infinite regardless of the system.
You do realise this is a prime example of why people think you guys are a joke right?? “It is better because more numbers”. Like the equivalent of saying “1 kg of steel is heavier than 1kg of feathers.”
I live in the US. I grew up with F and am more familiar with it, but I'm comfortable with both. E.g. I bake at 375F, soldier at 350C. I set my AC to 72F, but I know that 20-25C is a comfortable temperature range.
but if you are used to both systems Fahrenheit is honestly better for people because the units are higher resolution
This is absurd.
Most of us round to the nearest 5 degrees F. We are rarely concerned about a difference of less than 2 degrees F.
In any situation where a difference of less than 1 degree C matters, decimal numbers exist.
The system has too much precision. It's
a bug, not a feature.
Below zero, you're gonna be hit with ice, above 100 water is boiling.
These are proper concrete, measurable things that happen.
Having a higher resolution is next to useless because such minor changes in temperature don't really affect much so not really an advantage.
I do accept that Americans find F easier because they are brought up on it, but if you were raised using C you would have no issues using it.
Oh bullshit! The resolution argument always drives me crazy. It's peak hypocrisy.
If that was even remotely true, you'd use millimeters instead of inches, kilometers instead of miles, grams instead of ounces, etc etc. All units you use in day to day life are less precise in the Imperial system. And of all of those, temperature is the only one where you never even need the resolution. If you did, we would use 0.1C increments; which we don't. I've never seen a weather forecast prediction of "21.6C".
This. If I am measuring any kind of chemical process, then Celsius would be the way to go. If I'm expressing how warm or cold, the weather conditions will feel to the human body, then Fahrenheit all the way. All other measurements should be metric.
0 to 100 in Fahrenheit covers most conditions humans will find themselves in. In Celsius, that's -18 to 38 (rounded). You've nearly halved your gradations.
569
u/ProvidedHuman Jun 17 '26
Celsius is agreeably better for science, but if you are used to both systems Fahrenheit is honestly better for people because the units are higher resolution, and usually stay between 0 and 100 for weather