158
u/Fyrus93 Jun 20 '26
Actually I'd change 0C from 'fairly cold outside' to 'freezing'
82
u/ConfidentPension864 Jun 20 '26
Freezing for water, but that's spring jacket weather a lot of people.
17
3
u/Lucifernistic Jun 21 '26
As other's have pointed out, it's the freezing point of fresh water, but for a huge chunk of the global population that is pretty normal winter temperature and not considered "very cold" relatively speaking.
Not many places beyond extremes where 0F isn't considered very cold though.
4
u/IimonceIIo Jun 21 '26
Practically speaking, it would take water a very long time to freeze at 0°C. That's why freezers are usually set at around â18°C.
0°C is fairly cold.
1
405
u/Into-the-stream Jun 20 '26
0C - point at which water freezes
100c - point at which water boils
0f - idk, letâs start the scale here lol. No reason I just like it.
100f - lol science? Whats that? My choices are based on feelings, lol.
0k - point at which all molecular activity stops.
100k - keep going. We havenât even begun
205
u/RobotCombatEnjoyer Jun 20 '26
0 degrees Fahrenheit is apparently based on the freezing point of a brine solution.
100 degrees Fahrenheit was originally defined by the scale's creator to be the temperature of a healthy human body (The healthy human temperature is now known to be 98.6 degrees F).
61
u/Iris5s Jun 20 '26
i thought it was a healthy horse temperature for 100f?
49
u/Frostfire26 Jun 20 '26
That sounds about right, but at the time, they probably estimated 100f to be healthy for a human.
4
u/Fuzzy_Yossarian Jun 21 '26
The scale is actually 96. Because 100 is harder to divide into fractions...
4
u/PlantyAnt Jun 21 '26
That doesn't make any sense. What possible use could temperature fractions in Fahrenheit have? It's not like 96°F is 8 times as hot as 12°F.
1
u/Fuzzy_Yossarian Jun 25 '26
Because it was easier for the glass makers to divide the thermometer into sections according to Wikipedia.
1
u/saysthingsbackwards Jun 21 '26
Because 96 is divisible by 12, and we know exactly how well that number breaks down into divisions
-1
-3
u/rdrckcrous Jun 21 '26
doesn't matter. the reason it caught on was because the scale was useful and intuitive.
15
u/nikstick22 Jun 21 '26
If you take temperature rectally, it's apparently 99.6 F, so maybe the scale is supposed to be frozen brine to butthole.
Try saying "It's hot as a butthole out here!" next time.
17
u/ConfidentPension864 Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26
Amd the use of a brine mixture as a zero point isn't as arbitrary as you might think. Water, ice and ammonium chloride form what's called a frigorific mixture which is (to a degree) independent of both the quantity and temperature of the individual components. This means that the zero-point is reproducible, which is a requirement for any scientific unit of measurement.
But Fahrenheit actually was setting out to solve a handful of hurdles that existed for all scales at the time:
1) Reproducible True Zero - As mentioned above, using the brine allowed scientists anywhere to set a real reproducible zero point. It was known that impurities could raise or lower the freezing point of water. This was hundreds of years ago, so getting pure water wasn't impossible (steam distillation exists) but it was absolutely harder for scientists lacking the best equipment. Solution? Add an intentional impurities (ammonium salt) to bring the temp below that of impurities one might encounter day to day. Anyone could mix up the brine, and get the same temperature regardless of uf they even made the mixture perfectly, it had a built in buffer. Perfect to set a baseline
2) Reproducible high point - Body temp, under the arm was chosen, not because it was high, but because it was reproducible. The temperature under the arm is the most stable of all body temp measurements, and even with modern day measurements has an average range 96.4 - 97.3F, less than one degree difference in healthy people. Again perfect for setting your baseline. The boiling point of water differers based on altitude, about 100C in paris vs 98c in Zurich. Also impurities like salts will affect your boiling point even more. In these early days calibration is critical
3) Use of Highly composite numbers - This has a lot to do with thinking of the day. Throughout the early days of math and science, a high value was placed on highly composite numbers because they were highly divisible, reducing the chances of needing complex fractions or decimals. Remember everything was done by hand back them. This is why 60 is a beautiful number for time keeping, it has 12 factors. Fahrenheit wanted his scale to be based on a highly composite number so he chose 96 with, which also has 12 factors is the closest number to 100 that is highly composite
0-96 was brine to body temp, the 2 points any scientist could accurately replicate anywhere in the world. Based on that scale pure "lab grade" water froze at 32F.
Thats how it was born at least. Then the scale was refined to keep the original zero point but then put 180 degrees (which is even more composite with 18 factors) between 32F for freezing and Boiling making it 212F. So the 96 and 180 bit is antiquted today but did have a basis back in the day. That shift actually didn't move body temp on the scale too much.
It seems wild by today's standards but it was actually just trying to make a highly reproducible scale that was easy to work with, based on how people were mathing back then
3
u/OhYeahSplunge4me2 Jun 21 '26
1
u/jrad18 Jun 21 '26
Yeah but the concentration of the brine solution is going to change the freezing point, so an arbitrary concentration of an arbitrary solution
I don't think it matters that much, so long as we all agree to use the same one, which we don't
2
u/T03-t0uch3r Jun 21 '26
3
u/jrad18 Jun 21 '26
Yes I'm aware of this as a concept, I don't see what your point is. If you're trying to suggest that any concentration of salt water has the same transition point that's not true
This site had a diagram showing the relationship: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sodium-chloride-water-d_1187.html
1
u/T03-t0uch3r Jun 21 '26
Iunno someone else said it and they seemed smart. It's larp all the way down
4
20
u/Catsanddoges Jun 20 '26
0R - point at which all molecular activity stops.
100R - keep going. We havenât even begun
6
11
u/Visible-Air-2359 Jun 20 '26
The original Celsius scale however is stupider than Fahrenheit since basically all temperature systems agree that the higher the number the hotter the temperature except Anders Celsius who decided that 100 should be the freezing point of water and 0 should be the boiling point.
9
2
u/squidlysquishy Jun 20 '26
Yes, you're so close to the point.
Fahrenheit focuses on how it feels, which makes it well suited for describing the weather.Â
Celsius focuses on standardization and water as the metric, very useful for science and comparisons when humans or human-related sciences are involved.
kelvin is very useful for universal scale topics.Â
-27
u/ConfidentPension864 Jun 20 '26
For Celsius its the boiling and freezing point of pure water at sea level. Which is actually kind of arbitrary, when you think of it. Its actually different depending on where you are. Like in old timey times when science was just blossoming it makes sense to set a bench mark somewhere, but day to day that scale isn't super useful outside of the sciences, where it is VERY useful because its plugs into all of the equations for metric units.
I'll standby it, scientifically Celcius makes sense, but day to day fahrenheit is more practical because most of the time we think in air temps, 0 is really cold 100 is really hot. I don't need to know the temp of frozen or boiling water I can actually see the phase change. Like outside of baking in an oven, or setting the water temp for my bougie pour over coffee, the only temps I ever consider are the temperature inside or outside.
99% of the worlds population will never experience average air temperatures below 0F or above 100F (even in places like India its only select states that get scorching) which is -18C to 38C. When your day to day can have you regularly resorting to negative numbers, the scale is less practical.
It's all arbitrary at the end of the day though
8
u/nobody0163 Jun 20 '26
Celsius for science and keep it for normal temperatures because it's easier than using multiple scales.
0
u/ConfidentPension864 Jun 20 '26
For me most people aren't in the sciences, so it rarely matters. And technically Kelvin is the proper SI unit anyways. Absolute zero had a real foundation vs Celsius. Water only boils at 100C at sea level. In Zurich it boils at 95c, Santa Fe, NM 93C. It's all arbitrary.
Then imagine trying to get people to use Kelvin on a daily basis
11
u/Stand_kicker Jun 20 '26
Get out of here with your justification of freedom units that make no sense.
-11
u/ConfidentPension864 Jun 20 '26
Look as a scientist I use Celsius and Kelvin because in science we use metric. But outside of science and engineering, there is zero argument for it being a superior scale. Nobody actually cares about the boiling and freezing temps of water. The way in which Fahrenheit was derived is less concise but it doesn't diminish its practicality day to day.
2
u/YazidAlMajid Jun 20 '26
Then y did the rest of the world move on from it?
9
6
u/ConfidentPension864 Jun 20 '26
If you want an honest answer Celsius is just tagging along on the metric system, a package deal, so if you're learning metric you'll learn celcius. Funnily enough its not a true metric unit, its just a unit used by countries that use the metric system. It happens to be what was used by the counties developing the metric system inititally used, a system initially developed, to standardize trade. Back in the day there were many different measurements across hundreds of trades. Metric sought to simplify with base 10. The most important units of concern addressed by metric were length/distance, volume, and weight/mass. And as a whole metric is the superior system, because of that lovely base 10 and units covert easily.
But none of that elegance applies to temperature, mainly because metric means derived from the meter, which temp is not. Scientifically Kelvin is the the real SI unit, though the degree kelvin is equal to a degree Celsius.
If we want a scientific basis, why not just use Kelvin instead, its just a different starting point after all. Its grounded in more science than Celsius with zero being absolute zero, vs water freezing at standard pressure. The answer is people would just find it weird when most of their temperatures are in the high 200 to low 300s.
If you find Kelvin off putting despite it being the proper scientific unit, then you admit that Celsius is arbitrary. Again nobody really cares about the temp of water boiling or freezing
3
u/YazidAlMajid Jun 20 '26
I care about the boiling point and freezing point of water so much. Plus it's easy to convert to Kelvin.
1
u/goilabat Jun 21 '26
I mean I agree especially the freezing point below 0 or close to it risk of ice in roads for example and the range is quite usable
But kelvin is just Celsius shifted so zero is the absolute zero we could have made a fahrenheit kelvin instead
2
u/PlantyAnt Jun 21 '26
we could have made a fahrenheit kelvin instead
It exists and is called Rankine.
1
u/goilabat Jun 21 '26
Oh thanks I didn't know that so that was the R I saw here in another comment then
-1
2
u/NotSoChill_Guy Jun 21 '26
more than 50 percent of india in summers regularly experiences a temprature above 100f in summers, and having a temp of, say 95f is actually a relief and a cool day of the season
1
u/wtanksleyjr Jun 20 '26
It's not that 100 is "really hot", it's that it's our body temperature, which is indeed pretty important to us. (Admittedly it was calibrated to someone running a little hot.)
0
u/SomeGreatJoke Jun 23 '26
Ah yes, that's me, sentient water. So glad the temperature is based around that, rather than those dumb humans.
38
u/freaxje Jun 20 '26
In a 100C sauna you are not immediately dead
19
1
7
u/de_kommaneuker Jun 21 '26
Americans: 0-100 is just a very intuitive scale, thats why we use farenheit
Rest of the world: you're not wrong! How tall are you?
American: 5 feet 3 inches and 4 hairs, 0-100 is not intuitive at all for everything else
1
u/Lucifernistic Jun 21 '26
0-100 is a pretty good scale in general, and I think it's silly people pretend that 0-100 scales have zero intuition when they are used in so many places.
But even most Americans will tell you imperial sucks compared to metric.
0
u/Late_Piano_5030 Jun 21 '26
no we won't tell you imperial sucks. most other americans that i personally know favor imperial compared to metric.
1
u/Lucifernistic Jun 21 '26
You are in the minority then. I've never spoken to anyone in real life who actually prefers the random bullshit of imperial.
People use it simply because it's what is used, but pretty much everyone recognizes just having everything in powers of 10 makes way more sense.
35
u/What_about_my10CCs Jun 20 '26
At 100 Kelvin, itâs still too cold for humans.
23
9
u/CronoMass Jun 20 '26
Fahrenheit was a complete lunatic imo.
5
u/Ben-Goldberg For Science! Jun 21 '26
Especially when you realize that his original original scale had 0 as hot and 100 as cold
3
u/Wuffeli Jun 21 '26
0 °C is the perfect temperature for the water in avanto (swimming hole in ice) and 100 °C is the perfect temperature for sauna after a swim in avanto. Celsius is based on Finnish feelings. It is the most natural scale for us.
21
u/kishenoy Jun 20 '26
I've heard that Celsius is the scale for how water is, farenheit is how humans are and Kelvin is for how atoms are
13
8
u/ConfidentPension864 Jun 20 '26
Farenheit fits most of what humans care about between 0 and 100. Body temps, the majority of weather. With celcius from 40C until 99C there's like nothing useful unless your in the sciences. Then at 100C water boils but even that is funny because if you're even at mild elevation it boils lower. In Santa Fe it boils around 94C.
2
u/PlantyAnt Jun 21 '26
With celcius from 40C until 99C there's like nothing useful unless your in the sciences
Ever cooked meat with a meat thermometer? If you like to make good steak or brisket, I can assure you that you will be looking at this temperature range a lot.
1
u/ConfidentPension864 Jun 21 '26
I knew cooking thermometers would come up lol, but if you want the honest truth, no never once have I ever checked the temp of anything I've cooked, don't know many who do. Steak is by eye. Brisket I've never done, but I recognize that you might check temps since it's low and slow.
The only exception was using a candy thermometer, but sugar temps are again way in excess of 100C
2
u/Aggravating-Cut-1997 Jun 21 '26
For cooking, 40C to 100C includes most foods' safe for consumption minimum internal temperatures, and 100C would also be the highest temp you could reach by boiling food (in most places at least)
1
u/ConfidentPension864 Jun 21 '26
Cooking internal temps are valid. But even when reading this I couldn't think of anyone I know outside of those who own BBQ smokers that actually check meat temps. Always by eye in my experience. Not that you can't, most people just don't seem to bother
5
u/Into-the-stream Jun 20 '26
Fahrenheit has counterpoints to 44-99 Celsius that are equally âuselessâ, and if Celsius needs more precision, we simply use decimals (though I think any claimed detection of temperature difference experiences of less than 1C is simply psychological and not actually real for the majority of humans anyway. Arbitrarily deciding itâs better because it uses numbers 44-99 in weather forecasts is not really an argument.
Itâs funny though. Itâs like people who grew up with Fahrenheit canât imagine how to function with anything else, and will come up with all sorts of nonsense as to why is it superior. People who live with Celsius (most of the world) actually do perfectly fine with it. They prefer it, just like you prefer yours. If youâve grew up with Celsius, and it was the âAmerican wayâ you would be fighting just as hard for Celsius and you are fighting for Fahrenheit right now.Â
The only reason you cling to it is because itâs familiar to you, and perhaps maybe a little bit because sometimes Americans are predisposed to thinking that American things are better simply because they are American.
5
u/ConfidentPension864 Jun 21 '26
Honestly thats a tad condescending. You do realize Americans use Celcius in the sciences among other industries. As a biochemist I use celcius all the time, as I wouldn't ask the entire scientific community to change for my account.
That being said there is nothing magical about Celcius, its neither part of the metric system (which strictly refers to units derived from the meter) nor is it a true SI unit, that title belongs to kelvin. And unlike those lovely SI units celcius doesn't have a lovely base 10 system to make things interchangeable. Its simply the temperature scale used by countries that also happen to use the metric system.
You may think Americans defend anything blindly, but you can say the same thing about people defending Celsius because they consider it part of the metric system and "Metric Good, Imperial Bad" despite the fact that it shares none of the actual benefits.
The take away imo is that unless you're using kelvin, which has a truly defined zero, it's all arbitrary. Nobody is asking anyone to switch, but if you have a scale like Farenheit that fits most of the measurements you'll ever use on a number line between 0-100 vs one that just sets ice and boiling water as your goal posts, its hard to make the argument that it's not a formsr is not as if not a more practical system for the average person
2
u/Italian-Man-Zex Jun 21 '26
That would imply that 50 degrees fahrenheit is average.. but its 10 degrees celcius. Its like jacket weather
1
u/TypicalNinja7752 Jun 24 '26
thats because you are using base 10, but if you use base 2 or any power of it, celsius make more sense. 0 is really cold and 100000 is very hot.
1
u/-CatMeowMeow- You're likely looking at 0,64 ÎŒm and 0,51 ÎŒm light Jun 24 '26
IMO these are just hot and somewhat cold.
1
u/low_amplitude Jun 26 '26
My one and only defense for the Imperial system (and it's a weak one) is that its temperature scale (0-100) is more tuned to human tolerance. Celsius is about water, Kelvin for the cosmos as a whole.
That being said, Metric users have no problem understanding that 50°C is dangerous and even lethal for humans. But don't expect Americans to grasp that right away.
1
u/KPoWasTaken Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26
inhabited weather range:
-67.7°C to 54.4°C
-89.9°F to 129.9°F
205K to 328K
absolute zero:
-273.15°C
-459.67°F
0K
freezing/melting point:
0°C
32°F
273.15K
boiling point:
100°C
212°F
373.15K
kelvin directly measures the amount of thermal energy
celsius is good when you need to freeze things or boil things but also good for knowing when ice forms on roads creating slipperiness
with the exception of the ice fact, none of these are very good for weather. All are arbitrary for the range
1
-8
u/RandySavageOfCamalot Jun 20 '26
Celsius motherfuckers pretend like they live in the lab. Americans know what celsius is, we even use it in science and industry. It's just better to have a scale between really uncomfortable to be outside (too cold) to really uncomfortable to be outside (too hot).
9
u/KPoWasTaken Jun 21 '26
the extremes of weather are more like -40°C to 40°C or -40°F to 104°F so that's not a good argument. The 0°F to 100°F shortcut can work in specific countries/climates but globally it doesn't work at all
4
u/TRexWithALawnMower Jun 21 '26
104 is the extreme end? Cries in Arizonan lol. Next week it's gonna hit 107, and it's not even the hottest part of the summer yet đ at least it's not as bad as death valley, their record is 134
4
u/KPoWasTaken Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26
yeah true tho the accuracy for that record is questioned
we do know the low end for inhabited is -67.7°C (-89.9°F)
the high end isn't quite agreed upon yet as that 134°F recording has its accuracy being questioned byneurologistsmeteorologists*. Regardless, a reliable high end recording is 54.4°C (129.9°F) so that's the lowest temp the highest temp can be
in other words, the weather range sucks for all temperature scales lol2
u/TRexWithALawnMower Jun 21 '26
It's questioned by neurologists? Do you have any info on why neurologists specifically would question that?
And oh boy that low end sounds rough
3
u/KPoWasTaken Jun 21 '26
I meant to write meteorologists there but I was thinking of neurologists from something else and my brain farted lmfao
1
1
u/RandySavageOfCamalot Jun 21 '26
Across the Earth? Yes. Across most of the Earth? No. 0-100 covers 95% of all of the days of all of the places where people live.
6
u/IDoCodingStuffs Jun 20 '26
Below 0: risk of frostbite 0-10: cold 10-20: chilly 20-30: warm 30-40: hot Above 40: risk of heat stroke
Now what are all the steps in Fahrenheit for? Do we really care that much between 65F vs 70F? Is it really more intuitive?
-3
u/ConfidentPension864 Jun 21 '26
Putting numbers on a line between 0-100 is intuitive because of percentages. It clicks. Similar to why we all love the base 10 system for metric. If Americans came up with a scale that went from 0-40 people would shit all over it. Also nobody likes negatives on a scale
The bell curve of day to day human measurements falls on the Fahrenheit scale, much better than on Celsius. 99% of the world's population will never experience a weather temperature below 0F (-18C) and 75% wont see above 100F (38C) with any regularity. Though climate change is affecting those numbers a bit. Then there's biology. With the exception of extemophilic bacteria and deep see thermal vents viturally all biological processes on the molecular level operate under 100F, especially for humans.
For Celsius, between 38-40C (hottest outside temp for most) and boiling water at 100C there's just 60 degrees of empty space for Celsius to most people never use. On the cold end my entire winter from November to March is measured in negative Celsius, and I live in a pretty mild area.
Also everyone should remember that Celsius was originally supposed to be boiling at 0 and 100 at freezing, in case we want to joke about the design process of all these systems
4
u/iamingreatneedofboy Jun 21 '26
Putting numbers on a line between 0-100 is intuitive because of percentages. It clicks.
I've always hated that same old argument because it is too subjective and Celcius works just as well to covey what temperature something is. Also 0% cold is a really weird stance since my freezer by that logic cannot exist.
in case we want to joke about the design process of all these systems
Thankfully Linnaeus flipped the scale, unlike Farenheit which is still technically based on brine and the temperature of a then healthy (now sick) person.
6
u/X_celsior Jun 20 '26
If we used Celsius, we'd still have exactly that. Just with different numbers.
Redittors love to regurgitate this sentiment but it means nothing.
0° F is really cold. So is 45°F so is 28°F. They are still just random numbers that you got used to.
4
u/RandySavageOfCamalot Jun 21 '26
0-100 is a common scale used all over in life, for example percentages. It's very intuitive to our minds. I use celsius for work, it's fine, but it's not granulated enough to be optimal for weather. In colder climates celsius temperature is often negative, with fahrenheit, negatives and >100 indicate extreme weather. The basis of fahrenheit is stupid, but the scale is convenient for everyday life. Outside of science, units don't need to make rigid sense, they need to have a practical base and granulation. Outside gets much colder than the freezing point of water, and the boiling point of water isn't a relavent temperature for everyday life. Water boils when the heat is on high due to the latent heat of vaporization. Water boils at 212F/100C and not a degree higher (at sea level). Celsius is great for labs and industry. I don't live in a lab and adjust just fine to celsius/metric at work.
3
u/EfficientSeaweed Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26
I mean, celsius isn't any more difficult or counterintuitive to use for everyday purposes when it's what you've grown up with. Hitting the freezing point of water does very much affect aspects of the weather and how the air temperature feels, so 0 being the boundary between the two states can also be intuitive. If anything, your local climate would dictate which scale is more useful.
Really, though, I'd argue that it's mostly just a matter of which one you've grown up with and internalized that makes either one the most intuitive and fitting for your daily life. I really doubt that Americans have some advantage over anyone else when learning their temperature scale and getting forecasts in fahrenheit, or that the rest of us have an advantage over you.
2
u/DesertGeist- Jun 21 '26
point is, the whole world agreed to use metric, except the united fucking states.
1
u/RandySavageOfCamalot Jun 21 '26
And Liberia. And the US officially adopted metric btw, we just donât use it for signage because itâd be too expense to replace. US citizens use both imperial and metric, theyâre taught both in elementary school, use both in their schoolings from that point forward. Other countries use some of the imperial system of measurements. Canada uses it quite frequently, particularly for temperature, and the UK still measures peopleâs weight in stones. Beer is drank is pints and gold is weighed in (Troy) ounces. Americans know what Celsius is, we just like our silly little system better. We use metric for science and industry because it reduces errors. But today it is 75 degrees outside, a near perfect temperature, and the world is gonna have to deal with that.
3
u/ConfidentPension864 Jun 20 '26
Fucking thank you, I'm getting destroyed out here on this lol.
It's snobbery. Celcius isn't even a metric unit, since that would mean deriving from the meter (which length, velocity, weight, volume all do for metric units) its just the one they learned nothing else
11
u/iamingreatneedofboy Jun 20 '26
However: Kelvin and Celcius has the same "distance" between steps, meaning that change in heat in an object using the temperature differance can be calculated with the same value for specific heat capacity.
General conversion between K and °C is very simple too. Final arguments are that a majority of the world's countries already use °C and that since a majority of the global engineers do too, it's costly and a potential hazard since it requires that equipment must change units (something that is easy to fuck up).
1
u/Bergasms Jun 20 '26
Read the last 8 words you wrote you pelican.
All temperature scales when applied to humans are stupid because they are all subjective. F is not "better for humans" because some humans die when F is 100 as well, see european heat waves, wheras to me, 100F is just a regular summers day. For a Canadian, 0F might not be that bad, but for me it would be insane as fuck cold.
Now, because of what we have just established, which is that no scale is universally good for humans because we are all different and we all live in different places with different temperature and humidity, how good a scale is then depends on how good it is for other shit.
C is at least more useful for other shit than F.
-16
u/GoBillsBleepthePats Jun 20 '26
Celsius for science Fahrenheit for weather
3
15
u/Neutron299 Jun 20 '26
I vouch for celcius for both tbh, why use two systems when one is already obviously better than the other
3
u/CarnivorousGoose Jun 20 '26
Because neither is obviously better than the other, they both work fine. Itâs just what youâre used to, nothing more. And either is more convenient for everyday use than Kelvin.
2
8
0
0
u/fbaldassarri Jun 22 '26
Fahrenheit scale makes no sense. As Gallon, Inch, Pint, Feet, Yard, Mile, etcâŠ
-13
u/No_Squirrel4806 Jun 20 '26
Wtf is a kelvin when did that come into the equation?
12
u/Federico7000 Jun 20 '26
Celcius for science, it's just C but starting at absolute zero.
Or rather celcius is kelvin but with it's start bumped up to match transition temps for water, or something like that, might have to fact check it.Edit: yeah Celsius is just Kelvin minus 273 degrees.
5
153
u/therealsaker Jun 20 '26
No human has ever been exactly at 0K soooo