Poll of the Day > Poll: The US should change from Fahrenheit to Celsius Y/N

(+) Yeah! (+)

I voted yes because we can lower global warming by switching to Celsius

it was 100 degrees now it's 40
---

my jokes are not appreciated
---

I would be annoyed at having to learn the conversion, but in the long run it would be much better. So... Yep!
---

Fahrenheit is far better for measuring human tolerances to temperature. Celsius is better for science, but in my daily life, I don't really give much of a shit about science.

I'd argue the same is true for the Imperial/Standard system versus Metric in general - Metric is better for general conversion, sharing data, and scientific discussion, but it's less useful for general life, because Standard measures actually evolved out of real life applications, whereas Metric was a more artificial creation.


---

Nah, the rest of the world needs and easy way to identify "dumb Americans" :B
---

0C = Cold day
0F = Very cold day

30C = Very warm day
30F = Cold day

60C = Insanely hot day
60F = Nice day

90C = You are dead
90F = Hot day

120C = Your blood is boiling
120F = Very hot day

Should we? Yes

Will we? No
---

As a Celsius user, no, America shouldn't change just for the sake of changing. The people there are too accustomed to Fahrenheit that changing would do more bad than good.

captpackrat posted...

0C = Cold day
0F = Very cold day

30C = Very warm day
30F = Cold day

60C = Insanely hot day
60F = Nice day

90C = You are dead
90F = Hot day

120C = Your blood is boiling
120F = Very hot day

Is... is that supposed to be a counter argument to Celsius? Because it failed...

0C = very cold
10C = cold
20C = nice day
30C = warm day
40C = Hot day
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Fahrenheit is far better for measuring human tolerances to temperature. Celsius is better for science, but in my daily life, I don't really give much of a s*** about science.

Not really. As far as everyday life goes, whatever you're used to is going to be best. After one or two exposures, the difference between calling "really hot" 100 and calling it 40 is completely arbitrary. What does differ is the need to learn a second temperature scale in order to do science, which is just inefficient.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Fahrenheit is far better for measuring human tolerances to temperature. Celsius is better for science, but in my daily life, I don't really give much of a shit about science.

I'd argue the same is true for the Imperial/Standard system versus Metric in general - Metric is better for general conversion, sharing data, and scientific discussion, but it's less useful for general life, because Standard measures actually evolved out of real life applications, whereas Metric was a more artificial creation.

This, tbh.
---

Forget Fahrenheit and Celsius, lets switch over to Kelvin.
---

TheGreatNoodles posted...

Is... is that supposed to be a counter argument to Celsius? Because it failed...

0C = very cold
10C = cold
20C = nice day
30C = warm day
40C = Hot day

Fahrenheit has a larger range of numbers, so it's easier to get a feel for the temperature. A 40 spread in Celsius takes you from freezing to a hot day, while Fahrenheit that same range would have a spread of 72.

For science, of course, Kelvin is far superior to both Fahrenheit and Celsius.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Fahrenheit is far better for measuring human tolerances to temperature. Celsius is better for science, but in my daily life, I don't really give much of a shit about science.

I'd argue the same is true for the Imperial/Standard system versus Metric in general - Metric is better for general conversion, sharing data, and scientific discussion, but it's less useful for general life, because Standard measures actually evolved out of real life applications, whereas Metric was a more artificial creation.

You say this every time this comes up and I honestly never understand what the fuck you mean.

Numerical measurements of temperature are all artificial creations.
---

TsC_PoLiTiKz posted...

I would be annoyed at having to learn the conversion, but in the long run it would be much better. So... Yep!

No it wouldn't be better in the long run, because...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Fahrenheit is far better for measuring human tolerances to temperature. Celsius is better for science, but in my daily life, I don't really give much of a shit about science.

That being said, it's valuable to understand both scales, but there's no good reason to stop using Fahrenheit when it's more useful for most everyday purposes.
---

Blightzkrieg posted...

You say this every time this comes up and I honestly never understand what the fuck you mean.

Numerical measurements of temperature are all artificial creations.

Fahrenheit is a 0-100 scale keyed to human tolerances. 0 is about as low as temperatures can go and be survivable long-term without significant preparation or artificial means of heating. Meanwhile, 100 is around the upper tier of human environment. For everything you'll need vis-a-vis human experience, it's an effective scale.

Celsius, on the other hand, is less precise for human temperatures - because it's based on the freezing and boiling points of water, it doesn't map as precisely. 0 is cold (and potentially damaging over time without clothing), but it isn't really the lower threshold of human life (which is more like -18). Meanwhile, the upper limit caps at around 38. And a range of -18 to 38 is inelegant as fuck.

Basically, Fahrenheit gives you more gradiated info that is more useful to daily life (namely, outdoor temperature/weather readings and internal body temperature readings). Celsius is more useful for more precise measurements involving more extreme temperatures (ie, scientific applications). Though arguably, Celsius is almost entirely redundant considering the existence of the Kelvin scale - so if anything, if we're going to discount relative scaling, Fahrenheit has far more right to exist than Celsius does at this point.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Blightzkrieg posted...

You say this every time this comes up and I honestly never understand what the fuck you mean.

Numerical measurements of temperature are all artificial creations.

Fahrenheit is a 0-100 scale keyed to human tolerances. 0 is about as low as temperatures can go and be survivable long-term without significant preparation or artificial means of heating. Meanwhile, 100 is around the upper tier of human environment. For everything you'll need vis-a-vis human experience, it's an effective scale.

Celsius, on the other hand, is less precise for human temperatures - because it's based on the freezing and boiling points of water, it doesn't map as precisely. 0 is cold (and potentially damaging over time without clothing), but it isn't really the lower threshold of human life (which is more like -18). Meanwhile, the upper limit caps at around 38. And a range of -18 to 38 is inelegant as fuck.

Basically, Fahrenheit gives you more gradiated info that is more useful to daily life (namely, outdoor temperature/weather readings and internal body temperature readings). Celsius is more useful for more precise measurements involving more extreme temperatures (ie, scientific applications). Though arguably, Celsius is almost entirely redundant considering the existence of the Kelvin scale - so if anything, if we're going to discount relative scaling, Fahrenheit has far more right to exist than Celsius does at this point.

I'll turn the table around and say that Fahrenheit only advantage is environment temperature reading (in which Celcious isn't that bad at all). For everything else that you use in daily life (such as cooking, for example), Celcius is superior - so it is more suited for being used as default for everything.

VixYW posted...

I'll turn the table around and say that Fahrenheit only advantage is environment temperature reading (in which Celcious isn't that bad at all). For everything else that you use in daily life (such as cooking, for example), Celcius is superior - so it is more suited for being used as default for everything.

Not really. Fahrenheit is still a more gradiated scale at the temperatures you're likely cooking at, since almost nothing you cook is going to require a temperature more than 300-500 or so.

And cooking is about the ONLY daily activity where temperatures don't relate directly to human tolerances, unless you're dealing in specialty applications.


---

TheGreatNoodles posted...

0C = cold
10C = cool
20C = nice day
30C = hot day
40C = very hot day

fixed that for you
---

Could we use the different numbers or would we have to go around the entire country changing actual temperatures?
---

Zangulus posted...

Countries that use Celsius.
Countries that have been to the moon.

The scientists that got them to the moon used metric in their calculations.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

VixYW posted...

I'll turn the table around and say that Fahrenheit only advantage is environment temperature reading (in which Celcious isn't that bad at all). For everything else that you use in daily life (such as cooking, for example), Celcius is superior - so it is more suited for being used as default for everything.

Not really. Fahrenheit is still a more gradiated scale at the temperatures you're likely cooking at, since almost nothing you cook is going to require a temperature more than 300-500 or so.

And cooking is about the ONLY daily activity where temperatures don't relate directly to human tolerances, unless you're dealing in specialty applications.

Not really, I find it easier to think based on the water boiling temperature when cooking. Tho I don't cook that much...

And that's not the only one either. Other examples: Setting the temperature on water heater, or taking someone's temperature to know if they're sick (anything different than 36C means something is wrong).

Ogurisama posted...

TheGreatNoodles posted...

0C = cold
10C = good enough
20C = warning bells ringing
30C = S.O.S.
40C = R.I.P.

fixed that for you

Fixed your fix.

Pretty much everything ParanoidObsessive has said.

I actually prefer degrees F for the reasons he stated.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

And cooking is about the ONLY daily activity where temperatures don't relate directly to human tolerances, unless you're dealing in specialty applications.

I have never used Celsius while cooking (most recipes specify low-high for the pan), and my gf doesn't use it for baking.

So... no.

Also, metric measuring cups suck, imperial is better for dividing stuff in half, which you do need for cooking.
---

XD

You people think 30C is hot? Pfffffftttt

All those 'fixed that for you' are clearly from colder places.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Fahrenheit is a 0-100 scale keyed to human tolerances. 0 is about as low as temperatures can go and be survivable long-term without significant preparation or artificial means of heating. Meanwhile, 100 is around the upper tier of human environment. For everything you'll need vis-a-vis human experience, it's an effective scale.

Celsius, on the other hand, is less precise for human temperatures - because it's based on the freezing and boiling points of water, it doesn't map as precisely. 0 is cold (and potentially damaging over time without clothing), but it isn't really the lower threshold of human life (which is more like -18). Meanwhile, the upper limit caps at around 38. And a range of -18 to 38 is inelegant as fuck.

But that definition of limits is entirely arbitrary, and no easier to use or remember than celsius. It ultimately comes down to "I grew up with these numbers so I like them better" which doesn't mean much when you consider the vast array of numbers we deal with on a daily basis that don't conform to a 0 to 100 scale (where the 0 to 100 in this case don't mean anything definite other than "ya really hot fam" and "woah chillax dude tis like father christmas's teats out there eh").

The only reason fahrenheit seems to make more sense in your descriptions is because you're giving it such broad goalposts to conform to that aren't actually making it more useful in any kind of realistic setting, barring children who haven't learned negative numbers yet.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Fahrenheit is a 0-100 scale keyed to human tolerances.

The 0 in fahrenheit is the freezing point of a saturated ammonium chloride solution. That's not really human anything.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Celsius, on the other hand, is less precise for human temperatures

That's not what "precise" means at all. Both scales are capable of exactly the same amount of precision, because decimal places exist. Being smaller, individual fahrenheit degrees are more precise than individual celsius degrees, but for everyday use (your "human temperatures"), you really don't need that precision. In any context where you do need that precision, you're going to a) need more precision than half-degrees can provide, and b) be using celsius/kelvin already because science.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

And a range of -18 to 38 is inelegant as f***.

So say -20 to 40 instead. For such approximations as you're talking about, you really don't need exact conversions.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Not really. Fahrenheit is still a more gradiated scale at the temperatures you're likely cooking at, since almost nothing you cook is going to require a temperature more than 300-500 or so.

I'm not sure what you're even trying to say there. "Gradiated" isn't a word. If you mean "graduated," then again, you don't need any more precision than Celsius will give you. Setting your oven to 225 C instead of 350 F isn't going to change much, even though 350 F is really 226.4 C.

I will concede that Fahrenheit is the more convenient option for candy-making, since the break points between the various stages align more neatly with multiples of 5 or 10 degrees Fahrenheit than they do for Celsius, and precision does matter there (some of those break points are only 3 or 4 degrees C apart). In practice, any given recipe will typically just give a specific temperature to aim for, and most candy thermometers have both scales on them such that you can just aim for that target and not have to think about what they are, but if you're making up such a recipe yourself, it's going to be easier to remember the ranges and their properties in Fahrenheit.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Though arguably, Celsius is almost entirely redundant considering the existence of the Kelvin scale - so if anything, if we're going to discount relative scaling,

Celsius is just Kelvin with a phase shift to have everyday temperatures be more manageable numbers (since there is a practical difference between saying "20" and saying "290"). That just makes sense.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

imperial is better for dividing stuff in half

I've seen many people say this, and I have no idea why it's a thing. Saying "half a quart" is no different from saying "half a litre." (aside from the 26.8 ml difference because that's not the point) Every metric measurement can be subdivided just fine; you don't have to use a precise quantity of the next unit down in order to do so just because those smaller units exist.
---

adjl posted...

I've seen many people say this, and I have no idea why it's a thing. Saying "half a quart" is no different from saying "half a litre." (aside from the 26.8 ml difference because that's not the point) Every metric measurement can be subdivided just fine; you don't have to use a precise quantity of the next unit down in order to do so just because those smaller units exist.

1/16th of a quart can be divided down if you're really f***ing with a large scale recipe.
Do that with a liter and you're going to have a bad time.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

adjl posted...

I've seen many people say this, and I have no idea why it's a thing. Saying "half a quart" is no different from saying "half a litre." (aside from the 26.8 ml difference because that's not the point) Every metric measurement can be subdivided just fine; you don't have to use a precise quantity of the next unit down in order to do so just because those smaller units exist.

1/16th of a quart can be divided down if you're really f***ing with a large scale recipe.
Do that with a liter and you're going to have a bad time.

How so? What makes 1/16 of a litre harder to measure than 1/16 of a quart?
---

yeah for sure

nobody wants to fuck the guy wearing brown cords and dressing like a grandpa. keep with the times or make your own future
---

1/16 liter = 62.5 ml
1/16 quart = 4 tablespoons
---

yo i am pretty sure nobody on metric even used fucking fraction bullshit anyway

think outside that box
---

So four 1/64-litre spoons instead of four 1/64-quart spoons. In a world where metric measuring cups/spoons were standard, it stands to reason that - if such a subdivision were deemed useful - cups and spoons would include such measurements.

Though, realistically, if you were working with a metric recipe, you'd be much more likely to divide it by 10 or 20 instead of 16, since it's a decimal scale. Then it's easy and you use 5 ml or 20 ml spoons. Thirds would still be a pain, but then thirds are always a pain unless you're dividing tablespoons or whole cups, and a 1/3 hL measuring cup is no less plausible a concept than a 1/3c one.
---

The US should not change to Celsius any more than Japan should start writing exclusively in Romaji.
---

Might I point out that table spoon sizes ALSO vary by place. XD

A tablespoon in Australia isn't the same size as a tablespoon in America.
---

Actually, the U.S. needs to change to Celsius and metric to keep up and communicate with the world.
---

70 degrees fahrenheit is comfortable.
70 degrees celsius would be terrible.
---

adjl posted...

So four 1/64-litre spoons instead of four 1/64-quart spoons

Wait, what does this mean?
I think you misunderstood what a tablespoon is.

adjl posted...

Though, realistically, if you were working with a metric recipe, you'd be much more likely to divide it by 10 or 20 instead of 16, since it's a decimal scale. Then it's easy and you use 5 ml or 20 ml spoons. Thirds would still be a pain, but then thirds are always a pain unless you're dividing tablespoons or whole cups, and a 1/3 hL measuring cup is no less plausible a concept than a 1/3c one.

The point is that if you had a recipe that was 8x, or 4x, or 2x more than you wanted, it wouldn't conveniently scale down and you would have to round, and rounding leads to food not tasting right.
---

Zeus posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Fahrenheit is far better for measuring human tolerances to temperature. Celsius is better for science, but in my daily life, I don't really give much of a shit about science.

I'd argue the same is true for the Imperial/Standard system versus Metric in general - Metric is better for general conversion, sharing data, and scientific discussion, but it's less useful for general life, because Standard measures actually evolved out of real life applications, whereas Metric was a more artificial creation.

This, tbh.

Only the temperature one, honestly.
.
---

While you could use decimals, I guess, honestly Fahrenheit seems so much better for temp control, especially when you literally have like a 2 degree range of comfort (and if you think that is strange, you have not known alot of people who have lived most of their lives in climate controlled environments).

I knew one person who was always cold if it was under 68...and would complain, but was hot if it was over 72....and would complain. Nope, nobody ever strangled here......they may have thought about it though.

I personally like it around 60-70 and i'm fine, so Celsius would work fairly well for me I guess...but yeah, it's nice to not need to use decimals to set your temps on your air conditioners etc. Wouldn't be a huge deal to change, and honestly if you even did it in 1/2 increments So 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 30, 30.5 etc) it would give you about the same "range" as Fahrenheit does right now, close enough anyway.
---

wolfy42 posted...

While you could use decimals, I guess, honestly Fahrenheit seems so much better for temp control, especially when you literally have like a 2 degree range of comfort (and if you think that is strange, you have not known alot of people who have lived most of their lives in climate controlled environments).

I knew one person who was always cold if it was under 68...and would complain, but was hot if it was over 72....and would complain. Nope, nobody ever strangled here......they may have thought about it though.

I personally like it around 60-70 and i'm fine, so Celsius would work fairly well for me I guess...but yeah, it's nice to not need to use decimals to set your temps on your air conditioners etc. Wouldn't be a huge deal to change, and honestly if you even did it in 1/2 increments So 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 30, 30.5 etc) it would give you about the same "range" as Fahrenheit does right now, close enough anyway.

Yeah. I think it would be nice to not have to worry about decimals on temperature control devices.

I also don't really feel like learning a new way of telling temperature to make other countries happy though, tbh. I don't really see the point of us changing. It seems to be working fine...
---

Yes
---

I think they both have their uses. Farenheit overall does seem better for grading weather so I'm not sure I'd want to move away from it.
---

Gunsandredroses posted...

The US should not change to Celsius any more than Japan should start writing exclusively in Romaji.

I'm not against that idea actually.

shadowsword87 posted...

Wait, what does this mean?
I think you misunderstood what a tablespoon is.

It's a quarter of a quarter of a cup, which is in turn a quarter of a quart. Ergo, 1 tbsp= 1/4^3=1/64 q. In a 100% metric world, if a comparable volume was considered useful, a 1/64 L measuring spoon would exist that measured 15.625 mL. It'd probably be given a common name to make it easier to reference, but there's no reason to think it wouldn't exist.

shadowsword87 posted...

The point is that if you had a recipe that was 8x, or 4x, or 2x more than you wanted, it wouldn't conveniently scale down and you would have to round, and rounding leads to food not tasting right.

Provided you're lucky enough to want to scale something down by an exact power of two that consists entirely of measurements larger than tablespoons, sure. Generally, the ideal scaling factor isn't actually going to be so predictable and you're going to end up rounding the factor down to the closest one that suits your needs.

Of course, in actual practice, you're more likely to be limited by the number of eggs in the recipe than by your measuring system. Eggs don't readily subdivide, unless you're using packaged stuff or weighing them and wasting the excess. Though really, weighing ingredients is always the best way to bake (especially dry ingredients), in which case your measurement system doesn't matter much (but metric works better for every scaling factor that isn't a power of 2).
---

I don't see why not.
---

I think that Fahrenheit is more accurate to our day to day use. Here the temperature can be anywhere between 0 and 100F so 0 being the coldest its going to get and 100 being the warmest is something.

Seeing British people complain that 30C is a "Heat wave" for example is hilarious.
---

Judgmenl posted...

I think that Fahrenheit is more accurate to our day to day use.

You're an engineer. I'm willing to let some of the other people in this topic slide because they don't necessarily have such a background, but you should certainly know better than to apply the term "accurate" to a temperature scale like that. Shame on you.
---