Hacker News Reader

Comment by mattgrice | Hacker News Reader

It is very nice to see US-targeted media use F. All climate related news seems to use C and I'd bet that 95%+ of Americans don't know 2 degrees C = 3.6 degrees F. So most Americans are underestimating the effects of climate change by almost a factor of 2. And those are the ones that believe in it.

I think the US should move to SI but as long as we haven't (and have actually taken steps backwards during the Bush administration) as far as I am concerned it is journalistic malpractice if not active disinformation to report temperature changes in C in US media.

View on HN

> I think the US should move to SI

F is a much better unit than C for everyday use.

> F is a much better unit than C for everyday use.

People say this, and it confuses me.

Basically the only difference between the two is the absolute numbers and the resolution.

Regarding resolution, for me the difference between, say 22 C and 23 C isn’t consistently noticeable - it depends on what I’m wearing, my recent activity level, humidity, etc. having a finer resolution - i.e. between 72 and 73 F isn’t that useful. That is to say, I’d change my plans if it were say 8 C outside instead of 18 C, but I wouldn’t if it were 17 instead of 18.

Regarding absolute numbers - sure with Fahrenheit you don’t need to use negative numbers as much, but apparently you still need to across much of the US, and dealing with negative numbers is… fine? Having generally smaller numbers (i.e. most of Earth has natural temperatures of - 40 to +40) is probably better? And having that obvious distinction of when water freezes makes some sense maybe?

I honestly don’t thing either is particularly better for everyday use, it’s just that a lot of people are habituated to one or the other.

F is nice b/c it's pretty much on a 0-100 scale. 0 is really cold, 100 is really hot. Anything below 0 or about 100 is pretty much death without proper care.

The corresponding range for C is -50C to +50C which covers virtually all human experience. 20-25C is typical indoor comfortable temperature. And veering from it either above or below makes things uncomfortable. 0C is freezing, below which hypothermia risk increases rapidly.

All nice whole round numbers.

And each block of 10 degrees has a mood and a feel. And easy to say.

- “It’s going to be in the 70’s”.

- “Nice!”

The precision is good too. A nice range in each block. And block crossover is fine.

- “Might hit the low 70’s later”

- “OK I’ll bring a packable hoodie.”

> but apparently you still need to across much of the US, and dealing with negative numbers is… fine?

Honestly, you don't really need to, at least on a day-to-day basis. I grew up somewhere where it got <0F every year for like a week at a time. You will just colloquially refer to it as "below zero" which roughly translates into "yea f** that, we aren't going outside".

The only time I ever really remembered distinguishing between degrees below 0 was midwestern trash talk between e.g. IL, WI, MN, and ND. (If I remember correctly, ND wins on wind chill)

I've used C all my life, but moved to the US lately and trying to start using F.

Probably the easiest measurement change to get used to. There's very little difference in actual practice.

C makes it easier to reason regarding freezing/boiling - it's simpler to think about if it's going to snow by relating it to 0 then 32. But that's about the only difference in day to day use I can think of.

I haven't heard any reason to prefer F over C however (unlike Feet for example).

> Probably the easiest measurement change to get used to.

here is a counter-anecdotal evidence I moved to the US 25 years ago, still hate F with passion

I gave it a serious go. After trying to get used to F for 20-some years, I went back and set all my thermometers and online weather maps to Celsius.

Farenheit is an absurdly bad scale choice. It is needlessly granular for everyday use and feels wholly arbitrary.

32 degrees is freezing, so how far is 19 F from freezing? 32-19 ... ummm 13 degrees and that is as far as 32+19 ... ummm 51 degrees ... what are we talking about? -10 and +10 Celsius ...

I still don't know if 120F would burn my hands or not, if 150 F scalds or not. I have no sense about temperatures above 100F (and that one only because it is a threshold for fever)

> I still don't know if 120F would burn my hands or not, if 150 F scalds or not. I have no sense about temperatures above 100F

I don't see how C would be easier for that. How do you know if 49℃ burns or 66℃ scalds?

My gut sense is that is that over 50C you are getting into scalding territory.

50, which is halfway between 0 and 100, so that, too, kind of makes sense.

I use both F and C (I grew up exclusively using F, but now I have a lot of experience with both), and I prefer C.

It's more handy for cold weather because freezing is 0° (which is way less awkward than 32°), and it's more handy for cooking because boiling is 100° (which is way less awkward than 212°).

It's also nice that the human body temperature is a round 37° (rather than 98.6°).

For warmer weather, F and C are about the same to me. It's easy to remember that 20°C is perfect, 30°C is hot, and 40°C is miserable — just as it is easy to remember the equivalent 70°F, 85°F, and 100°F.

So I have found that C is better for day-to-day use, even though it's not what I grew up with and I have drastically less experience with it. All I needed was a little time to get used to it.

It’s only boiling at sea level. See, this is why it’s such a poor unit. It relies on a rare environmental condition. Fine for the lab but not everyday use.

Having lived in regions that use both, I have to say that there’s not much difference in everyday experience once you’ve gotten used to it. I don’t think I’d like to be dealing with Kelvin (the actual SI temperature unit) on an everyday basis, though. Or maybe I’d get used to it just as easily as switching between C and F.

"30 is hot, 20 is nice, 10 is chilly, 0 is ice".

You're welcome.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com