ech comments on temperature

temperature (mander.xyz)

submitted 2 years ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

417 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] ech@lemm.ee -36 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

You're missing the point. The scale is what matters, not your personal experience or unit preference. From 0-100 F is right about what a human could be expected to tolerate without much help. In C, that's -18-38. That's a much more limited range in terms of human tolerance, but it works great for water, which would be 0-100 C. The scale doesn't translate as well to K, but it does end at 0, so there's that.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 41 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Yet people live in negative farenheit conditions.

Try telling a northern siberian, who commonly see winter temperatures between -50 and -100 fahrenheit, that 0f is right about the limit for a human to tolerate...

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 10 points 2 years ago

Exactly: or take folks who live in the tropics (about 40% of the human population) where it feels cold below 60F.

parent

[–] ech@lemm.ee -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

You think those people go out without thick, warm clothes? I get you're really committed to arguing for C against people not even arguing against it, but come on now. You know what I'm saying. It's not a particularly difficult concept to grasp.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

You wouldn't tolerate 0 farenheit in the nude either.
You wouldn't tolerate 10 farenheit for extended periods either.

I know what you are saying and I disagree. I am not trying to say celsius is better than farenheit, I'm saying farenheit is not in any way intrinsically more human than celsius.

0 farenheit was chosen because that's the temperature of salty ice, The lowest temperature they could easily achieve at the time, it has nothing to do with what humans can and can't endure.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] ech@lemm.ee -6 points 2 years ago*

Whatever mate. I'm not here to argue you out of whatever tunnel your stuck in. Good luck with that.

parent

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

From 0-100 F is right about what a human could be expected to tolerate without much help.

The fuck does this mean

parent

[+] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works -28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Exactly. And you're not even pointing out that the human frame of reference starts at -18 Celsius! So a significant portion of the time, you're going to have to use negative numbers to describe the temperature.

Edit

To clarify, I am not arguing that Fahrenheit is a better scale in general. I'm simply saying that it's human-centric. Celsius is perfectly usable for human purposes, and also much more useful than Fahrenheit for scientific purposes. I'm just explaining how the meme makes sense to me

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 27 points 2 years ago (1 child)

the human frame of reference starts at -18 Celsius!

That makes no sense to me at all. what frame of reference? what happens at -18? Ive been out in temperatures both above and below that, yes its cold as fuck, but nothing special happens? If we move a bit further north here they'd call me a wuss, and tell me real cold starts at -30.

you're going to have to use negative numbers to describe the temperature.

I find that really useful actually! Our world is made of water. In winter time here, temperatures above 0 means the snow will be soggy and wet, negative temperatures means it won't.

if the temperature was above 0 but has now dipped into the negatives, beware of ice when walking or driving.

You can use all the arguments you want, the truth is either system is perfectly useful for human day-to-day use if you are used to it.

The best system, for you, will always be the one you grew up with

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works -22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Don't play dumb. We're talking about the range of temperatures an average person experiences in their day-to-day lives.

In winter time here, temperatures above 0 means the snow will be soggy and wet, negative temperatures means it won’t.

This might blow your mind but you can do the same thing with Fahrenheit. Just look for the number 32 instead of 0.

You can use all the arguments you want, the truth is either system is perfectly useful for human day-to-day use if you are used to it.

The best system, for you, will always be the one you grew up with

I never said otherwise and I totally agree.

However they are different systems and they do have pros and cons. Fahrenheit is more suitable for daily life while Celsius is more suitable for science.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] CEbbinghaus@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

Sorry im clearly not your average person experiencing >38° on a regular basis. There are plenty of humans that exist in climates that fall entirely outside of what you Americans consider "normal". Which is why "-18 - 38 is the 'normal' range for an average person" is such an American thing to say. You took your own climate and projected it across the world.

Personally I like to go with the system that makes the most sense for 70% of earth's surface and 64% of a human body.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works -8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

What? -18C to 38C is a massive range. Only a very small percentage of people would experience temperatures outside that range for most the year.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] CEbbinghaus@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Tell that to Germany who have now hit 42° during summer thanks to global warming. If you really think that it's a tiny minority that live in climates who experience those temperatures then you are not very well travelled. Note also that a lot of countries have a real temperature <38 but thanks to the humidity it feels >38. Farenheit is just another temperature scale. There is nothing more intuitive about it than any other scale. If we were always told the temperature in kelvin we would think that to feel the most natural.

Just accept that we like our scales because they are familiar and not because they are better.

parent

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 21 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Just look for the number 32 instead of 0.

Now you are almost arguing against yourself, I can use the same argument about body temperature, just look for 37 instead of 100

However they are different systems and they do have pros and cons.

And this is a pro for me where I live.

I never said otherwise and I totally agree.

Fahrenheit is more suitable for daily life

These don't square.
Celsius and farenheit is just as suitable for daily life. You learn your important reference points and go from there.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works -11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Generally -40 to 40 are the extremes of livable areas.

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.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

but I would argue that the range of 10 degrees Celsius is too broad to be useful in the same way.

As you might imagine I completely disagree.

For my purposes 20's, 30's, negative 10's and so on is perfectly good, and I would describe my purposes as human.

Again, this is based on your, and my, learned reference points. Of course you feel the scale of the farenheit is better suited for describing your life, those are your learned reference points.

I have my own learned reference points based on the Celsius scale I grew up with and, suprise suprise, to me they're superior.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works -9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

So your position is that whatever we are taught as children, we naturally consider superior. I strive to be more of a free thinker.

It's patently obvious that having 16 versus 8 gradations to describe an appropriate temperature range is superior. But you can't even accept that minor concession.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 12 points 2 years ago

I strive to be more of a free thinker.

Yet you fail miserably. Arguing your deeply learned arbitrary system is better than other peoples deeply learned arbitrary system.

It's patently obvious that having 16 versus 8 gradations to describe an appropriate temperature range is superior. But you can't even accept that minor concession.

I can't, 1 degree C is all the accuracy I've ever needed, for anything honestly.

My position is both systems are arbitrary, both systems have ranges appropriate for humans, both systems have all the accuracy most people would ever need. I haven't seen any actual objective arguments to the contrary. Lots of qualia arguments mind you, but none objective.

parent

[–] ech@lemm.ee -5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

To be clear, I'm not saying people are wrong to use C. People can use any unit they want for all I care. I'm just clarifying the point of the main post.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works -10 points 2 years ago

Totally, same. This thread was started by OPs reply

Nah, it doesn’t make any sense, and isn’t deep or insightful at all.

That was what triggered my response, otherwise I probably woulda just upvoted and kept scrolling.

parent