Oh dear, Jean Louise Finch; now there’s two of them in here (Great Debates)!
I had my fun, but I’m quitting now.
Bye, bye!
SterlingNorth
You’re a good man, Charlie Brown.
Erratum wrote:
One of my Astrophysics professors told me about a grad student who did his dissertation on the amount of alcohol molecules in various interstellar nebulae. At his dissertation defense, his professors criticised him for having measured the total amount of alcohol in units of “shot glasses”.
The student countered that a shot glass was a standard S.I. unit: it’s a barn-parsec. <rimshot>
Story:
I flew from Washington D.C to Orlando, FL the first week of January and sat next to a nice Irish couple and their three children. The Captain never let us know the current temperature so the woman asked me what I thought the temperature would be. I responded: “probably in the low to mid-70’s.” She gave me a puzzled look and replied: “What is that, about 23?”
We came to the concensus that it was about 23, not having a calculator handy. I explained that we (meaning Americans) only use Celcius in Chemistry class.
Also: Personally, I am pro-Farenheit for most of the reasons mentioned throughout these posts. But then, I know that there are 8 pints in a gallon.
And, anyway, when is this “Metric Time” gonna be invented?
“Shoplifting is a victimless crime. Like punching someone in the dark.” -Nelson Muntz.
Excuse me, Jinx, but can you read?
{quote]Just because temps do not add in a linear fashion, you wish to chuck the whole metric system?
[/quote]
No, just Celcius in terms of the weather. I said that I recognize the benefit to a base ten system. Its just that, unlike kilometers and grams, there’s nothing base ten about Celcius.
Who gives a sh*t?! I specifically said that Fahrenheit was the scale better suited for weather, not science.
I comprehend it better than you. Metric, in the sense of being based on units of ten and therefore easy to figure, has no use in a weather temperature scale! Unlike miles or pounds which we routinely have to add, multiply or convert in everyday life, air temperature is static. When talking about the weather we don’t add or multiply degrees (F or C) ever! They’re not really practical units like inches, they’re markers like days of the month. And it makes more sense to set the range of most often used markers at 0 to 100 rather than -20 to 40.
Again, if you read my OP you’d see that I said that analogy was NOT a good example of comparing F to C. That it wasn’t a question of size but of appropriateness.
In the US? I wouldn’t hold my breath. To quote Grampa Simpson, “My car get 30 rods to the hogshead and that’s the way I like it!”
I think Hail Ants makes a good case.
When thinking of day-to-day temperature as a measure of comfort rather than a scientific quantification, it is more sensible (and more metric!) to mark the extremes of human comfort as 0 and 100. A 0F day in Minnesota, or a 100F day in South Carolina are the most that should ever be asked of any human being.
If that were the case, most Minnesotans would be dead by now. Winter daytime temperatures in Minnesota routinely get down to -30°F.
Here’s an example of why it’s a compelling argument. Remember why the Mars Climate Orbiter failed?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/climateorbiter991110.html
It’s a good idea (and a big time-saver) if everyone uses the same units to express quantities. If I drove over to the next town, and all the speed limits were posted in furlongs instead of miles, I would think that’s stupid.
That’s the problem with your argument - you want to ignore the cultural factor and discuss the scientific side, when the only vaguely sound argument for Farenheit is the congruence between 0 to 100 F and the usual range of temperatures that humans experience. I would guess that less than 25% of the population of the Earth ever exists within that temperature range more than 90% of the time. Someone in southern California or Mexico constantly experiences temperatures greater than 100 during the summer, while Canadians and Minnesotans routinely experience sub-zero (F) temperatures.
If matching the range of humanly experienced temperatures were that important, the scale would have to go from about -30 F to at least 130; that would truly be an inclusive scale. As it is, most people on Earth tend towards one end or the other, routinely exceeding the barrier.
Besides, matching a supposed human scale of experienced temperatures isn’t scientific, as has been anecdotally demonstrated here. Being well co-ordinated with other units of measurement is, like Celsius.
Your appeal to scientific validation is undercut by your argument that temperature scales should “affect the human situation”. This guarantees that your arguments will be anecdotal (e.g., 80 sounds much hotter than 20) and very subjective.
My argument has been that what most affects the human situation just is “how we’ve done it all along”.
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.
Arnold Winkelried: “Remember why the Mars Climate Orbiter failed?”
I read an article (sorry, I forget where, so this is a relly poor cite, and I think it was about the probe you’re talking about, but only about 90% sure) that explained that the blaming of the problem on metric conversion errors was a gross oversimplification, and that the real cause of the problem was persistent mismanagement and an attitude of “assume it’s right and you have to prove to me it’s wrong before I do anything” rather than “assume that it’s wrong until we can prove that it’s right”. The article said that several parts of the team controlling the probe suspected there were lots of problems long before the “crisis”, and had numerous opportunities to correct it, but their superiors didn’t want to admit that there might have been a problem, and the people who thought there was a problem didn’t have enough confidence to make a stink about it. Sorry for the sketchy details, but I’m pretty sure that the article made a lot of sense (has anyone else read it?).
Shall I spare you the line about what happens to u and me when you assume? 
Hail Ants: “Unlike miles or pounds which we routinely have to add, multiply or convert in everyday life”
Okay, this is a major problem (in my mind) with the entire “pro-metric” argument. We don’t have to convert in everyday life. How do I know? Because things like “how many feet in a mile” are considered trivia questions. Think about that for a minute. The common expectation is that people don’t know the answer to that question. This indicates that you virtually never need to convert between feet and miles. The conversion between meters and kilometers is easy, but that is completely irrelevant as far as I can tell. Would we be much more likely to convert between meters and kilometers if we lived under the metric system? I truly doubt it. When was the last time you conducted a measurement in everyday life in which you didn’t perform the measurement (or estimation) in the actual units you needed to use? When was the last time you calculated how far you needed to drive in inches, or how tall you were in miles? You just don’t do it. It’s true that the metric system makes converting between bases marginally easier, but why should we optimize our measurement system for something we do so rarely? The 1g = 1cc = 1mL is an even bigger red herring. Who has used this relationship outside of chemistry class? Anyone? The vast majority of americans probably have no idea how much a gallon of water weighs, and they probable don’t care. When was the last time you were baking something and said “the recipe calls for one cup of water, but the only thing I have to measure with is this scale!”? Or do you, like every other kitchen-owning person on the planet, have measuring cups with which to measure liquids?
Well, I’m engaged to a Minnesotan, and she advises me that they spend most of their winters indoors, keeping to the warmer side of 50F.
If I understand the OP correctly, the Celsius scale is considered quite dandy for scientific purposes, but the Fahrenheit is far superior for the specific purpose of reporting weather, mainly because it is easier for humans to relate to in terms of comfort. Besides, the Fahrenheit scale eliminates the need for using negative temperatures in a large part of the USA, which is of course a most compelling argument.
But why stop at two temperature scales ? Surely there are more scenarios requiring temperature measurements than just “weather” and “science”!
I say let’s create an entire set of 0-100 temperature scales, each custom-designed for its field of application. No doubt people in (for instance) the metal working industry has long suffered under the need to handle temperatures with three or four digits when melting or working different types of metal. Let’s get together and make a 0-100 scale for these poor people: 0 means “the iron is too cold too work”, 100 means “the iron is about to flow all over the place”. Of course, you’d need a different scale for each metal or alloy, but all the scales would be really easy to relate to.
What about the poor astronomers ? Lots of big numbers there as well. Let’s give them a temperature scale where 0 is “as cold as one realistically expects it to get in space” and 100 is “as hot as the core of a typical supernova”. Much, much easier.
BTW, is measuring indoors and outdoors temperature with the same scale really a good idea ? They don’t normally run through the same ranges, do they ? Let’s make an indoor scale where 100 is “As hot as my room gets on a really hot summer day”, while 0 is…
OK, right, how about “use whatever works” ? Just please don’t argue that “my system of arbitrarily assigned numbers is way superior to your system of arbitrarily assigned numbers”. And please don’t argue that having two scales is superior to having just one.
Norman.
Worrying is the thinking man’s form of meditation.
That there is this level of debate actually amazes me.
But as someone stated earlier, isn’t this the situation already. Can’t it be argued that millimeters, centimeters, meters, kilometers etc. are scales that are “custom-designed for its field of application”? Just that the conversion factors are simple (if you really need to convert). You weigh yourself in pounds (or kilograms), you weigh a truck in tons (metric or otherwise).
In the same way that meters per minute is not a useful way to gauge how fast you car is going.
However I’m going to repromise myself not to come in here anymore.
SterlingNorth
You’re a good man, Charlie Brown.
At the very least, Sterling, turn on your irony detector before coming back (as you know you will, you hopeless romantic).
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.
Spiny Norman:
But it is! Since C was derived from inate properties of water is it such a surprise that the scale doesn’t line up with air temperature?
Look, I’m not saying that anyone who lives in a country that uses C is stupid. Or that the convenience of using F would outweight the inconvenience associated with having to switch everything to it.
But since the whole world seems to think we Americans should be switching to metric, I like to point out that F is the one so-called imperical scale that is actually, in terms of how its used, more base ten than celcius!
I for one welcome our new insect overlords… - K. Brockman
Using Fahrenheit makes the USA Today Isothermic maps look prettier.
What would Brian Boitano do / If he was here right now /
He’d make a plan and he’d follow through / That’s what Brian Boitano would do.
Why not let peaceful honest people use whatever scale makes them most happy?
Kelvin, Celcius, Rankin and Fahrenheit scales are all base ten. It is not possible to have a scale be “more base ten” than another, e.g. base eight is not more base ten than the binary system. Endpoints or other arbitrary points within a scale do not dictate the basis of a system. Just because ten is factor of 100 and not 212 does not make the Celcius scale “more base ten” than the Fahrenheit scale, likewise, a typical range of usage for a scale does not determine the basis of the scale, e.g. ten being a factor of 100 does not imply that the utilization of 100 Fahrenheit gradients is “more base ten” than 55.555555…
Pertaining to the issues of conversion and negative numbers that have been voiced, a rudimentary course in mathematics would solve problems for anyone who expresses difficulty. In regards to a predisposition toward a particular scale, the use of any arbitrary scale is acceptable insofar as it can be converted to another to convey the appropriate information; moreover, neglecting the use of a scale based solely on an individual’s familiarity with the scale or lack thereof is preposterous.
I am an advocate of metric scales but I can adeptly use the imperial system and make the appropriate conversions. It is not my intention to preach about the bane of the imperial system or the boon of the metric system, but the onslaught of subjective reasoning offered by supporters of the imperial system is illogical.
Does illogical modify onslaught?
First and foremost, I concur with your perspective that people should be permitted to use whatever system they prefer. I think that the ability to interchange between systems is a valuable tool for communication.
Secondly, in response to your inquiry, yes.
Is anybody else treating this thread like an absurd Saturday Night Live sketch?