# What's the point of Celsius? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 20, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987 "2005-11-20T22:11:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/101 "2005-11-22T03:06:56Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > And how is this relevant to this thread? Somebody made statement that was patently untrue. I corrected that mistake I would have liked to think that this thread was about fighting ignrorance. That makes the correction of mistakes relevant to this thread doesn’t it? > [@](#): > > In every thread about Celsius vs. Fahrenheit, someone says “system A is intuitive - X degrees is hot, Y degrees is cold, that’s it.” Someone always counters with “You call X hot / Y cold? Wimps!” I still don’t understand why that’s a valid or useful counter-argument. I couldn’t say because i never made any such claims. I simply pointed out some biological facts: 1. Our species evolved in conditions which mean that 100oF is routine, not dangerous. 2. As a result of point 1) 100oF is no more dangerous that 93.987oF. The only arguments these points are countering are the ones based on falsehoods. Nothing to do with what someone considers hot, which is subjective. Entirely to do with what is dangerous, which may be measured objctively. Get it? ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/102 "2005-11-22T04:46:31Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > 1. Our species evolved in conditions which mean that 100oF is routine, not dangerous. Tell you what: go out to Arizona in the middle of August. Wander around in the desert in 100 degree heat for a few hours. Then tell me that “there’s nothing even remotely dangerous about 100F, even working outside in full sun.” Yes, the primary danger is dehydration, but that problem is driven by the hot weather. Trying to define it out of the equation is pointless and unhelpful. > [@](#): > > 1. As a result of point 1) 100oF is no more dangerous that 93.987oF. I never said that 100 F represents some magical transition. Just that it approximates the point where people who live in temperate climates would consider it to be abnormally hot. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/103 "2005-11-22T04:49:39Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Get it? Not really. It doesn’t invalidate the original claim which is that it’s easy to get a “feel” of either system and understand it intuitively. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/104 "2005-11-22T05:32:18Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > Tell you what: go out to Arizona in the middle of August. Wander around in the desert in 100 degree heat for a few hours. Then tell me that “there’s nothing even remotely dangerous about 100F, even working outside in full sun.” Never worked in Arizona in 100F. I have worked in South America in \>100oF, and in deserts in Australia in \>100oF. And in deserts in Africa in \>100F. In full sun. In the middle of the day. For hours at a time. Hundreds of millions of people work in those conditions every day. Unless you are suggesting that Arizona heat is somehow special then so what? What’s your point here? > [@](#): > > Yes, the primary danger is dehydration, but that problem is driven by the hot weather. Trying to define it out of the equation is pointless and unhelpful. But dehydration is just as dangerous at 97.5oF as at 100oF. There isn’t something special about 100oF that makes any higher temperatures dangerous. Dehydration becomes more likely as temperature increases. It doesn’t just start becoming dangerous at 100oF. The point being that 100oF isn’t somehow specially dangerous. It’s an abitrary number where the temperature is probably more dangerous than 99.5oF, but less than 100.5oF. Maximum temperatures aren’t like minima. You can define a minimum temperature where an animal can’t derive sufficient heat no matter how much food it gets. At that point the animal will freeze if exposed. No such figure exists for maxima. Humans appear to be able to tolerate pretty much any conceivable natural temperature if they have enough water, and if they don’t have enough water they won’t tolerate any temperature no matter how low. > [@](#): > > I never said that 100 F represents some magical transition. Just that it approximates the point where people who live in temperate climates would consider it to be abnormally hot. Abnormally hot? But we were talking about dangerously hot. If you want to say that 100oF is where you have arbitraily decided that ‘abnormal’ starts based on your prejudices that’s fine. But be aware that is precisely what you are doing. There is no objective basis for any such claim. > [@scr4](#): > > Not really. It doesn’t invalidate the original claim which is that it’s easy to get a “feel” of either system and understand it intuitively. The original claim was that 100oF is where temperatures became dangeorusly high. And it certainly does invalidiate that claim, doesn’t it? Wherever did you get the idea that I was responding to any cliams about getting a ‘feel’ for the systems? All I have ever responded to was a factual inaccuracy that temperatures below 100oF aren’t dangerous/ temperatures above 100oF are dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/105 "2005-11-22T06:00:14Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > WHO CARES? 😛 I do. That’s why I’m asking. Since a cubic meter of water weighs 1000 kg, I was wondering if a cubic yard of water weíghs in at a nice round number too. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/106 "2005-11-22T07:12:01Z")
Wow. I just looked in because I wondered how a thread with this title made it to page three. Listening to some Americans talk about the way they measure things reminds me of Grandpa Simpson: “My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that’s the way I like it!” Except, you know, it’s not a joke. I get that people tend to prefer things that they’re familiar with, but using the freezing point of water as 0 degrees seems straightforward and commonsensical to me. I guess if you live in San Jose the utility of having a baseline that refers to something you rarely encounter might seem remote. The Fahrenheit system must wreak havoc with your novelty songs, though – I mean, what would the American version of _The Rodeo Song_ be like? “Well, it’s forty below and I don’t give a f\*ck, I’ve got a heater in my truck and I’m off to rodeo” scans well. Convert it to Fahrenheit and… uh, never mind. I guess Fahrenheit is fine, then. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/107 "2005-11-22T12:10:43Z")
> [@The Gaspode](#): > > I do. That’s why I’m asking. Since a cubic meter of water weighs 1000 kg, I was wondering if a cubic yard of water weíghs in at a nice round number too. No round number, AFAICT. Which is fine since nobody measures water by cubic yard anyway. The only things delivered by cubic yard around here are construction materials like concrete, which don’t give nice round numbers in any system, except by chance. I’m sure the easy metric conversion is great for the water delivery industry, but the rest of us will have to live with non-round numbers, regardless of the system used. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/108 "2005-11-22T12:37:13Z")
> [@Go You Big Red Fire Engine](#): > > ANd IIRC it isn’t metric. Kilojoules are its metric equivalent. 4.19kJ=1 cal. Although I hope I am not getting SI and metric confused. Almost exactly right. 4.19kJ = 1 Cal or 1 kcal; 4.19J = 1 cal. “Food calories” are actually Calories or kilocalories; your daily food intake would be enough to raise a tonne of water by two or three degrees Celsius (depending how much you eat). Calories are just as “metric” as joules, but joules don’t drag in the thermal properties of water - they’re derived directly from metres, kilograms and seconds. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/109 "2005-11-22T12:40:30Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > Out of curiosity, how much heating oil do you buy at a time? (I don’t have to buy the stuff in Texas), and how often do you find yourself NEEDING precision when buying gasoline? :dubious: I just stick the nozzle in the gas tank and squeeze until it’s full. Sometimes I’ll even look at the pump to see how much gas I’ve gotten so far. I never buy heating oil, nor do I buy gas, since I don’t have a car. I just made random statements “proving” that metric units were more convenient, IMO as valid and convincing as the ones used to show that imperial units were superior in the post I was responding to. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/110 "2005-11-22T12:50:48Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > But dehydration is just as dangerous at 97.5oF as at 100oF. There isn’t something special about 100oF that makes any higher temperatures dangerous. Dehydration becomes more likely as temperature increases. It doesn’t just start becoming dangerous at 100oF. Read my posts again. Go on, scroll up and and read them. I never said that there was anything special about 100 F. I said, “anything over 100 F is dangerously hot.” This is true, especially for people who don’t live in the desert and aren’t used to dealing with such weather on a daily basis. People don’t usually get sunstroke on a mild spring day, you know. Of course dehydration doesn’t switch on at precisely 100 F. It’s just that 100 F is a convenient benchmark for “extreme heat.” I never said there was anything objective about it. > [@](#): > > If you want to say that 100oF is where you have arbitraily decided that ‘abnormal’ starts based on your prejudices that’s fine. But be aware that is precisely what you are doing. There is no objective basis for any such claim. That’s precisely what I’m saying. I’ve never claimed otherwise. You seem to be conflating me with someone else. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/111 "2005-11-22T13:09:48Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > I never said that there was anything special about 100 F. I said, “anything over 100 F is dangerously hot.” So there’s nothing special about 100oF… except that this is the point above which danger starts? That _is_ something special. And there is no truth to the claim. If you had to pick a temperature at which danger started than 92oC would probably be more appropriate. And even then it’s not true to say that temperatures above that are always dangerous. > [@](#): > > This is true, especially for people who don’t live in the desert and aren’t used to dealing with such weather on a daily basis. Well it it’s true then can we have a reference to back up the claim? This is GQ so I’d like to think this was a factual response, not a personal opinion. > [@](#): > > It’s just that 100 F is a convenient benchmark for “extreme heat.” Once more, can we have the reference that allows you to make such a claim in reposnse to a request for a _factual_ answer? > [@](#): > > That’s precisely what I’m saying. I’ve never claimed otherwise. You seem to be conflating me with someone else. No, I’m not. And you did claim otherwise. You claimed that 100oF was the temperature above which it was unsafe. Not above which it was uncomfortable. The easiest way to resolve this is for you to produce references for that claim. That way we can see whether it really is a factual repsonse, or merely Your Baseless Opinion, and perhaps best suited to other fora. ---
**Author:** ![FlyingRamenMonster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@FlyingRamenMonster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlyingRamenMonster)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/112 "2005-11-22T13:47:34Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And, if the Metric system worked like they claimed- you’d say “megagram”. But it doesn’t- that’s akward and clumsy and thus “tonne”. Same for “hectare”. Shush, you’ll give us ideas. ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/113 "2005-11-22T15:27:31Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I’m sure the easy metric conversion is great for the water delivery industry, but the rest of us will have to live with non-round numbers, regardless of the system used. How are you charged for the drinking water? By the gallon? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/114 "2005-11-22T15:38:42Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > No round number, AFAICT. Which is fine since nobody measures water by cubic yard anyway. The only things delivered by cubic yard around here are construction materials like concrete, which don’t give nice round numbers in any system, except by chance. > > I’m sure the easy metric conversion is great for the water delivery industry, but the rest of us will have to live with non-round numbers, regardless of the system used. You’re right; hardly anybody uses water for anything at all these days; few people are even familiar with the stuff. ---
**Author:** ![PigBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@PigBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigBoy)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/115 "2005-11-22T15:39:20Z")
I think the importance of 0 as the freezing point of water is overblown in terms of everyday usage. If all you’re concerned about is above freezing/below freezing, how much harder is it to remember above 32/below 32 than above zero/below zero? Sure, it makes sense more than the Farenheit scale, but I really don’t think it’s that critical. As so many others have said here, though, it’s really a matter of what you’re used to. I like Farenheit because it breaks up into nice groups of ten. I can say “it will be in the forties today” and generally not need to explain any further. But if I’d grown up with Celsius, I’m sure I’d like that scale better. I wouldn’t say either one is superior to the other when it comes to everyday weather. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/116 "2005-11-22T16:02:13Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Almost exactly right. 4.19kJ = 1 Cal or 1 kcal; 4.19J = 1 cal. “Food calories” are actually Calories or kilocalories; your daily food intake would be enough to raise a tonne of water by two or three degrees Celsius (depending how much you eat). Calories are just as “metric” as joules, but joules don’t drag in the thermal properties of water - they’re derived directly from metres, kilograms and seconds. And that’s why joules are SI and calories are not. Because a joule can be derived from the seven defined units and a calorie can’t. People in this thread keep conflating SI and metric. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/117 "2005-11-22T16:03:31Z")
But if you think about it; how useful is it in general terms to think of (above freezing)temperatures as number ranges _at all_? “It’s going to be really hot”, “It’s going to be chilly” inherently mean something in terms of human experience; “in the forties” doesn’t mean anything without intepretation. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/118 "2005-11-22T16:04:50Z")
> [@asterion](#): > > People in this thread keep conflating SI and metric. Also _decimal_. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/119 "2005-11-22T16:35:14Z")
> [@The Gaspode](#): > > How are you charged for the drinking water? By the gallon? Water meters are most likely by the cubic foot. If they charged me by the gallon, or liter, or hogshead, I imagine it would work just as easily as cubic feet, just with different numbers. I don’t see any particular value in knowing how many pounds/kgs of water I’ve used in a month, do you? My point here is that all of this mass/volume conversion benefit is of use for exactly one chemical, pure liquid water. Every individual working with one of the millions of non-pure liquid water compounds has to use a conversion factor from volume to mass just like us non-metrics use for everything. You’re holding up one chemical, saying you can convert volume to mass easily for it, and claiming that’s proof of metric superiority. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987/120 "2005-11-22T17:16:47Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > My point here is that all of this mass/volume conversion benefit is of use for exactly one chemical, pure liquid water. Every individual working with one of the millions of non-pure liquid water compounds has to use a conversion factor from volume to mass just like us non-metrics use for everything. Most liquids we encounter in our daily lives are solutions of water, and their density is very close to that of pure water. A 2-liter bottle of Coke weighs very close to 2 kilograms, for example 100 ml of pancake batter weighs roughly 100 grams, and a 4x3x2 meter swimming pool holds roughly 24 tons of chlorinated water. Quick: how many pounds of water does a 12x10x6 ft pool hold? Also, most other solids and liquids we encounter have densities close to that of water, at least within 1 order of magnitude or so. And it’s very intuitive to think of density as relative to water. Kerosene is 0.81 g/cm[sup]3[/sup], so a 2-liter bottle filled with kerosene is 1.62 kg. The aforementioned swimming pool holds (24 ton)x0.81=17.6 ton of kerosene. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-celsius/331987.md?page=7)