I remember that some old thermometers at home still had the Réaumur scale together with Celsius on it. (We chanced to Celsius here around 1900).
(Réaumur is still used for measuring milk temperature during the production of [some] Swiss cheeses.)
You can do it with Fahrenheit as well
Aw, I'd rather do it the RIGHT WAY.
I'm sick of everyone just talking about it and no-one doing anything.
Guard, oh guard, would you please adjust the thermostat for my room to Kelvin.
And while you're about it, turn up the volume on the Tammy Faye re-run.
No... heat index and wind chill are not meaningless gimmicks. They are measures of biology (I don't think that equating them to degrees is necessarily valid).
It is true that in very cold temperatures, the wind will kill you faster and the humidity doesn't matter very much. This is because in cold temperatures the air temperature is significantly lower than your body temperature and so the wind take the heat away (this is not the same as for very hot temperatures).
It is also true that in very hot temperatures the humidity will kill you faster and the wind doesn't matter very much. This is because in very hot temperatures the body relies on evaporative cooling which doesn't work when there is already moisture in the air.
There are scientific, biological, reasons that wind chill and heat index relate to a humans ability to survive extreme temperatures.
It is more precise in Fahrenheit. There is no advantage to Celsius. There is no scientific advantage to Celsius, and the Fahrenheit degrees allow for more variability while using integers.
That's pretty subjective. Humans don't quibble about one degree F intervals or one degree C intervals. In Fahrenheit, people don't debate 67 vs 68, more like 65 vs 70. If you grew up with Celsius, you would have a feel for 22 vs 24 vs 26. You could make the same table you presented in Celsius, just use five degree intervals instead of ten.
There is an advantage in using Celsius if you work with the rest of the world. Enthalpies/heat capacities, etc are all calculated using Celsius. I guy who worked for me was using an industrial oven to heat up an optics cell to loosen the glue. He wanted to heat it to 200F, but the oven was in Celsius. We had dripping plastic all over the bottom of the oven and the emergency response team running around trying to find where the smell of burning plastic was coming from. Not related to temperature, but NASA lost an Mars orbiter
due to an English to metric snafu. If you are listening to the weather man, it doesn't matter, if you are discussing something with co-workers around the world, it helps to have the same reference.
For the average person, it really is just what you are used to. Tell me it is going to be 70F, I know what to wear, tell me it's going to be 20C and I have to think about it. The reverse would be true in Europe. There's too much inertia to bother messing with it.
agreed. Almost all of materials science, metallurgy, phys chemistry etc have been using C for years .Instruments are much more easily calibrated using something with a decimal system, C is best used in association with extremely high temps.(Low temps no big deal since F and C converge at about -40).
Few of us deal in Thermodynamics , or molality or molarity or gas laws yet, those of us that do, better be in C or K,
For my daily walks however I need my watch to be analog and my temps in F
Close yourself up in a room when it's 85 degrees with absolutely no breeze and it feels very hot. Put a fan on and it's comfortable. But heat index only takes the humidity and temperature in consideration and not the wind. Take a hike when it's 90 degrees without a breeze and it feels really hot, whereas with a breeze it's not bad.
The gram is supposed to be the weight of a cubic centimeter of water. Oh yeah? Salt water or fresh? at mean sea level or at twenty thousand feet of elevation?
Fresh, at sea level and at 4 degree Celsius.
I'm sure a "gallon", a "stone" or a "foot" are all defined much more objectively and precisely... based on the king's foot size and the likes.
Yes, you always display certainty for your bullsh*t. Sea level in the 18th century and sea level now a very different things. Your description is based on definitions applied well after the fact of the Swede's description of a temperature scale. No one here has said that gallons, "stones" (which you are the first to mention, I certainly did not) and a foot are preferable, and constitute straw man fallacies--no one has said they are better measures, just familiar. The foot is a Roman measure, and the Romans were noteworthy for not having kings, you constant bullshit-artist.
The plural of stone (14 lb) is stone. I weigh twelve stone, six pounds, and three ounces.
I would guess that the difference in gravity between 18th century sea level and today's sea level is minute, downright negligeable for all purpose.
Indeed, the size of the international foot is not (at least not anymore) defined by the length of the king's foot. It is in fact defined as a portion of... the meter. What else?
The international yard and pound agreement of July 1959 defined the length of the international yard in the United States and countries of the Commonwealth of Nations as exactly 0.9144 meters. Consequently, the international foot is defined to be equal to exactly 0.3048 meters. This was 2 ppm shorter than the previous U.S. definition and 1.7 ppm longer than the previous British definition.
By the way, Rome had kings before the republic.
Kings of Rome
I live in the land where the "traditional" measurements come from, and I have lived through various metrication and internationalisation processes since the early 1970s, I guess. I don't know if my experiences or perspectives count for anything (probably not, seeing who the big hitters are in this thread) but I'll write them anyway. A big thumbs-down score only to be expected. In my experience, most Brits, when they buy something, are buying that thing. They want potatoes, or milk, or rope, or salted peanuts, or electric power or natural gas they can burn, or tobacco, wine, beer, or onions. They are buying the thing, and not buying, or wishing to buy, some cod "British heritage" along with it. They go is a supermarket, look at a bag of potatoes and say to themselves, "That will last me a week". It might be 3 kg, but they don't do any metal arithmetic. Likewise, they burn natural gas to heat water and their homes, and cook their meals, and when the bill comes in, they don't say "Kilowatt hours? What's that in cubic feet?" Or still less "therms" (100,000 British Thermal Units). You do get odd people that trumpet on about "bringing back pounds and ounces" but they are very rare, and widely viewed as lunatics. Or unspeakable wankers like Nigel Farage.
Some idiot wrote a letter to local rag asking for pounds shillings and pence to be brought back. That's just what we need, when there's talk of doing away with the penny, reintroduce an even smaller currency unit.
The reverse would be true in Europe.
and Canada - we actually went through with the conversion in the 1960/70's
I have to mention that my son was born in 1979, and (as far as I knew) completely immersed in metric units. No Imperial units taught at school. When he was aged about eight, I asked him how high he thought our house was. "About thirty feet" was his answer.
When I was in England for the first time (1963), metric units were just introduced ... but rarely used. I had no problem with Fahrenheit or miles ... but I really wondered, if 10 st 4 lbs was the result of too much vinegar on the Fish 'n' Chips
As long as we can still get a pint of beer, England won't be all that bad.