2. Americans are used to Fahrenheit and learning new things is not cognitively free.
Fahrenheit, as a scale, was created in a similar fashion to Celsius. But then the Fahrenheit scale was multiplied by 4. Like Celsius, Fahrenheit starts at freezing and boiling points - of brine (salt water), not pure water. This gives a lower freezing point (and boiling point?). Then that output was multiplied by 4, giving us the scale we have today.
My preferred solution is a compromise -- create a new temperature scale that is just Celsius multiplied by 4. On this scale:
* Water freezes at 0 degrees
* A nice room temperature is 80 degrees
* Water boils at 400 degrees
* Your oven dial would run from 260 degrees to 1040 degrees.
Well, the main argument I saw in the OP, which I've been advocating among friends for a while, is that in Fahrenheit, 0-100° is the difference between a cold day and a hot day, which makes it more ideal for "what's the weather like today?".
With Celsius, on the other hand, you're not going above 40°, and thus so much of that 0-100° space is useless for real life.
And how would you feel about the new scale I proposed? It gives you the scale you want and it's easier to convert to scientific scales like Celsius and Kelvin.
1. Fahrenheit is more granular, by design
2. Americans are used to Fahrenheit and learning new things is not cognitively free.
Fahrenheit, as a scale, was created in a similar fashion to Celsius. But then the Fahrenheit scale was multiplied by 4. Like Celsius, Fahrenheit starts at freezing and boiling points - of brine (salt water), not pure water. This gives a lower freezing point (and boiling point?). Then that output was multiplied by 4, giving us the scale we have today.
My preferred solution is a compromise -- create a new temperature scale that is just Celsius multiplied by 4. On this scale: