The temperature that water freezes at is only fairly cold weather by a lot of people’s perception.
I’d call it “chilly”. No jacket for running to the mailbox, or if I’ll be outside for half an hour or so. Light jacket otherwise. I don’t expect it to snow, since it’s not actually cold enough usually, and there won’t be ice on the ground unless it’s just warmed up.
So it might be “freezing”, but that doesn’t make it cold.
It’s almost like being ‘fairly cold for humans’ is a wide range, and subjective, therefore useless as a baseline.
Well I’d say that’s why op chose the adverb “fairly”, it gets across that it’s a wide range and lacks specificity.
Not completely useless as a baseline, but fairly general.
Obviously the freezing point of water is also a range (depending on purity, altitude, etc) but would you say it’s less, or more specific?
True, but that’s also not super relevant to the merits of a temperature scale. Fahrenheit isn’t actually based off of human subjective temperature perception, it just coincidentally lines up a bit closer with the comfortable range for people in northern temperate climates.
Before it’s redefinition in terms of Celsius, fahrenheit was defined by a particular temperature stable brine solution (easy to replicate for calibration), and with the freezing and boiling points of water set to be 180 degrees apart, because of the relationship with a circle.
People decided we liked base10 adherence more than trigonometry, and then everyone adopted Celsius, so we should use Celsius. Doesn’t make fahrenheit some sort of random scale, just deprecated.
The most common defence of Fahrenheit are Americans saying it is the most suited for humans because 0 is “very cold” and 100 “very hot”. That is why people are referencing it with regards to the merits of a temperature scale in this thread.
