• morhp@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      0°C is completely fine with jeans and a thick jacket, especially when it’s sunny and there isn’t much wind. It’s cold, but there’s probably not much ice or snow, if anything, probably mostly slush.

      Compared to say -20 C where you should have a good ski jacket and ski pants, warm shoes and socks, generally multiple layers everywhere, winter gloves and so on.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • gazter@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s almost like being ‘fairly cold for humans’ is a wide range, and subjective, therefore useless as a baseline.

        • Smatt@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • gazter@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

            • Smatt@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Compared with the human experience of “cold”? More specific, even when talking about ocean water and water on mountains or whatever altitude water you’re talking about.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • yata@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.