Another thing that makes things like 23.9 degrees Celsius so stupid is that outside temperatures are always changing, they are never constant. They rise in the morning, they fall in the evening; these changes are never straight up. Any thermograph shows how temperatures behave during the day. When fronts cross an area temperatures fall or rise any time of the day. A warm front starts a thaw at midnight, a cold front ushers in freezing air at 12 noon, etc., etc. The 'accurary' of the Fahrenheit scale was never anything else than bogus for the same reason. Whole degrees are sufficient for any purpose, other than scientific.
Han ----- Original Message ----- From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, 2002-11-16 0:32 Subject: [USMA:23393] Re: Celsius decimals 2002-11-15 If the whole logic behind using tenths of a degree was to retain the same "accuracy" as Fahrenheit, then why didn't they just decimalise to half degrees? Round everything to the nearest half. That doesn't seem as bad as stating the temperature is 23.9�C. Do you think if you brought this up with your local weather people they might see some merit in it? John ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 2002-11-15 10:24 Subject: [USMA:23380] Re: Celsius decimals Mike Joy wrote: I phoned the Bureau in Perth as to why they are so precise, and they said "because some people still require it. They record the temperatures that way". Ah, well. These circular arguments are so frustrating. They record it that way because it is published that way. They publish it that way because it is recorded that way. > > A frequent justification for inch-pound only is that they won't expose people to metric until people are familiar with it. People won't be familiar until they are exposed to it. That is why dual units are used to break the cycle.
