"The temperature is in the nineties" & "The temperature is in the red"

[Harrison Hill]

"The temperature is in the nineties" & "The temperature is in the red"
- good English or bad English?

("in the nineties" and "in the red" both mean "within the range of
temperatures consistent with feeling hot" that is to say "hot")

Eric is welcome to bugger off. I am not interested in other people's
dogma, I want to look at our language as we actually speak it. I
remember how old-fashioned my father sounded when I was young, and I
want to postpone sounding just like him for a year or two more :)

[Guy Barry]

"Harrison Hill" wrote in message
news:ace6c22c-e89c-45ec...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

> "The temperature is in the nineties" & "The temperature is in the red"
> - good English or bad English?

I'm happy with the first (except that I don't generally use Fahrenheit any
more). "In the red" only refers to overdrawn bank balances as far as I'm
concerned.

> ("in the nineties" and "in the red" both mean "within the range of
> temperatures consistent with feeling hot" that is to say "hot")

That's neither here nor there. You seem to think you can quote a correct
example of one usage and use it to justify a completely different usage.
It's as though I said "I am happy" is correct, so "you am happy" must also
be correct.

I wouldn't say "the temperature is hot". I'd say "the weather is hot" or
"the temperature is high". This is the same distinction as we've already
discussed with regard to "few" and "cheap". You seem to be having a hard
time grasping it.

> Eric is welcome to bugger off.

I enjoy Eric's contributions. He's a prescriptivist, and I don't always
agree with him, but his reasoning is generally sound and he always has an
interesting angle on the discussions. He's entitled to his opinion like
everyone else.

> I am not interested in other people's
> dogma, I want to look at our language as we actually speak it.

You just seem to want to look at our language as *you* speak it. What about
the way other people speak it? I don't say "the number is few" or "the
price is cheap" or "the temperature is hot", nor do many other people. You
can't force people to talk like that if they don't want to.

--
Guy Barry

[Harrison Hill]

What I want to leave is a searchable record here: so that when
somebody sneers at somebody else for using a perfectly ordinary piece
of English - "their numbers were few", "freezing temperatures",
"cheapest prices" - and demonstrates in 1,000 manuals and lexicons
that such phrases are "wrong", that there are educated, intelligent
people who think otherwise.

The trend here is very much from Farenheit to Centigrade, but we have
always frozen at 0; I think we still have our hottest day around the
100 mark. As for "temperature in the red" I get that from my bus's
temperature gauge, going up hills. I like Eric as well and I was not
telling him to bugger off, but responding to his announcement that he
was doing just that. The second "that" is used deliberately because
the first "that" is too weak and distant.

[Guy Barry]

"Harrison Hill" wrote in message

news:755f4e8c-8349-453e...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...

> What I want to leave is a searchable record here: so that when
> somebody sneers at somebody else for using a perfectly ordinary piece
> of English - "their numbers were few", "freezing temperatures",
> "cheapest prices" - and demonstrates in 1,000 manuals and lexicons
> that such phrases are "wrong", that there are educated, intelligent
> people who think otherwise.

Why? Do you think people use the Usenet archive as a way of determining
correct usage? I've never seen anyone cite a Usenet thread as justification
for anything much. It's just a discussion forum. If in some future
discussion I pulled up an old Usenet thread and said "oh, there's someone on
this thread who says it's OK", do you think anyone would take much notice,
particularly if the majority of people on the thread were expressing an
opposite view?

> The trend here is very much from Farenheit to Centigrade, but we have
> always frozen at 0; I think we still have our hottest day around the
> 100 mark.

How can you freeze at zero (Centigrade) and have your hottest day around 100
(Fahrenheit)? You have to use one scale or the other consistently.

--
Guy Barry

[Don Phillipson]

"Harrison Hill" <harrison...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:755f4e8c-8349-453e...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...

> What I want to leave is a searchable record here: so that when
> somebody sneers at somebody else for using a perfectly ordinary piece
> of English - "their numbers were few", "freezing temperatures",
> "cheapest prices" - and demonstrates in 1,000 manuals and lexicons
> that such phrases are "wrong", that there are educated, intelligent
> people who think otherwise.

When writing a public manifesto like this, it is equally unwise to make
it so long and to introduce an egregious error of grammar ("so that . . .
[comma] that . . .")

> The trend here is very much from Farenheit to Centigrade, but we have
> always frozen at 0; I think we still have our hottest day around the
> 100 mark. As for "temperature in the red" I get that from my bus's
> temperature gauge, going up hills.

This is valuable evidence how often people get muddled when
measuring heat numerically. There is no mystery how Fahrenheit
first calibrated his scale (from 0 = freezing point of salt brine to 0 =
normal blood heat), or Celsius (differently). HH here combines
the two (a common error becoming increasingly rare.) His "in the
red"=overheating also mixes two conventional metaphors, from
accounting (red ink) and vehicle dashboards (past the red line.)
All this seems sociologially valuable but linguistically worthless.
The Victorians used the category of "vulgar error" for this class
of behaviors, but it now seems generally forgotten.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Dr Nick]

Harrison Hill <harrison...@gmail.com> writes:

> "The temperature is in the nineties" & "The temperature is in the red"
> - good English or bad English?
>
> ("in the nineties" and "in the red" both mean "within the range of
> temperatures consistent with feeling hot" that is to say "hot")

Well my opinion is ...

> Eric is welcome to bugger off. I am not interested in other people's
> dogma, I want to look at our language as we actually speak it. I
> remember how old-fashioned my father sounded when I was young, and I
> want to postpone sounding just like him for a year or two more :)

Ah, never mind then. If you only want the views of people who agree
with you, there's no point in me giving you mine, whether I agree or
not. Indeed, just what are you here for?

Eric has a different view to me on many things, word use and grammar in
particular. And I've had many a heated argument with him. But that
doesn't mean you should pre-emptively insult him.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2012-11-03 11:34:10 +0000, Don Phillipson said:

> "Harrison Hill" <harrison...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:755f4e8c-8349-453e...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>
>> What I want to leave is a searchable record here: so that when
>> somebody sneers at somebody else for using a perfectly ordinary piece
>> of English - "their numbers were few", "freezing temperatures",
>> "cheapest prices" - and demonstrates in 1,000 manuals and lexicons
>> that such phrases are "wrong", that there are educated, intelligent
>> people who think otherwise.
>
> When writing a public manifesto like this, it is equally unwise to make
> it so long and to introduce an egregious error of grammar ("so that . . .
> [comma] that . . .")
>
>> The trend here is very much from Farenheit to Centigrade, but we have
>> always frozen at 0; I think we still have our hottest day around the
>> 100 mark. As for "temperature in the red" I get that from my bus's
>> temperature gauge, going up hills.
>
> This is valuable evidence how often people get muddled when
> measuring heat numerically. There is no mystery how Fahrenheit
> first calibrated his scale (from 0 = freezing point of salt brine to 0

100 Shirley? (OK, I realize that it was a thinko.)

> =
> normal blood heat), or Celsius (differently).

That is one good reason for saying "Celsius" rather than "centigrade",
because Fahrenheits scale was just as centigrade as Celsuius's. What
R�aumur thought his 100� correspondend to, however, I don't know. I've
only once seen a thermometer calibrated (by hand) in R�aumur, in
Budapest of all unlikely places.

> HH here combines
> the two (a common error becoming increasingly rare.) His "in the
> red"=overheating also mixes two conventional metaphors, from
> accounting (red ink) and vehicle dashboards (past the red line.)
> All this seems sociologially valuable but linguistically worthless.
> The Victorians used the category of "vulgar error" for this class
> of behaviors, but it now seems generally forgotten.


--

athel

[Peter Brooks]

Why?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I can't speak for HH, but my eldest daughter, who grew up in Birmingham
and now lives in the central valley of California, does just that. Her
main experience of very cold weather was in England, and of very hot
weather is in California, and she finds it quite natural to think of
low temperatures in �C and high temperatures in �F. (Her husband, who
has lived all his life in California, has a different opinion.)

--
athel

[Dr Nick]

I think that's pretty common in middle aged British people (at the very
least) in general.

[Guy Barry]

"Athel Cornish-Bowden" wrote in message
news:afkgje...@mid.individual.net...

> On 2012-11-03 11:34:10 +0000, Don Phillipson said:

> > This is valuable evidence how often people get muddled when
> > measuring heat numerically. There is no mystery how Fahrenheit
> > first calibrated his scale (from 0 = freezing point of salt brine to 0

> 100 Shirley? (OK, I realize that it was a thinko.)
> =
> > normal blood heat), or Celsius (differently).

Actually, it was 96 degrees Fahrenheit, not 100. The melting point of water
was 32 and the human body was 96, so that gave him 64 degrees between the
two, which could be marked off by bisecting the intervals.

http://www.sizes.com/units/temperature_Fahrenheit.htm has a translation of
the source material:

" Yet before I undertake a review of these experiments it will be necessary
to say a few words about the thermometers that I have built, and the
division of the scale they use, and in addition the method of producing a
vacuum I have used. I make two particular types of thermometer, one of which
is filled with alcohol and the other with mercury. Their length varies in
accordance with the use to which they are put. Yet all use the same scale,
and their differences relate only to their fixed limits. The scale of those
thermometers that are used only for observations on the weather begins with
zero and ends on the 96th degree. The division of the scale depends on three
fixed points, which can be determined in the following manner. The first is
found in the uncalibrated part or the beginning of the scale, and is
determined by a mixture of ice, water and ammonium chloride or even sea
salt. If the thermometer is placed in this mixture, its liquid descends as
far as the degree that is marked with a zero. This experiment succeeds
better in winter than in summer. The second point is obtained if water and
ice are mixed without the aforementioned salts. When the thermometer is
placed in this mixture, its liquid reaches the 32nd degree. I call this
‘freezing point’. For still waters are already covered with a very thin
layer of ice when the liquid of the thermometer touches this point in
winter. The third point is situated at the 96th degree. Alcohol expands up
to this point when it is held in the mouth or under the armpit of a living
man in good health until it has completely acquired his body heat. But if
the temperature of a man suffering from fever or some other heating disease
is to be investigated, another thermometer must be used, with a scale
extended to the 128th or 132nd degree. I have not yet discovered by
experiment whether these degrees are sufficient for the most intense heat of
some fever, but it is scarcely credible that the heat of any fever should
exceed the degrees I have described. When a thermometer is being used to
investigate the temperature of boiling liquids, it too starts from zero and
contains 600 degrees, for around this point mercury itself (with which the
thermometer is filled) begins to boil. "

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Brooks" wrote in message
news:ba0b2f5f-8061-4da8...@10g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...

Well I suppose you don't *have* to, but it's pretty confusing if you don't,
because people typically leave out the unit and just give the temperature as
a number. At what point do you make the switch? Wouldn't there be a danger
of ambiguity with temperatures like "35"?

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

I saw an American showbiz personality being interviewed on a chat show
in the UK. He had just come from somewhere cold, in Scandinavia I think,
and mentioned the very low temperature there: minus five (or some other
small integer). He didn't mention C or F and it wasn't clear which he
meant. The temperature where he had been would have been measured in C.
Had he converted it to F or was he accustomed to a much warmer climate
and considered a few degrees below 0C to be very cold?

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2012-11-03 12:22:34 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:


> What R�aumur thought his 100� correspondend to, however, I don't know.
> I've only once seen a thermometer calibrated (by hand) in R�aumur, in
> Budapest of all unlikely places.

If Wikipedia can be believed (and the account at
http://tinyurl.com/d8fkxab seems plausible),

"He was noted for a thermometer he constructed on the principle of
taking the freezing point of water as 0�, and graduating the tube into
degrees each of which was one-thousandth of the volume contained by the
bulb and tube up to the zero mark. It was an accident dependent on the
dilatability of the particular quality of alcohol employed which made
the boiling-point of water 80�; and mercurial thermometers the stems of
which are graduated into eighty equal parts between the freezing- and
boiling-points of water are not R�aumur thermometers in anything but
name."
then he didn't choose 80� as such; it just came out like that.

> --
athel

[Curlytop]

Guy Barry set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

> "Harrison Hill" wrote in message
> news:ace6c22c-e89c-45ec...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> "The temperature is in the nineties" & "The temperature is in the red"
>> - good English or bad English?
>
> I'm happy with the first (except that I don't generally use Fahrenheit any
> more). "In the red" only refers to overdrawn bank balances as far as I'm
> concerned.

Never heard of "in the red" in connection with temperature, and in the
absence of a context I would interpret it as an excessive temperature such
that a temperature gauge would have its pointer in a red zone marked on the
dial, or perhaps a red warning light would be showing.
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

[Jack Campin]

> "The temperature is in the nineties" & "The temperature is in the red"
> - good English or bad English?
>
> ("in the nineties" and "in the red" both mean "within the range of
> temperatures consistent with feeling hot" that is to say "hot")

I would assume that somebody using "in the red" was referring to
engine temperature gauges in cars. I've never heard it used to
describe weather.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin

[Robert Bannister]

"Intelligent" maybe, but "educated" no.

>
> The trend here is very much from Farenheit to Centigrade, but we have
> always frozen at 0; I think we still have our hottest day around the
> 100 mark. As for "temperature in the red" I get that from my bus's
> temperature gauge, going up hills.

That is really my only objection: "in the red" usually indicates danger
or impending bankruptcy. If you use it in a phrase with a gauge, it is
be fine, but I wouldn't say, for example, "It was hot and sticky. The
temperature was well in the red", but the same thing with "My car's
temperature gauge was well in the red" would be fine. I don't really
know whether "nineties" is hot or cold, but there is nothing
grammatically or stylistically wrong with that.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

What? Having a different opinion from one's spouse?

--
Robert Bannister

[Guy Barry]

"Robert Bannister" wrote in message
news:aflo5t...@mid.individual.net...

> On 3/11/12 7:06 PM, Harrison Hill wrote:

> > The trend here is very much from Farenheit to Centigrade, but we have
> > always frozen at 0; I think we still have our hottest day around the
> > 100 mark. As for "temperature in the red" I get that from my bus's
> > temperature gauge, going up hills.

> That is really my only objection: "in the red" usually indicates danger or
> impending bankruptcy.

Yes; because I'm only familiar with the banking sense, "in the red" means
"below zero" to me, so with no other context I'd have assumed that a
temperature "in the red" was below freezing.

> I don't really know whether "nineties" is hot or cold,

It would be pretty damned hot here. I suppose you're used to such
temperatures in Australia, but I can't imagine anyone could regard 90
degrees F (about 32 degrees C) as in any way cold!

--
Guy Barry

[Snidely]

Don Phillipson scribbled something on Saturday the 3rd:

> His "in the
> red"=overheating also mixes two conventional metaphors, from
> accounting (red ink) and vehicle dashboards (past the red line.)

It isn't unusual to find thermometers with color coding of the scale,
where blue is typically used for lower portions of the column, shading
gradually to white in the comfort range and thence to red in the upper
portions of the column.

I do admit that all-white "coding" is more common.

/dps


--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

[Harrison Hill]

Now who is telling people how they have to talk! Most people born
before 1970 still think purely in Farenheit, but I doubt if you can
find anyone in Britain who doesn't rate the average frosty night at
"-4".

[Harrison Hill]

On Nov 3, 11:34 am, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> "Harrison Hill" <harrisonhill2...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:755f4e8c-8349-453e...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > What I want to leave is a searchable record here: so that when
> > somebody sneers at somebody else for using a perfectly ordinary piece
> > of English - "their numbers were few", "freezing temperatures",
> > "cheapest prices" - and demonstrates in 1,000 manuals and lexicons
> > that such phrases are "wrong", that there are educated, intelligent
> > people who think otherwise.
>
> When writing a public manifesto like this, it is equally unwise to make
> it so long and to introduce an egregious error of grammar ("so that . . .
> [comma] that . . .")

I wrote above: "The second "that" is used deliberately because the
first "that" is too weak and distant" because I knew someone would
draw attention to my "egregious error". It is not an error - the

second "that" is used deliberately because the first "that" is too

weak and distant". Language isn't all about rules and doesn't need to
be rigid. If "that" has become faded and forgotten, bring it up again
and make it extant.

[Guy Barry]

"Harrison Hill" wrote in message

news:0a06e8c9-4c64-41b1...@y6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

If they're thinking in Fahrenheit ("h" before the "r" by the way), why don't
they call it "25"? I thought one of the points of the Fahrenheit scale was
that you don't have to use negative numbers for the everyday range of
temperatures.

The old way of saying it was "seven degrees of frost" (i.e 7 degrees F below
freezing point).

--
Guy Barry

[Harrison Hill]

On Nov 3, 11:46 am, Dr Nick <nospa...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:

"Eric is welcome to bugger off" is not an insult. Eric has stated that
he is "buggering off" (as it were) in the "more fool I" statement, and
I am saying he is welcome to do so. So I agree with you and I wouldn't
pre-emptively insult him anyway because I don't dislike him.

[Guy Barry]

"Harrison Hill" wrote in message

news:eff03ef0-ec69-4c29...@q4g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 3, 11:34 am, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> > "Harrison Hill" <harrisonhill2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > news:755f4e8c-8349-453e...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > What I want to leave is a searchable record here: so that when
> > > somebody sneers at somebody else for using a perfectly ordinary piece
> > > of English - "their numbers were few", "freezing temperatures",
> > > "cheapest prices" - and demonstrates in 1,000 manuals and lexicons
> > > that such phrases are "wrong", that there are educated, intelligent
> > > people who think otherwise.
>
> > When writing a public manifesto like this, it is equally unwise to make
> > it so long and to introduce an egregious error of grammar ("so that . .
> > .
> > [comma] that . . .")

> I wrote above: "The second "that" is used deliberately because the
> first "that" is too weak and distant" because I knew someone would
> draw attention to my "egregious error". It is not an error - the
> second "that" is used deliberately because the first "that" is too
> weak and distant".

Writing a justification of an ungrammatical sentence doesn't make it
grammatical.

> Language isn't all about rules and doesn't need to
> be rigid. If "that" has become faded and forgotten, bring it up again
> and make it extant.

That sort of construction is excusable in speech, where it's not possible to
go back and change the earlier wording; but in writing it's straightforward
to edit the sentence to make it grammatical. You could have written "so,
when somebody sneers ... phrases are 'wrong', that there are educated... "
(omitting the first "that").

In any case, was that your intended meaning? Surely you meant "so that it's
clear that there are educated ...", not "so that there are educated ...".
The existence of educated, intelligent people who think otherwise doesn't
depend on posts made to Usenet.

--
Guy Barry

[Harrison Hill]

On Nov 4, 9:20 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Harrison Hill"  wrote in message
>
> news:eff03ef0-ec69-4c29...@q4g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 3, 11:34 am, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> > > "Harrison Hill" <harrisonhill2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:755f4e8c-8349-453e...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > What I want to leave is a searchable record here: so that when
> > > > somebody sneers at somebody else for using a perfectly ordinary piece
> > > > of English - "their numbers were few", "freezing temperatures",
> > > > "cheapest prices" - and demonstrates in 1,000 manuals and lexicons
> > > > that such phrases are "wrong", that there are educated, intelligent
> > > > people who think otherwise.
>
> > > When writing a public manifesto like this, it is equally unwise to make
> > > it so long and to introduce an egregious error of grammar ("so that . .
> > > .
> > > [comma] that . . .")
> > I wrote above: "The second "that" is used deliberately because the
> > first "that" is too weak and distant" because I knew someone would
> > draw attention to my "egregious error". It is not an error - the
> > second "that" is used deliberately because the first "that" is too
> > weak and distant".
>
> Writing a justification of an ungrammatical sentence doesn't make it
> grammatical.

The theme of this thread is "ungrammatical normal everyday usage".

> > Language isn't all about rules and doesn't need to
> > be rigid. If "that" has become faded and forgotten, bring it up again
> > and make it extant.
>
> That sort of construction is excusable in speech, where it's not possible to
> go back and change the earlier wording; but in writing it's straightforward
> to edit the sentence to make it grammatical.  You could have written "so,
> when somebody sneers ... phrases are 'wrong', that there are educated... "
> (omitting the first "that").

As you can see I considered the merits of the two "that"s and decided
I like them better the way they are. They reinforce each other
"boiling hot" or "crimson red" -like.

> In any case, was that your intended meaning?  Surely you meant "so that it's
> clear that there are educated ...", not "so that there are educated ...".
> The existence of educated, intelligent people who think otherwise doesn't
> depend on posts made to Usenet.

I didn't spend all morning on that sentence which is teeming with
dubious usage anyway, according to you. Posts made in aue show up all
over Google - this will be a very small crouton that very big alphabet
of soups.

[Robert Bannister]

On 4/11/12 5:00 PM, Harrison Hill wrote:

>
> Now who is telling people how they have to talk! Most people born
> before 1970 still think purely in Farenheit,

What utter nonsense. I was born in 1940 and I have completely forgotten
what those silly Fahrenheit numbers meant.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

It is so long since I used Fahrenheit that I haven't the faintest idea
what degrees F mean any more. If you told me 90�F was freezing, I would
have no reason to disbelieve you unless I went to the trouble of looking
it up.

OK, now I've gone and done it: 90�F appears to be just over 32�C, which
I would call pleasantly warm. Our radio announcers who, on their sillier
days, are likely to call 42�C "warm" would probably call ninety
Fahrenheit "moderate".

--
Robert Bannister

[Eric Walker]

I daresay no American has.

The advantages, such as they are, of the Fahrenheit scale are two:

1. It aligns quite well with the normal range of human experience (which
makes sense considering how it was created): 100 F is about as hot as
most people usually experience, and 0 F about as cold. Not exactly, of
course, but enough so that to minds typically accustomed to thinking in
base-10, it is a humanly meaningful scale.

2. The divisions are finer: small changes are more readily noted.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 09:13:03 +0800, Robert Bannister

It is 11:19 PM here as I write this, and the temperature outside is 70
degrees F. I will leave you to figure out whether or not I need to
don a jacket if I leave the house.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Guy Barry]

"Robert Bannister" wrote in message

news:afoikg...@mid.individual.net...

> On 4/11/12 3:35 PM, Guy Barry wrote:

> > It would be pretty damned hot here. I suppose you're used to such
> > temperatures in Australia, but I can't imagine anyone could regard 90
> > degrees F (about 32 degrees C) as in any way cold!

> It is so long since I used Fahrenheit that I haven't the faintest idea
> what degrees F mean any more. If you told me 90�F was freezing, I would
> have no reason to disbelieve you unless I went to the trouble of looking
> it up.

> OK, now I've gone and done it: 90�F appears to be just over 32�C,

Why did you need to look it up when I said so explicitly in my post?

> which I would call pleasantly warm.

I'd call that baking hot myself, and pretty damned unpleasant. Clearly used
to a different climate.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Eric Walker" wrote in message news:k77an4$rja$4...@dont-email.me...

> The advantages, such as they are, of the Fahrenheit scale are two:

> 1. It aligns quite well with the normal range of human experience (which
> makes sense considering how it was created): 100 F is about as hot as
> most people usually experience, and 0 F about as cold. Not exactly, of
> course, but enough so that to minds typically accustomed to thinking in
> base-10, it is a humanly meaningful scale.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it was created from 0 to 96, not 0 to
100.

> 2. The divisions are finer: small changes are more readily noted.

Is that useful for everyday purposes? I wouldn't normally take much notice
of a change of temperature of one degree C, let alone one degree F. I think
one reason why people tend to talk about "temperatures in the eighties" is
that for everyday purposes a difference of ten degrees F (about six degrees
C) is all that really matters. Is it going to be around freezing
(thirties), or cold (forties), or moderate (fifties), or warm (sixties), or
hot (seventies), or oppressive (eighties or higher)?

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Brooks]

They mean different temperatures. They are silly, apart from 'over
100' which means a hot day or a fever.

[Snidely]

Guy Barry scribbled something on Sunday the 11/4/2012:

For me, 70-72 is quite comfortable, 68 is almost time for a sweater,
and 75 means the ice maker better be working.

[Mark Brader]

Peter Duncanson:

> I saw an American showbiz personality being interviewed on a chat show
> in the UK. He had just come from somewhere cold, in Scandinavia I think,
> and mentioned the very low temperature there: minus five (or some other
> small integer). He didn't mention C or F and it wasn't clear which he
> meant. The temperature where he had been would have been measured in C.
> Had he converted it to F or was he accustomed to a much warmer climate
> and considered a few degrees below 0C to be very cold?

To have a good chance of knowing that, you'd have to know where in the
US he was from.

In Canada my experience is that when TV and radio reports switched from
using Fahrenheit to Celsius, the usual pronunciation of -5 degrees
changed simultaneously from "five below" to "minus five". So if I hear
"minus five" as a temperature, I'll assume, at least initially, that
it means Celsius.
--
Mark Brader | "... There are three kinds of death in this world.
Toronto | There's heart death, there's brain death, and
m...@vex.net | there's being off the network." -- Guy Almes

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Mark Brader]

Guy Barry:

> Is that useful for everyday purposes? I wouldn't normally take much notice
> of a change of temperature of one degree C, let alone one degree F.

When we had a new thermostat put in a couple of years ago, I had to
take one where the temperature setting, instead of being represented
by a dial I could rotate by any increment, is digital and works in
whole degrees. There are times when I find a setting of 21 too cool
and 22 too warm. It's almost annoying enough to make me switch the
thing to Fahrenheit so I can have it at 71.
--
Mark Brader | "Don't get me wrong, perl is an OK operating system,
Toronto | but it lacks a lightweight scripting language."
m...@vex.net | -- Walter Dnes

[R H Draney]

Guy Barry filted:

>
>
>
>"Robert Bannister" wrote in message
>news:afoikg...@mid.individual.net...
>

>> OK, now I've gone and done it: 90蚌 appears to be just over 32蚓,

>
>Why did you need to look it up when I said so explicitly in my post?
>
>> which I would call pleasantly warm.
>
>I'd call that baking hot myself, and pretty damned unpleasant. Clearly used
>to a different climate.

Quite right...they don't start using "warm" around here until it gets to the
triple digits Fahrenheitwise..."hot" kicks in around 110....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Nov 4, 11:56 pm, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Guy Barry:
>
> > Is that useful for everyday purposes?  I wouldn't normally take much notice
> > of a change of temperature of one degree C, let alone one degree F.
>
> When we had a new thermostat put in a couple of years ago, I had to
> take one where the temperature setting, instead of being represented
> by a dial I could rotate by any increment, is digital and works in
> whole degrees.  There are times when I find a setting of 21 too cool
> and 22 too warm.  It's almost annoying enough to make me switch the
> thing to Fahrenheit so I can have it at 71.

Indeed, proponents of Fahrenheit sometimes say it has the advantage
that 1 degree F happens to be about the minimum temperature difference
a person can detect (in the range of temperatures that we normally
experience).

--
Jerry Friedman

[Mike L]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:50:19 -0600, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>Peter Duncanson:
>> I saw an American showbiz personality being interviewed on a chat show
>> in the UK. He had just come from somewhere cold, in Scandinavia I think,
>> and mentioned the very low temperature there: minus five (or some other
>> small integer). He didn't mention C or F and it wasn't clear which he
>> meant. The temperature where he had been would have been measured in C.
>> Had he converted it to F or was he accustomed to a much warmer climate
>> and considered a few degrees below 0C to be very cold?
>
>To have a good chance of knowing that, you'd have to know where in the
>US he was from.
>
>In Canada my experience is that when TV and radio reports switched from
>using Fahrenheit to Celsius, the usual pronunciation of -5 degrees
>changed simultaneously from "five below" to "minus five". So if I hear
>"minus five" as a temperature, I'll assume, at least initially, that
>it means Celsius.

I can see that. Interesting. Compare also the post-digital speech
changes: as well as the well-known silly-precise conversions
journalists often quote, broadcasters are now much more likely to say
"ten point five" than "ten and a half". There must be some others.

--
Mike.

[Robert Bannister]

On 5/11/12 11:10 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 09:13:03 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>> On 4/11/12 5:00 PM, Harrison Hill wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Now who is telling people how they have to talk! Most people born
>>> before 1970 still think purely in Farenheit,
>>
>>
>> What utter nonsense. I was born in 1940 and I have completely forgotten
>> what those silly Fahrenheit numbers meant.
>
> I daresay no American has.
>
> The advantages, such as they are, of the Fahrenheit scale are two:
>
> 1. It aligns quite well with the normal range of human experience (which
> makes sense considering how it was created): 100 F is about as hot as
> most people usually experience,

They never boil water?

and 0 F about as cold.

I don't think I have ever experienced anything colder than -5°C. I
certainly wouldn't like to live anywhere that had such extremes.

Not exactly, of
> course, but enough so that to minds typically accustomed to thinking in
> base-10, it is a humanly meaningful scale.

And this is the point: 32-212 is not meaningful in any normal way to
people with only ten fingers. On the whole, the freezing point of water
to its boiling point makes a lot more sense for the average human.

>
> 2. The divisions are finer: small changes are more readily noted.

True, but we are allowed to use decimals.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

I would say yes if it's windy or raining.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

Humidity makes a big difference. Britain is usually a lot more humid
than here which makes heat a lot more unpleasant. Of course, one does
get used to different climates.

--
Robert Bannister

[annily]

As an Aussie, I disagree with Harrison's postulate too. I was born in
1947, and only think automatically in Celsius these days. I can still do
the conversion easily enough though, possibly since Fahrenheit was in
everyday use in Australia in my early days, but my scientific education
resulted in my knowing how the conversion to Celsius (or Centigrade as
we used to call it then) worked.

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 09:01:06 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:

[...]

> They never boil water?
>
> and 0 F about as cold.
>
> I don't think I have ever experienced anything colder than -5°C. I
> certainly wouldn't like to live anywhere that had such extremes.

My goodness, what a sheltered life! The last place we lived, in central
California, reaching 117 F happened (I believe that's over 47 C) more
than once, and over 110 F in summer was ordinary. Where we are now
(inland Washington State), winter overnight low temperatures of -8 F are
commonplace (I think that's -22 C or so), and one winter we had a one-
night dip to -31 F (-35 C). Being, in both places, in a solar home, we
were comfortable (we didn't believe the recording thermometer on that low
till it was confirmed by neighbors).

> Not exactly, of
>> course, but enough so that to minds typically accustomed to thinking in
>> base-10, it is a humanly meaningful scale.
>
> And this is the point: 32-212 is not meaningful in any normal way to
> people with only ten fingers. On the whole, the freezing point of water
> to its boiling point makes a lot more sense for the average human.

I must say that I have never, ever run into anyone who boils water with a
thermometer, or indeed who could care less what the boiling temperature
is or--save for obviating pipe damage in winter--what the freezing point
is. Most people, in their everyday lives, deal with numerical
temperature values almost solely in connection with ambient temperature,
and within that limit, with those temperatures as a measure of likely
comfort or discomfort.

And in that context 0-100 is a well-suited, well-sized range.

>> 2. The divisions are finer: small changes are more readily noted.
>
> True, but we are allowed to use decimals.

Do you, though? How often do you, or does anyone you know, say it is
21.7 C in the room?


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Peter Brooks]

It matters when, inter alia, boiling eggs. If you stay at sea-level
you won't encounter the problem, but, if you have to travel to higher
elevations, you'll find that water boils at a much lower temperature,
so you have to cook your eggs for longer to get the same effect.

Alternatively, if you find that you are in an unknown place, where you
find yourself out of breath after running up a small flight of stairs,
you can use a thermometer and a pan of water to establish your
altitude.

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 19:52:24 -0800, Peter Brooks wrote:

[...]

> It matters when, inter alia, boiling eggs. If you stay at sea-level you
> won't encounter the problem, but, if you have to travel to higher
> elevations, you'll find that water boils at a much lower temperature, so
> you have to cook your eggs for longer to get the same effect.
>
> Alternatively, if you find that you are in an unknown place, where you
> find yourself out of breath after running up a small flight of stairs,
> you can use a thermometer and a pan of water to establish your altitude.

I would, with only modest trepidation, venture to say that neither of
those lies within the bounds sketched out by "Most people, in their
everyday lives".


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Peter Brooks]

Most people live near sea-level, so, yes, I agree.

A good many people, myself included, don't spend all our time at sea
level.

[tony cooper]

That seems to be from the perspective of someone who normally lives
at, and boils eggs at, sea-level.

If look at it from the perspective of, say, a Denver CO resident, the
problem would be that the eggs would be boiled too quickly if they
ventured down to sea-level.

[Guy Barry]

"Robert Bannister" wrote in message

news:afr5ql...@mid.individual.net...

> On 5/11/12 11:10 AM, Eric Walker wrote:

> > 1. It aligns quite well with the normal range of human experience (which
> > makes sense considering how it was created): 100 F is about as hot as
> > most people usually experience,

> They never boil water?

I think Eric was referring to ambient conditions. I have never jumped into
a vat of boiling water (fortunately).

> And this is the point: 32-212 is not meaningful in any normal way to
> people with only ten fingers.

What are you saying? That most people can only count up to ten? In that
case perhaps the temperature scale should stop at 10, not 100.

> On the whole, the freezing point of water to its boiling point makes a lot
> more sense for the average human.

Not if we're talking about the atmospheric conditions experienced by most
people, which is presumably what Eric means. If we're talking about
temperatures used in cooking then you need to go much higher than 100
degrees C - typically up to about 240 degrees C. I don't see what's special
about the boiling point of water.

--
Guy Barry

[R H Draney]

tony cooper filted:

>
>On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 19:52:24 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks
><peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It matters when, inter alia, boiling eggs. If you stay at sea-level
>>you won't encounter the problem, but, if you have to travel to higher
>>elevations, you'll find that water boils at a much lower temperature,
>>so you have to cook your eggs for longer to get the same effect.

>>,

>That seems to be from the perspective of someone who normally lives
>at, and boils eggs at, sea-level.
>
>If look at it from the perspective of, say, a Denver CO resident, the
>problem would be that the eggs would be boiled too quickly if they
>ventured down to sea-level.

Ah, Denver, that outpost of the Great Plains!...not quite my idea of high
elevation (I spent most of a decade living in a town at six thousand feet, and
weekend outings often took me closer to eight), but you can see it from
there....

Not particularly far from Denver, there's a peak called Mount Evans, which is
said to be the site of the highest paved road in the world...at the visitors'
center near the summit, my stepfather performed an experiment in which he
determined that it was almost impossible *not* to get lightheaded trying to
smoke a cigarette at that altitude...the center contained (maybe still does) a
little snack bar, and it occurred to me to ask what temperature the water for
the coffee boils up there...waitress didn't know, but she went to the kitchen to
check, and came back with the information that it happens at 180 degrees....

I was even less of a coffee drinker in those days than I am now, but it struck
me that coffee brewed under such conditions would be of inferior quality....r

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2012-11-06 09:13:45 +0100, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> said:

> tony cooper filted:
>>
>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 19:52:24 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks
>> <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It matters when, inter alia, boiling eggs. If you stay at sea-level
>>> you won't encounter the problem, but, if you have to travel to higher
>>> elevations, you'll find that water boils at a much lower temperature,
>>> so you have to cook your eggs for longer to get the same effect.
>>> ,
>> That seems to be from the perspective of someone who normally lives
>> at, and boils eggs at, sea-level.
>>
>> If look at it from the perspective of, say, a Denver CO resident, the
>> problem would be that the eggs would be boiled too quickly if they
>> ventured down to sea-level.
>
> Ah, Denver, that outpost of the Great Plains!...not quite my idea of high
> elevation

No, but it calls itself the Mile-High City (will they change that to
the 1.6 km High City if the USA ever decides to join the rest of the
world?), and it's higher than where most people live. When I was there
this summer I thought of doing the experiment that Eric has never run
into anyone wanting to do, but I didn't have a thermometer handy at the
moments when I thought about it, and although there were people I could
have asked for one they weren't around in those moments.

> (I spent most of a decade living in a town at six thousand feet, and
> weekend outings often took me closer to eight), but you can see it from
> there....

> --
athel

[tony cooper]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 07:19:26 -0000, "Guy Barry"
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> I don't see what's special
>about the boiling point of water.

You would if you were a lobster.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Nov 6, 8:55 am, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 07:19:26 -0000, "Guy Barry"
>

> <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >  I don't see what's special
> >about the boiling point of water.
>
> You would if you were a lobster.

Is that what "The temperature is in the red" means?

--
Jerry Friedman

[Mike L]

I don't know the exact best temperature, but you get better coffee by
far if you let the water cool down a bit. Boiling water destroys the
volatile fractions, or something like that.

--
Mike.

[Robert Bannister]

Never ever, but on the other hand, when I lived in England back in the
olden days before Celsius, I don't recall people other than weather
forecasters using precise Fahrenheit numbers either. "Low seventies",
"high sixties", "won't reach fifty", "bloody freezing" were how most
people described temperature. I find this new craze for using exact
figures for temperature about as silly as telling me the time is "eight
thirty-three".

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

I imagine incipient heart-attack victims in sky-scrapers all over the
world exclaiming, "I've got my thermometer in my pocket, but I left the
blasted pan of water in the car".


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 6/11/12 11:55 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 07:19:26 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I don't see what's special
>> about the boiling point of water.
>
> You would if you were a lobster.
>

I hate it when they try to climb out of the saucepan.

--
Robert Bannister

[Peter Brooks]

If they're going to go out without adequate panning, they have only
themselves to blame.

[Peter Brooks]

Sosban Fach.

[James Silverton]

I remember the first winter that I spent in 1958 in Ithaca, New York and
when I wondered if the bank thermometer would show a negative
temperature (Fahrenheit of course). It did show -1°!

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

[annily]

I don't find either of those silly, but then I've always been one for
precision.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Nov 5, 8:06 pm, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 09:01:06 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
...

> > And this is the point: 32-212 is not meaningful in any normal way to
> > people with only ten fingers. On the whole, the freezing point of water
> > to its boiling point makes a lot more sense for the average human.
>
> I must say that I have never, ever run into anyone who boils water with a
> thermometer, or indeed who could care less what the boiling temperature
> is or--save for obviating pipe damage in winter--what the freezing point
> is.

We do it every semester in physics lab. (Water boils at about 93 C in
Santa Fe.) But that doesn't count as...

> Most people, in their everyday lives,

...

--
Jerry Friedman

[Mark Brader]

R.H. Draney:

> Not particularly far from Denver, there's a peak called Mount Evans,
> which is said to be the site of the highest paved road in the world...

> at the visitors' center near the summit...

From memory, that would be at elevation 14,180 feet, and the summit
(reached only on foot) is at 14,260. That'd be 4,322 and 4,346 m.

> ...the center contained (maybe still does) a little snack bar...

The whole building's gone; it burned down years ago. You have to take
your own refreshments now.
--
Mark Brader | "We didn't just track down that bug,
Toronto | we left evidence of its extermination
m...@vex.net | as a warning to other bugs" --Dan Lyke

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Peter Moylan]

I used to be able to do these calculations in my head. Heck, years ago I
used to know whether 70 F was hot or cold. Oh well, out with the calculator.

Answer: 21 degrees. Not wintry, but a bit cooler than here. I'd say
carry the jacket if you're going to walk a long distance, but for a
short trip you could just brave it out.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Peter Moylan]

On 04/11/12 18:35, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>
> "Robert Bannister" wrote in message

> news:aflo5t...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> On 3/11/12 7:06 PM, Harrison Hill wrote:
>
>> > The trend here is very much from Farenheit to Centigrade, but we have
>> > always frozen at 0; I think we still have our hottest day around the
>> > 100 mark. As for "temperature in the red" I get that from my bus's
>> > temperature gauge, going up hills.
>
>> That is really my only objection: "in the red" usually indicates
>> danger or impending bankruptcy.
>
> Yes; because I'm only familiar with the banking sense, "in the red"
> means "below zero" to me, so with no other context I'd have assumed that
> a temperature "in the red" was below freezing.
>
>> I don't really know whether "nineties" is hot or cold,

>
> It would be pretty damned hot here. I suppose you're used to such
> temperatures in Australia, but I can't imagine anyone could regard 90
> degrees F (about 32 degrees C) as in any way cold!
>

His central point, with which I agree, is that Fahrenheit was abandoned
so long ago in Australia that we've lost all our intuition for what
those numbers mean.

One thing we (who are old enough) do all remember is that 100 degrees,
in the old money, is hot, somewhere in the high thirties. (For some
reason, it still sticks in my mind that 104 was where some of the girls
at school were inclined to faint.) By extension, I conclude that
"nineties" refers to summery temperatures.

That's where it ends, though. Is 80 degrees hot or cold? Well, I know
the answer because I had my calculator out a few minutes ago; but
without the calculator I wouldn't have known. For some reason, the first
bit of information that goes away when one stops using Fahrenheit is the
"comfortable" range. I know that 0 is cold and 100 is hot, but I'm very
fuzzy on the meanings of the numbers in between.

One thing I like about Celsius is that there is a neat map between
degrees of comfort and steps of 10 on the scale:

0 - 9 cold
10 - 19 cool
20 - 29 comfortable
30 - 39 hot
40 - 49 try to stay in the shade, drink lots of water

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Moylan" wrote in message
news:XaWdnT0Et8uLMAHN...@westnet.com.au...

> I used to be able to do these calculations in my head. Heck, years ago I
> used to know whether 70 F was hot or cold. Oh well, out with the
> calculator.

You can easily do it in your head - subtract thirty and halve (giving 20 in
this case). That's near enough for the range of temperatures normally
experienced in this country, at any rate.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Moylan" wrote in message

news:LvydnQ7qVsV6LAHN...@westnet.com.au...

> One thing I like about Celsius is that there is a neat map between
> degrees of comfort and steps of 10 on the scale:

> 0 - 9 cold
> 10 - 19 cool
> 20 - 29 comfortable
> 30 - 39 hot
> 40 - 49 try to stay in the shade, drink lots of water

That's what I used to like about Fahrenheit, although my correspondences
would be rather different from yours:

30-39 F (below 4 C) - near freezing
40-49 F (4 - 10 C) - cold
50-59 F (10 - 16 C) - moderate
60-69 F (16 - 21 C) - warm
70-79 F (21 - 27 C) - hot
80+ F (over 27 C) - oppressive

I'm quite used to Celsius, having learned it at school, but I can see the
appeal of Fahrenheit.

Incidentally, for some reason I've never understood, the weather forecasters
in this country have a habit of choosing random places when they announce
the temperatures. This morning they said it'd be "11 degrees in Bath [where
I live] and 12 degrees in Aberystwyth". I felt as though I'd won the
lottery.

--
Guy Barry

[Nick Spalding]

Guy Barry wrote, in <cX2ns.219514$A%.169512@fx26.am4>
on Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:14:05 -0000:

I like the symmetry of:

C = (((F+40) X 9 / 5) - 40
F = (((C+40) X 5 / 9) - 40
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[Guy Barry]

"Nick Spalding" wrote in message
news:ltmp98tbsibdr00k6...@4ax.com...

> Guy Barry wrote, in <cX2ns.219514$A%.169512@fx26.am4>
> on Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:14:05 -0000:

> > You can easily do it in your head - subtract thirty and halve (giving 20
> > in
> > this case). That's near enough for the range of temperatures normally
> > experienced in this country, at any rate.

> I like the symmetry of:

> C = (((F+40) X 9 / 5) - 40
> F = (((C+40) X 5 / 9) - 40

If you can do that in your head you're cleverer than I am. Neat, though!

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Nick Spalding" wrote in message
news:ltmp98tbsibdr00k6...@4ax.com...

> I like the symmetry of:

> C = (((F+40) X 9 / 5) - 40
> F = (((C+40) X 5 / 9) - 40

Hang on a minute - shouldn't those two be the other way round?

--
Guy Barry

[Nick Spalding]

Guy Barry wrote, in <cl5ns.210155$lz1.2...@fx28.am4>
on Fri, 9 Nov 2012 10:58:19 -0000:

Yes!!! Dammit.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[tony cooper]

I consider 70 F to be absolutely balmy weather. That's a walk of any
distance in a tee shirt and shorts.

At the moment, it is about 61 F/16 C. I've just come in from the
front porch where I read the morning newspaper and had a cup of
coffee. I'm wearing a light hoodie sweatshirt, but it would not be
too uncomfortable in a shirt only.

Apropos of nothing temperature-wise, the newspaper articles were about
the many ways that Florida politicians and Florida political
candidates have come out looking very foolish. How the 11 amendment
choices on the ballot (8 of them soundly defeated) slowed down the
voting, how our Governor's decision to reduce the early voting days
from 14 to 8 resulted in long lines and the exact opposite in results
that he wanted, what incredible amounts of money was spent in election
campaigning, and how this important swing state had no effect
whatsoever on the presidential race outcome because the official vote
count is still not yet complete.

Tomorrow I expect and article informing us that the sun rose in the
East on election day.

[Lanarcam]

And then, the rocket blew up...

[tony cooper]

On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:33:57 +1100, Peter Moylan
<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>One thing I like about Celsius is that there is a neat map between
>degrees of comfort and steps of 10 on the scale:
>
> 0 - 9 cold
> 10 - 19 cool
> 20 - 29 comfortable
> 30 - 39 hot
> 40 - 49 try to stay in the shade, drink lots of water

The ideal outside temperature for most in the US is 72F/22C. Anything
from 68F/20C to 74F/23C is pleasant to most. Inside room temperature
is normally set from 68F to 70F (20C to 21C) because body heat will
add a bit to room heat.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

<chuckle>

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Robin Bignall]

At 21 C I'd freeze up (and save a lot of money). My house thermostat is
set to 23 during the day and 24 starting at 6 pm.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England

[Robert Bannister]

Oh, I have vague memories of nine and five and add or take away the
number you first thought of, but it all seems a bit silly these days.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

Except that I have never experienced such a temperature and hope I never do.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

And now I've reread it and realise I misunderstood.
Black mark for me.

--
Robert Bannister

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <ag5eh7...@mid.individual.net>,

Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

>Oh, I have vague memories of nine and five and add or take away the
>number you first thought of, but it all seems a bit silly these days.

Most people, in normal daily life, have no need to do the conversion.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

[Robert Bannister]

On 9/11/12 10:47 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:13:24 +1100, Peter Moylan
> <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 06/11/12 12:03, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> On 5/11/12 12:20 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 09:13:03 +0800, Robert Bannister
>>>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/11/12 5:00 PM, Harrison Hill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now who is telling people how they have to talk! Most people born
>>>>>> before 1970 still think purely in Farenheit,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What utter nonsense. I was born in 1940 and I have completely forgotten
>>>>> what those silly Fahrenheit numbers meant.
>>>>
>>>> It is 11:19 PM here as I write this, and the temperature outside is 70
>>>> degrees F. I will leave you to figure out whether or not I need to
>>>> don a jacket if I leave the house.
>>>
>>> I would say yes if it's windy or raining.
>>>
>> I used to be able to do these calculations in my head. Heck, years ago I
>> used to know whether 70 F was hot or cold. Oh well, out with the calculator.
>>
>> Answer: 21 degrees. Not wintry, but a bit cooler than here. I'd say
>> carry the jacket if you're going to walk a long distance, but for a
>> short trip you could just brave it out.
>
> I consider 70 F to be absolutely balmy weather. That's a walk of any
> distance in a tee shirt and shorts.

All the air-conditioners I've come across at home and at work come with
a default temperature of 25�C. I find that just slightly too warm,
especially if I've been moving about, and I usually turn it down to 23�
or 22�.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

Ours like to give the coldest and hottest spot in the state. They are
usually places very few people have ever heard of.

--
Robert Bannister

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <k63ns.212126$g62.1...@fx06.am4>,

Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>That's what I used to like about Fahrenheit, although my correspondences
>would be rather different from yours:
>
>30-39 F (below 4 C) - near freezing
>40-49 F (4 - 10 C) - cold
>50-59 F (10 - 16 C) - moderate
>60-69 F (16 - 21 C) - warm
>70-79 F (21 - 27 C) - hot
>80+ F (over 27 C) - oppressive
>
>I'm quite used to Celsius, having learned it at school, but I can see the
>appeal of Fahrenheit.

For me, that would be:

< 40 - cold
40-65 - cool
65-75 - comfortable
75-85 - warm
> 85 - hot

Anyone from the south, midwest, or intermountain would have a
different scale. 100, which is intolerable in Boston, is not even
unpleasantly hot in Boise.

[Robin Bignall]

Subtract 40 after you've finished and go back to the first heat!

[rwalker]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 09:13:03 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

>On 4/11/12 5:00 PM, Harrison Hill wrote:
>
>>
>> Now who is telling people how they have to talk! Most people born
>> before 1970 still think purely in Farenheit,
>
>
>What utter nonsense. I was born in 1940 and I have completely forgotten
>what those silly Fahrenheit numbers meant.

They mean the same thing as those silly centigrade numbers, but on a
different scale.

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 09:47:02 -0500, tony cooper wrote:

[...]

> I consider 70 F to be absolutely balmy weather. That's a walk of any
> distance in a tee shirt and shorts.
>
> At the moment, it is about 61 F/16 C. I've just come in from the front
> porch where I read the morning newspaper and had a cup of coffee. I'm
> wearing a light hoodie sweatshirt, but it would not be too uncomfortable
> in a shirt only.

I find that wind makes a huge difference, especially at low
temperatures. When I would let the dog out for her last stroll in the
small hours of the morning in winter, I could easily stand outside in
just a T-shirt in single-digit temperatures, provided the air were still;
not forever, of course, but in tolerable comfort for several minutes.
But if there is even a bit of a breeze, almost anything below freezing is
deeply uncomfortable (in a T-shirt) for even a very short time from, oh,
maybe freezing down.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Peter Brooks]

No, they don't, the degrees are different sizes. Anyway, as any ful
kno, it's Celsius, not centigrade - as has been pointed out here,
Fahrenheit is centigrade.

[annily]

On 10.11.12 12:57, annily wrote:

> I can usually do the original
>
> F = (C * 9 / 5) + 32 and
> C = (F - 32) * 5 / 9
>
> in my head anyway. I'd never seen it with the +40 and -40 before. I
> don't think that would make it any easier.

Actually, for mental calculation, the easiest way I've found to do
Celsius to Fahrenheit is:

Multiply by 2, subtract a tenth of the result, then add 32.

[Guy Barry]

"Robert Bannister" wrote in message news:ag5eh7...@mid.individual.net...

> Oh, I have vague memories of nine and five and add or take away the number
> you first thought of, but it all seems a bit silly these days.

Here's another way of roughly converting between Celsius and Fahrenheit.
Just memorize the following pairs where the digits are reversed:
04 C = 40 F
16 C = 61 F
28 C = 82 F
Other conversions can be estimated using interpolation.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Robert Bannister" wrote in message news:ag5eoa...@mid.individual.net...

As Nick has already admitted, he had C and F the wrong way round. It
should be:

C = (((F+40) X 5 / 9) - 40
F = (((C+40) X 9 / 5) - 40

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Robert Bannister" wrote in message news:ag5f3q...@mid.individual.net...

What, in the forecast? We get that in the report of the previous day's
weather, but I'd have thought it would be quite a hard thing to forecast (as
well as being of limited use).

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Brooks" wrote in message
news:bbbc296c-9374-4fdc...@l18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

> No, they don't, the degrees are different sizes. Anyway, as any ful
> kno, it's Celsius, not centigrade - as has been pointed out here,
> Fahrenheit is centigrade.

Fahrenheit is *not* centigrade. As I have already said a couple of times
(and given a reference), Fahrenheit's original scale ran from 0 to 96, not 0
to 100.

--
Guy Barry

[R H Draney]

Guy Barry filted:

And -11.4 C ~ +11.4 F

The real key is to know the conversions for temperatures you encounter
often...in addition to those above (most of which are uncommon here), there's
98.7 F = 37 C, and 104 F = 40 C....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.