On 10/8/2015 9:58 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-10-08 11:36 AM, Embudo wrote:
>> On 10/8/2015 4:57 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 7:11:33 PM UTC-4, Embudo wrote:
>>>> On 10/7/2015 5:08 PM, wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 10:03:34 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 06:52:54 -0300, wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lol and yet he sets himself up as being so sensitive to what
>>>>>>> people in
>>>>>>> general want that if he became President he would ship all refugees
>>>>>>> back where they came from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those damned immgrants with their filthy metric system have to go!
>>>>>
>>>>> Lol is he against metric too ?
>>>>
>>>> The most coarse scale to measure human environmental temperatures with.
>>>
>>> Do you actually care if it's 70 or 72 F outside?
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do you think it sounds warmer at roughly 100 degreesF or 35C?
>>
>> Do you think the gradation between a 70 degree day and one in the 20s
>> expresses with equal granularity that 30 degree temperature spread?
>>
>> Catch a clue.
>>
>> By imperious mathematical precision the metric system is a poor way to
>> grade environmental temperature compared to farenheit - period.
>
> You spew that as if you think it actually makes sense.
You demonize that as if you actually had a precision point to make -
which of course you do not.
I call gish gallop on you.
> Cindy is quite
> correct in her comment about people being able to detect a change of
> temperature of only one degree Fahrenheit compared to one degree
> Celsius.
But she never precisely SAID that, now did she?
Perhaps if you offered up her exact quotation, instead of your own
revisionism...
Know that at the upper and lower end of the two scales it is very common
to experience changes of a degree or three as significant, far more so
than a single degree.
Those are the non-comfort levels, where our bodies quickly react to ver
small changes.
> Then there is the matter of having a scale based on the
> temperatures at which water changes state since they are significant not
> only in the change of state but the amount of heat involved in those
> changes.
Irrelevant to diurnal daily environmental synoptic measures.
> Temperature is only one factor in our perception of heat.
Non sequitur.
> Humidity is
> important enough that most weather reports now include wind chill or
> "feels like."
So?
> Very low or very high temperatures are easier to handle in
> a dry climate.
So?
> I found 100 F plus in dry areas of California more
> comfortable than mid 80s F around here.
So?
The entire continent has varying humidity and temperature regimes.
Each denizen develops interpretations based on their local regime.
Citing this regionalism and local micro-climatology does NOTHING to
erase the 3 for one swap on temperature sensitivity that metric
surrenders to Fahrenheit.
Period.
End of discussion.
> It does not take long for most
> people to associate the Celsius equivalents with comfort ranges.
Yes, you can hoodwink a person into accepting a 3 for one swap on
degrees with alarming ease, if they're royalist serfs anyway.
The rest of us know that a 100degreeF day is a far more expressive
integer tna saying it's 35C.
This is not under rational dispute, never will be.
>> End of discussion.
>
> Too frustrating for you to make a valid argument?
Too frustrating to have made it and then see servile lackeys like
yourself go into fits of denial.
You LOST, to the numbers.
Lick your wounds and get over it.