I can’t be certain that this is the exact reason, but I believe it’s because metric units are based on measurements of fresh water at sea level. 1 kg = 1 litre = 1 m³ of fresh water at sea level. If fresh water at sea level has been used to standardize everything else, then why wouldn’t you use it as the standard to calibrate a scale of 0 (least water movement) to 100 (most water movement)?
The problem with using K back when ⁰C were being standardized is that it’s really really difficult to get your hands on some absolute zero. Also, since we generally use ⁰C to measure things here on Earth, I’d argue that the basis for C is just as arbitrary as the basis for metric. I think the equivalent of arguing for K over C would be to argue for light years or astronomical units over kilometres.
I’m not arguing for K over C. I’m arguing that C and F are both fine. People acting like C is fundamentally better are mistaken. They’re both just setting 0 as some useful value that we can still go below.
0 (least water movement) to 100 (most water movement)
Temperature is a measure of movement. If we can continue to lower or raise the temperature, these are not the lowest or highest values for movement.
And people arguing for C because it’s metric are just wrong, because it isn’t metric. It’s frequently used by the same people who use the metric system, but it isn’t metric. The metric unit for temperature is K.
I agree that K is impractical. C and F have far more utility in everyday life. In my opinion, they’re both fine. For cooking, I tend to think in C. For weather, I tend to think in F. They’re both just arbitrary choosing useful values, and this means they’re both useful for different things.
I can’t be certain that this is the exact reason, but I believe it’s because metric units are based on measurements of fresh water at sea level. 1 kg = 1 litre = 1 m³ of fresh water at sea level. If fresh water at sea level has been used to standardize everything else, then why wouldn’t you use it as the standard to calibrate a scale of 0 (least water movement) to 100 (most water movement)?
The problem with using K back when ⁰C were being standardized is that it’s really really difficult to get your hands on some absolute zero. Also, since we generally use ⁰C to measure things here on Earth, I’d argue that the basis for C is just as arbitrary as the basis for metric. I think the equivalent of arguing for K over C would be to argue for light years or astronomical units over kilometres.
I’m not arguing for K over C. I’m arguing that C and F are both fine. People acting like C is fundamentally better are mistaken. They’re both just setting 0 as some useful value that we can still go below.
Temperature is a measure of movement. If we can continue to lower or raise the temperature, these are not the lowest or highest values for movement.
And people arguing for C because it’s metric are just wrong, because it isn’t metric. It’s frequently used by the same people who use the metric system, but it isn’t metric. The metric unit for temperature is K.
I agree that K is impractical. C and F have far more utility in everyday life. In my opinion, they’re both fine. For cooking, I tend to think in C. For weather, I tend to think in F. They’re both just arbitrary choosing useful values, and this means they’re both useful for different things.