Degrees of confusion
Sky News are currently giving weather forecasts for individual cities on their morning show in the form of icons in the corner of the screen.
On seeing two temperatures for each city, you might expect that they are minimum and maximum temperatures, as is conventional for city forecasts. But these temperatures are more reminiscent of those found in the Middle East.
Even after using the international standard Celsius system for 40 years, it seems that we are expected to realise that the pairs of figures shown are actually both maximum temperatures, but using two different systems.
When will the media make it easier for us all, and stick to one standard temperature scale?
February 27th, 2007 at 23:09
I’ll never understand why broadcasters, who say they have to show Fahrenheit for the benenfit of those poor soles who don’t understand Celsius, expect everyone to comprehend temperature information presented like this!
The truth is, they know jolly well that those who insist on Fahrenheit are perfectly capable of understanding Celsius, but give in to their demands for fear of losing audience.
Interestingly, it doesn’t seem to bother some of the National BBC weather presenters, some of whom never mention Fahrenheit at all!
February 28th, 2007 at 10:33
What a massive step backwards! Ok, so the BBC has a habit of mentioning Fahrenheit on forecasts but I don’t recall ever actually seeing it displayed on my TV screen!
I was under the impression that the only place in the world where Fahrenheit was still in everyday use was the USA and it’s the only place in the world where I am ever confused by weather reports. I really do hope Sky put a stop to this and quickly!
February 28th, 2007 at 10:57
This mornings BBC news 24 weather lady just gave the temp as a number, did not mention the word Celsius, and nor should she. Everything was very clear and easy to understand.
February 28th, 2007 at 21:14
Tancred wrote;
>This mornings BBC news 24 weather lady just gave the temp as a number, did >not mention the word Celsius, and nor should she…
I know, but once on BBC the weather reporter said something like “Yesterday in London it got upto 83 degrees, today it will only reach about 23″.
No mention of Celsius or Farenheit, nor should she, so long as she sticks to just Celsius which is the standard. By mixing both in the one sentence without actually saying what was what lead to it being a completely useless piece of ‘information’. Mad!
March 9th, 2007 at 11:43
I took the plunge and emailed Sky to ask why… and they wheeled out the usual reason that “older people don’t understand Celsius so well and although 0C is easy to recognise as cold, 100F is easier to recognise as hot”.
They also claim that they broadcast internationally and some foreigners are less likely to understand Celsius… although why somebody in, say, New York, would want to know the temperature in Cardiff at 3am is beyond me!
March 12th, 2007 at 08:46
I find the argument that “older people don’t understand Celsius” both patronising and disingenuous. Older people have been exposed to weather forecasts in Celsius since the 1970s - surely enough time. Many older people are more open to new ideas than younger people.
Unless people have appliances older than 30 years they will have central heating thermostats, ovens, deep fat fryers, etc all working in Celsius. Do such people forget how to use their ovens or heating systems when the weather forecast is being broadcast?
March 13th, 2007 at 09:32
The argument that older folks cannot understand Celsius is flawed. I live in the United States and set out to see just how hard it is to change my way of thinking. I set my house’s digital thermostat to Celsius, my digital thermometer to Celsius, my electric stove’s temperature control to Celsius &c. I also only started checking the weather using websites set to metric only.
After experiencing all the seasons (one year) I felt not only comfortable, but more comfortable with Celsius than Fahrenheit. Not only that but my wife, who thought I was being silly, is now a convert and finds Fahrenheit cumbersome.
Anyone, regardless of age, can learn in a short time to feel very comfortable with Celsius; unless they are flat out unwilling to.
March 13th, 2007 at 13:12
The assertion that “some foreigners are less likely to understand Celsius” is utter balderdash. Every country that can see the Sky satellites (which are both at about 28°E) uses Celsius. You cannot pick up Sky in New York, no matter how good your aerial is because the satellite is below the horizon.
March 14th, 2007 at 12:26
My original email to Sky pre-empted their response, which replied to repeating rebutals to their claims… but as with a similar email I sent to BBC News some time ago I’ve not even received an acknowledgement, let alone a reply. I did suspect that by responding to the initial response immediatly branded one a “crank” and got you blacklisted!
What is really needed is for more people to actually put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) and make these points directly to Sky!
One point in response to Martin Vliestra - Sky News is available on platforms other than Astra, as an example it ihas been available in the US on cable via DirecTV since the middle of last year. Not that this is any excuse since the vast majority of their audience is still within metric countries!
March 19th, 2007 at 00:38
I think that it is a shameful thing that people in this country (the UK) still insist on temperatures in Fahrenheit. The UK government, throughout the last 40 years, should have educated people to use Celsius and understand it properly. Or maybe they did but there are too many dumb people who prefer to be stuck in the mud.
Celsius is easy: 0 degrees = melting point of ice/freezing point of water (useful to know if driving on a cold day)
100 degrees = boiling point of water (useful to know if boiling water for tea).
How many people who use Fahrenheit actually know the freezing and boiling points of water in degrees F? I expect not many.
April 17th, 2007 at 18:40
When will you wierdo’s realise that some people like using Fahrenheit. It is fine for oudoor temperatures and is more human based. Whereas in Britain the only temperatures in Celcius that we ever reach are the mid 30’s. However with Fahrenheit, the outdoor temperature of Britain is spread over 100 degrees with 0 being extremely cold and 100 degrees being very hot. So, whereas Fahrenheit is based on humans, Celcius is based on water! Are we active humans or lifeless liquids. Oh, and by the way the melting and boiling points of water in Fahrenheit are 32 degrees and 212 degrees.
April 20th, 2007 at 17:18
Fahrenheit is based on two misconceptions: that 0 degrees is the lowest achievable temperature (found later to be in error by several hundred degrees) and that the normal body temperature is 100 degrees (found later to be in error by almost 2 degrees). And if F is so marvellous, why is it so unpopular around the world, being in common use in only one country, with all the others opting for C?
April 20th, 2007 at 18:24
The freezing point of water is a more important reference point because it has such serious implications for weather conditions and the precautions we all need to take to protect ourselves in icy conditions.
Fahreheit has reference points and intervals that have no obvious siginificance and, as pointed out by Derek above, have an erroneous origin.
I would also mention that given the attachment that Tabitha attaches to the calorie (on a another thread) she should be more amenable to Celsius:
1 calorie is the energy required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree Celsius.
April 21st, 2007 at 16:33
Tabitha wrote : “Fahrenheit. It is fine for outdoor temperatures”.
Why use a different temperature scale for outdoors? How can you tell if it is colder outside than inside? Or warmer than the setting on your central heating thermostat?
Tabitha, if you like scales that run from 0 to about 100, you should be pushing for UK speed limits to be set in km/h. 0 km/h being stopped and 100 km/h being equivalent to the current 60 mph speed limit on single-carriageways.
May 11th, 2007 at 20:42
A scale of 0-100 is suitable for outdoor temperatures, as it is for our benefit. Notice the OUTDOOR TEMPERATURE part. With regard to road signs, 0-100 km/h is hardly the range of speeds found on our roads.
Unlike the UKMA, I am prepared to look at both sides of the argument. I accept that Celcius (Centigrade- why are there two names?) is useful for scientific use, including some aspects of engineering.
I hope that the media continue to use Fahrenheit for the time being. Well done Sky News!
May 12th, 2007 at 17:09
Dear Tabitha
The correct term for the temperature scale used predominently in weather forecasting etc is Celsius (named after the Swedish scientist who invented it) not “Centigrade” (no longer used because temperatures are not confined to the interval 0-100). So no confusion if the modern convention is followed.
It is the Kelvin scale that is used for scientific purposes. Kelvin is really just Celsius with a zero reference point set to a level in which all matter is literally devoid of thermal energy, i.e. the lowest temperature physically possible. Hence 0 K = -273.15 C
The Celsius scale has been retained because it is preferred for normal everyday use but is highly compatible with Kelvin (you only have to add or subtract 273.15 for conversion - no multiplication or division).
If you are seriously prepared to “look at both sides of the argument” then why not think carefully about the fact that in Britian everyone has to know both imperial and metric to get by even though it achieves nothing of practical advantage over a single coherent system. Why should UKMA back down from this when no one offers any sensible “argument” to refute this?