> A&W tried introducing a 1/3 lb burger, and it failed horribly because the average consumer couldn't understand that 1/3 is greater than 1/4.

Why then they didn't come up with a 1/5 lb burger?

> the average consumer couldn't understand that 1/3 is greater than 1/4.

The average reader of France 24 understands Celsius and has no clue what a Fahrenheit is. No one uses Fahrenheit apart from the US. It's like imperial units, totally irrelevant if you are addressing a global audience.

You're missing my point completely. If a news article is targeted at a US resident, it should use Fahrenheit for maximum impact. Globally and scientifically, of course use Celsius -- or even better, mention both.

This article isn't targeted at a US residents, but your comment seems to imply it should use Fahrenheit.

My comment was a generalization of climate change articles in general, figure it out and stop being pedantic.

F does have that nice comfort-zone granularity though. Swingier whole numbers around the zone of human activity. Maybe there's a way in which the numbers could be displayed side by side... Even for sheer generic number effects

I think that's mostly because you're used to it. I know that 18-22 °C is comfortable because that's how it is, but that's just out of habit.

A 1°C difference is about 2°F. Not that much more granularity and in practice we just round to the nearest °C and it gives a pretty good idea. It’s like inches and pounds: purely a matter of habit. OTOH, using °C makes much more sense for other reasons.

I don't think the global mean temperature change is going to come off as particularly impactful either way. 5-10°F increase is notable, but doesn't sound particularly scary or urgent. It's the catastrophic consequences that are the scary part.

Yep I won't disagree that the actual consequences are far more severe than turning up the A/C and not going outside.

Depending where you live though, adding 5-10°F isn't entirely ignorable. If you live in Texas, that's taking a 100°F day and making it sound even more brutal. Or as a Coloradan, it's experiencing temperatures you never thought you'd see in the mountains, and being able to intuitively associate the increase in temperatures with the increase of wildfires.

A 10 degree increase in the average summer temperature would probably mean tens of thousands of deaths per day in less developed countries with humid climates. The human body doesn’t tolerate wet-bulb temperatures above 95F.

I'm not disagreeing. But just citing the global mean temperature rise does not convey those kinds of horrific consequences.

Okay. Here’s an article that conveys them more directly[1].

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/08/global-heati...

Ten degrees is the difference between manageable and deadly with enough humidity. It's meaningful if you live in a place where it's meaningful.

How did you turn 2.7C into 5-10F, when 2.7C is less than 5F?

I was more upset about the "10" than the "5". My point was that you "converted" a single value to a range, giving the impression that the single value would be roughly in the middle of the range, but it was actually below its lower bound. Why didn't you say just "5F", or if you wanted to give a range, then "3-7F" instead?

To make a point. In this day and age, for the worse, news is sales. You want average people to pay attention, give them something they can't help but click on because it sounds scary.

This site is a different kind of echo chamber, in that precision, nuance, and actual science tends to be rewarded with upvotes. If you fit in that category, you are multiple standard deviations above the mean news reader/watcher.

> You want average people to pay attention, give them something they can't help but click on because it sounds scary.

And then they completely ignore you or think the entire thing is a lie because you lied about the details.

Pretty much every denial of anthrogenic climate change boils down to pointing out hyped up, exaggerated worst-case scenarios peddled in the media that didn't come to pass, even if the underlying data and original conclusions were accurate.

They already ignore it, and being scientific about 2.7°C doesn't do jack shit to change their mind.

Link the 5°F to all sorts of concrete bad stuff going on instead 10+ year problems like New Orleans being underwater.

For instance, "Houses in Oregon burned down because of record temperatures!". Use hyperbole, but make it personal. Hell, turn the narrative around if it manipulates people to care: "Five things the government doesn't want you to know about record temperatures!".

It's just like the problem with US politics. One side plays fair, and the other doesn't. In the age of influencers, a dipshit like Joe Rogan has more sway than factual reporting by reputable news sources.