The frigid weather and the cavalcade of snow made me wonder about the point of correspondence between the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales, having always thought that that unnaturally low but not unattainable temperature marked the threshold of one or the other measurements—that the system broke down after this point and relied on the other to carry it.
This thinking is sort of like the logic of citrus growers who douse their orchards with water before a hard frost, figuring the frozen water will shield the fruit and that cold attacks the more vulnerable first. Negative forty degrees Fahrenheit and Centigrade (Latin for hundred steps) is, however, only a spot where the two scales cross and immediately depart again, -50 °F and -50 °C being as different as 10° F and 10° C.
Mathematically, I suppose that it is not unusual that the two systems ought to match up at some point, as opposed to any other point, such as one that’s closer to everyday weather. The two scales are based on like fractions and intervals but have slightly different rationales: both are measured in degrees but the earlier Fahrenheit system takes the measurements of an angle more literally.
Knowing that there was distinct possibilities for something much colder than wintry ice, set its null point to the freezing point of salt water, and the 32° F of melting ice is separated from the boiling point of water (212° F) by 180 degrees with hopes of placing other natural phenomena at other perfect, round angles, like human body temperature at 60° from freezing, etc. but these hoped-for correspondences did not quite pan out. The more straightforward degrees, gradients of Celsius are one-one-hundredths of the way from freezing to boiling of water under standard conditions, by definition—it being worthy of noting that pressure, altitude differences have negligible effects on how water freezes (except in extreme cases like at the bottom of the ocean) but has quite a large impact in terms of boiling. Originally, the Celsius scale was inverted, based on this dismaying observation, with 100 set at the freezing point and counting down to zero where water started to boil. I image had it remained so, as the Swedish astronomer had proposed, there might be some very different match ups in the weather, but of course, cold to one person is absolutely balmy in other climes.
Though I don’t know that the later was an inspired criticism of the former, it is nonetheless interesting, especially in much more fickle times when opinion and sentiment are hoisted kept circulating with a steady volley, that these constructs are less than a generation apart. Neither illustrates an extinguisher or a fire-brand, neces-sarily, but does reflect the revolutionary movement of the times, to which not all nations succumbed to in the same way. I wonder what figurative architecture, sturdy and steadied like an arch or a flying-buttress and sense of surface tension allowed some to resist transformation, before or behind the curb depending on where one stands, while many other regimes were turned or reformed. It’s as if, like a keystone or some other hack of gravity like centrifugal force, there is a strange kind of inertia from civic pyramids where internal and external pressures are in equilibrium, up to a point, and resist change. 
