even though this is a bit of fun why are people just coming up with figures and no explanation of how they came up with it ? Int that a teensy bit pompous to assume that everyone will accept that they are correct?

I think that is part of the fun... and allows one to puzzle over the answer.

"Twice as hot" is a pretty simple concept, take the temperature on your favorite temperature scale, Kelvin, Celsius, or Fahrenheit, and double it, although scientifically speaking, one should use Kelvin for such a comparison.

"Twice as cold" is much more ambiguous because if you double a temperature, you get something hotter.

Obviously

2 x 0°C = 0°C.

˝ x 0°C = 0°C.

-137° C

Well, that weatherman can't be correct because 0 degrees C = 273.15 K, and twice as cold will then be 136.575 K, or -136.575 degrees C. I think the whole world would come to a stop if it were to become that cold...

Both these are the same, using half the temperature in

Kelvin, rather than "twice as cold".

Stands to reason it will be 16F.

Probably.

0°C = 32°F. So, half that temperature in Fahrenheit is 16°F, or -8.89°C

Keep in mind that

Fahrenheit is widely used in the USA for ambient temperatures.

Obviously, it will be 245.8 degrees.

Hmmm... [

] [?]

Ok, on the

Rankine Scale, 0°C = 491.67 °R.

Half of 491.67 °R = 245.8°R

[xx(]

If 70°F (21°C) is considered "comfortable".

So... 0°C would be 21 degrees Cold.

So, twice as cold would have to be -21°C, or -6°F

Here I tried to redefine what "cold" means. In this case, anything below your "optimum" temperature is considered "cold", and anything above it is "hot". So, once one gets a "cold scale", it is easy enough to double it.

In a Geezeresque fashion, let me try another answer using the

Delisle Scale.. This scale has the advantage over the other scales in that the larger the number, the colder the temperature.

So,

0°C = 150°

De.

One can then easily calculate that twice as cold would simply be 150°De x 2 = 300°De, or −100.00°C, or −148.00°F.

See what you get for asking such a question in a "Science Forum" [

)]