[hippari]

>a 6ft wave is under 2 m and we would not call a wave 182.88 cm

This is subjective but we call it 1.8m and I don't really see a problem "seeing" it visually. 1.8 is just a bit above my eye level.

>Fahrenheit is also more precise

You could use a C2 scale where C2 = Celsius*2.

>it’s best to use a temperature gauge that’s suited to the air

I believe neither Celsius nor Fahrenheit alone can tell you how "hot" the weather is. So the advantage argued is not very valid: Air temperature does not give a full picture of "hotness", we have to also include humidity ( that's why weather reports usually have a "feels-like temperature" next to air temp ). This is where we use the Wet Bulb temperature [1] to describe the sense of hotness in our surrounding. Wet Bulb Temperature can tell you the rate at which your body can cool itself.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature

[Leftium]

The Wet Bulb temperature still needs a unit of measurement.

> Even heat-adapted people cannot carry out normal outdoor activities past a wet-bulb temperature of 32 °C (90 °F), equivalent to a heat index of 55 °C (130 °F)

So the F wet bulb temperature seems to make even better use of 2 digit readings than "plain" F. With 2 digits, C only uses 32% of the possible 2-digit readings.

I couldn't find anything for the low end...

[hippari]

The Wet Bulb temp can use any scale they see fit, it's a derived unit. It's even better if they don't use F and C to avoid confusion.