Okay, I have to admit, your post is bloody brilliant. -40 is exactly where the two scales meet.

Astounding.

Weird part is this quote precedes that quote in the article:

"It was here that the coldest temperature ever found on Earth -- minus 89.2 Celsius (minus 128.6 Fahrenheit) -- was recorded."

So it seems the writer wasn't simply just writing from a Celsius perspective and felt the need to clarify a quote (from no units to units).

Maybe the writer was actually quoting, and the speaker felt the need to say "Celsius" because they couldn't tell whether they were speaking to an American. (Satellite phones probably have low sound quality, right?)

I came here to say that. It appears that we are both smartasses.

Reamur, Kelvin... what's the difference :)

Negative 40 Kelvin has no meaning ;)

Actually, there are systems that have negative (absolute) temperature, and "a system with a truly negative Kelvin temperature is hotter than any system with a positive temperature".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature

These are strange systems that can absorb only a finite amount of energy. When they are almost "full" of energy, their temperature is negative. (For simple systems the negative temperature appears when they have more than the 50% of the maximal energy, but it depends on the system.)

This can not happen in normal systems. For example an ideal gas can absorb infinite energy, because the molecules can go faster and faster.

It has some meaning. It's hotter than any positive temperature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature :-D

No, but +574 is the same in Kelvin or Fahrenheit :)

That's what you think. Who says there can't be a -1 degree Kelvin? Just because it doesn't make any sense sense to us whatsoever right now doesn't mean it couldn't exist.

Do I know how to reach -1 degree Kelvin? No. But 1920's physicists didn't know how to destroy entire cities in Japan with a hunk of metal, either.