The coldest measured temperature is -89.2 C, so -162 C is indeed about twice that C value.
However, in Kelvin that's 184 K for Vostok and 111 K for LNG, which is only 40% colder.
This whole thread is very funny this morning, I was posting at 3AM and not thinking much. I am happy to be corrected, the more I learn to know here the more I learn I don't know or can't immediately recall. I damn this fickle lump of head thinkmeat, but praise the enlightened hive mind of internet commenters!
An analogy is the same as seen with percentages. It's wrong to say, for instance, that 2% growth, it's double of 1% growth.
I was about to make the same comment: the freezing point of water is a really odd choice to make up a ratio for.
If you have to do it, you’d almost always use Kelvin, or in a pinch the equilibrium temperature of a big greenhouse 1 AU from the sun, i.e. 20C.
So like 3 people...
My point is talking about Kelvin is meaningless to the vast majority of people on HN, including myself. Everyone (Except the US) knows Celsius, and it's easy to gague how cold something is looking at it in Celsius. In Kelvin its just 'ok that's a number...'
Just about everything human-built around you had someone consider the thermodynamics of it during the design.
What does "twice as cold" mean? In the US, is -2°F twice as cold as -1°F?
Yet that's only -18.33°F to -18.89°F, so only 0.3% colder if you change temperature scale.
Is 16°F twice as cold as 32°F? Or half as warm?
Is -10C infinitely colder than 0C?
I used Kelvin as an example of how the ratio depends on the scale chosen, not because it's popular.
Note that Rankin (Rankin is to Fahrenheit as Kelvin is to Celsius) would give the same answer as Kelvin - both Rankin and Kelvin are absolute scales of temperature, and would better candidates for defining what "twice as cold" means.
(Though even better would be to say "half has hot".)
However, I was not saying that we should all use Kelvin, only that the phrase is tricky to interpret.