How climate science abandoned thermodynamic foundations
and replaced physical meaning with symbolic control

The Official Story

     The U.S. government’s climate.gov website makes a confident claim on its page titled, Climate change: global temperature:  

The global average surface temperature is an indicator of the state of Earth’s energy balance…

This statement appears under the banner of public understanding. It is presented as settled science—simple, visual, persuasive. The site acknowledges that the concept of a global average temperature “may seem like nonsense,” but insists that it is “convenient for detecting and tracking changes in Earth's energy budget.” This is a textbook case of rhetorical laundering:

• Step 1: Acknowledge conceptual incoherence. 

• Step 2: Reframe it as “convenient.”

• Step 3: Use that convenience to justify continued use.

But convenience is no substitute for physical meaning. In science, especially thermodynamics, a metric must be mechanistically valid before it can be considered useful. Otherwise, it’s not a tool—it’s a symbolic prop.

     Making such a claim in the face of blatant error is ethically indefensible because:

• It normalizes epistemic fraud
  By admitting the metric is nonsense, then defending it anyway, the statement models a culture where truth is negotiable if the narrative is compelling.

• It sanctifies simplicity
  The appeal to convenience is not scientific—it’s rhetorical. It’s designed to make the public feel informed while shielding them from the fact that the metric has no coherent physical referent.

• It violates thermodynamic fundamentals
  Temperature is an intensive property. Averaging it across non-equilibrated systems yields a number, not a temperature. To claim that this number reflects  Earth’s energy budget is to conflate statistical artifact with physical mechanism.

• It rebrands error as strategy
  The phrase “convenient for detecting and tracking” implies that the metric is functionally valuable. But function divorced from meaning is propaganda, not science. When nonsense becomes convenient, and convenience becomes policy, science is no longer a discipline—it is a mirage.

What the Physics Actually Says

     In 2007, physicist Christopher Essex and economist Ross McKitrick published a paper titled Does a Global Temperature Exist?—a deceptively calm dismantling of one of climate science’s most central metrics. Essex, a professor of applied mathematics at the University of Western Ontario, specializes in the physics and computation of complex dynamical systems, including climate. McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph, focuses on environmental policy and the statistical modeling of climate data.

     Together, they exposed a foundational error: the notion of a single, coherent “global temperature” is not just misleading—it is physically meaningless. Their critique is not argumentative. It is strictly based on thermodynamic fundamentals, and it rests on the most basic principle that temperature is an intensive property, meaningful only for systems in equilibrium. The Earth’s climate system is not such a system. It is chaotic, non-linear, and it varies widely from one region to another. Averaging temperatures across widely varying regions yields a number, yes—but not a temperature.

     According to these authors:

An average of temperature data sampled from a non-equilibrium field is not a temperature.
Moreover, it hardly needs stating that the Earth does not have just one temperature.

They are not engaging in a mere semantic quibble. They are delivering a disciplined appraisal of a category error—one that violates the most basic rules of physics.   

Foundational thermodynamic textbooks support their appraisal:

• Çengel, Y. A., & Boles, M. A. (2015). Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill. 
         Intensive properties are independent of the mass of a system...
        These properties cannot be added directly when combining systems.
  
  

• Sonntag, R. E., Borgnakke, C., & Van Wylen, G. J. (2003). Fundamentals of Thermodynamics (6th ed.). Wiley.
       Temperature is an intensive property. It does not depend on the amount of
      substance and cannot be added or averaged without reference to energy
      exchange or equilibrium.
  
  

• Incropera, F. P., & DeWitt, D. P. (2002). Introduction to Heat Transfer (5th ed.). Wiley.
        Adding temperatures from different systems is physically meaningless unless
      the systems are in thermal equilibrium, and the operation reflects an energy
      balance.

These are not fringe opinions. They are the bedrock of physical science. Yet the global temperature metric persists—not because it is physically valid, but because it is rhetorically useful.

What Exactly an Intensive Quantity Is

      In thermodynamics, physical properties (and the units of measure used to quantify them) are classified as either intensive or extensive. An intensive quantity—such as temperature, pressure, or density—is defined independently of the system’s size or mass. For example, doubling the amount of substance does not double the temperature, or halving it does not halve the pressure. These quantities describe the local state of a system., but they are only physically meaningful when that system can be treated as a coherent thermodynamic whole.

     Temperature can only have physical meaning when it describes a coherent thermodynamic whole system. This means that heat isn't flowing from one part of the system to another, the system isn't expanding or contracting, and chemical concentrations within the system are stable. These three requirements constitute thermal equilibrium, mechanical equilibrium, and chemical equilibrium, and when all three are met, the system is said to be in complete equilibrium. In other words, the system is stable, uniform, and describable by a consistent set of thermodynamic properties. The system must have a spatial and material coherence that allows the intensive quantity, temperature, to be interpreted as representative of that system’s state. Otherwise, the quantity becomes symbolic or statistical—not physical.

     All that being said, it should now be more clear why a global average surface temperature has no scientific validity. The Earth system is:

• Not in thermal equilibrium: Temperatures vary wildly across latitude, altitude, and time. 

• Not in mechanical equilibrium: Atmospheric pressure systems shift constantly. 

• Not in chemical equilibrium: CO₂ levels, ocean salinity, and other variables fluctuate. 

So when climate science averages surface temperatures across this system, it’s not averaging values from an equilibrated whole. It’s aggregating numbers from non-equilibrated subsystems, which violates the conditions under which temperature retains physical meaning. By so doing, it contrives a number untethered from physical meaning yet treated as if it were mechanistic truth.

The Surface Fallacy and the Absence of Time

    If the above criticisms were not enough, consider that the so called “global average surface temperature” is derived from measurements taken at a sparse and unevenly distributed network of surface stations—using devices that sample a thin, discontinuous shell of the Earth’s atmosphere. These stations do not measure the oceans, the deep atmosphere, or the cryosphere. They do not account for the vast thermal inertia of the layers below topsoil that respond slowly to surface conditions, or the long-term internal heat flow that interacts with the surface in complex ways.  Further, these measuring stations do not capture the dynamic coupling between regions. What they record is a localized surface reading, often averaged over arbitrary intervals, then combined statistically into a single number. This number is then presented as if it reflects the energy state of the entire Earth system. But it does not. It reflects a numerical collage of surface snapshots—dissociated from depth, disconnected from mechanism, and stripped of any relationship to time. 

     Temperature, in its physical sense, is always time-bound: it describes the state of a system at a given moment, or over a defined interval. In everyday thermodynamics and meteorology:

• Temperature is measured at a specific time, in a specific place. 

• It reflects the instantaneous state of a system or region. 

• Even when averaged (e.g., daily high/low), the time interval is explicit and physically meaningful. 

This temporal anchoring allows temperature to be:

• Mechanistically linked to energy exchange, 

• Interpreted in context (e.g., diurnal cycles, seasonal variation), 

• Used for prediction and modeling with causal integrity. 

By contrast, the "global average surface temperature", determined from its spatially scattered measurements, is aggregated over months, years, or decades. It represents a statistical artifact, not a physical state at any given moment. It lacks a definable system boundary with a coherent time stamp. It lacks a mechanistic link to energy exchange at a specific time. In short, the global temperature metric flattens both space and time. It collapses a dynamic, multi-scale system into a single, static number—erasing the very conditions under which temperature retains meaning.

The Uses of Fiction

     The global temperature metric is often defended as a “convenient index”—a simple number that helps communicate complex climate dynamics. But convenience is not a virtue in itself. It must serve a practical, coherent purpose. And when it doesn’t, it becomes a mask for deeper failures.

     This metric is not pragmatic. It is not grounded in physical coherence. It does not reflect the actual energy state of the Earth. It is a surface-level average of intensive quantities across non-equilibrated systems—an abstraction with no causal power and no thermodynamic legitimacy. Yet it is treated as a moral talisman. It anchors policy, pedagogy, and public discourse. It is used to justify sweeping interventions, silence dissent, and frame planetary health in terms of a number that no one experiences and few understand.

     This is not science. It is instrumentalism—the use of a symbol (a fiction) to achieve institutional goals, regardless of its conceptual integrity. And when that symbol becomes untouchable, when critique is deflected by appeals to consensus or urgency, convenience becomes corruption.

     Nowhere is such a display of instrumentalism more officially endorsed than at the U.S. government’s climate.gov website mentioned earlier. This website is operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Its stated mission is "to provide authoritative scientific data and information about climate science, adaptation, and mitigation to help Americans make climate-smart decisions." Towards this aim, it asserts that a 2°F increase in global average surface temperature “represents a significant increase in heat energy circulating through all parts of the Earth system.” This statement performs a quiet skillful deception: it conflates temperature—a localized, intensive property—with total heat energy, an extensive quantity that depends on mass, specific heat, and equilibrium conditions. In thermodynamic terms, this is a category error.

     A person could reasonably argue that a category error is among the most serious types of error—because it doesn’t just get the facts wrong, it misframes the entire question. It’s like trying to solve a puzzle with the wrong pieces: No matter how clever your reasoning, you’re building on a flawed foundation. Such an error derails understanding and it masks deeper confusion. In the case of climate science, it has misled the entire field.

A Temperature Requires a Thermodynamic Body

     We often speak of temperature as if it’s a universal property—something that can be assigned to anything, anywhere, anytime. But temperature isn’t just a number. It only makes sense when applied to a system that behaves like a unified thermodynamic body. This requires more than recognizing any given category and trying to assign a temperature to it. For example, we can recognize the category, "an entire city population", but we cannot assign a temperature to that category. How, then, can we reasonably assign a temperature to the entire Earth, based on an agglomeration of station measurements separated sometimes by thousands of miles, all the while there are countless disunifying factors at play? What climate scientists assign to Earth as a "temperature", then, is not a true thermodynamic temperature— it is a temperature-like abstraction. This abstraction that is not a true thermodynamic temperature cannot possibly characterize energy in the Earth system.

     A change in this temperature-like abstraction, therefore, cannot be used as a direct representation of a change in total Earth energy, because the Earth system is not in thermal equilibrium, and its energy exchange is not clearly accounted for step-by-step. More simply stated, the Earth system is not a thermodynamic body. It has no shared equilibrium, no unified response, no coherence that allows a single temperature to make sense. Instead:

• The Sahara and Antarctica differ by 80°C on the same day.

• Ocean depths remain stable while surface air fluctuates wildly.

• Urban heat islands spike while forests cool. 

• The atmosphere stratifies into layers with opposing gradients.

It is chaotic, non-linear, and composed of subsystems with vastly different heat capacities and dynamics. To imply that a single averaged temperature reflects the energy state of oceans, ice sheets, and atmosphere is not simplification—it is symbolic substitution. Such an implication replaces mechanism with metaphor, and physical meaning with narrative traction. The very fact that Earth's temperatures are so wildly different is the evidence that a global temperature is a conceptual error.

How Fiction Becomes Function

     The global temperature metric has great persuasive power, because it associates familiar experiences of hot and cold with the word, "temperature". Climate science invokes this word as if its meaning were self-evident—anchored in these daily experiences, felt in the body, and understood without explanation. In this way, it allows a statistical artifact— bearing little resemblance to what we actually feel—to masquerade as a real physical quantity.

     Most people experience temperature as a lived sensation—warmth, discomfort, relief. It is immediate, embodied, and context-bound. So when climate science speaks of a “global temperature,” it taps into that visceral understanding, even though the metric itself is spatially abstract, temporally averaged, and mechanistically disconnected. The result is a definition switcheroo: the word remains the same, but exactly what it refers to shifts. The public hears “temperature” and imagines sensation. What they are shown is a temperature-like abstraction—redefined, repurposed, and rhetorically weaponized to instill alarm.

     This abstraction gains function by dramatizing small mathematical differences, rather than by clarifying real-world facts. It links these small mathematical differences to overheating, an idea that carries emotional urgency and moral weight. The planet is framed as a body in distress, and the metric becomes the crisis. Even though a 2°F change is imperceptible in daily life, the rhetoric of overheating triggers a psychological response. The fiction, thus, persuades not because it is understood, but because it falsely appeals to human feelings.

     Once this symbolic temperature is emotionally anchored, it becomes institutionally useful. It is used to justify sweeping interventions, anchor policy frameworks, and silence dissent. It is taught in classrooms, repeated in headlines, and embedded in treaties. It becomes a moral talisman—simple, repeatable, and rhetorically resilient. And because it feels familiar, it escapes scrutiny. The fiction gains function by performing as fact.

     This performance is reinforced through repetition—especially in media headlines that dramatize symbolic metrics into emotional truths. Consider recent examples: Earth’s Oceans Are Boiling, The Era of Global Boiling Has Arrived, and Overheating Oceans: Have We Reached a Climate Tipping Point? These headlines do not describe physical processes. They dramatize abstractions. They conflate metaphor with mechanism, and they do so with institutional authority behind them. The repetition itself becomes persuasive. It creates the illusion of consensus—not through explanation, but through saturation.

     Exaggeration like this is not just a popular-news phenomenon. The fiction is entrenched in academic discourse, where the global temperature metric is treated as a foundational quantity. It appears in peer-reviewed papers, climate models, and policy frameworks as a diagnostic truth. Its physical incoherence is rarely addressed. Instead, it is embedded in equations, projected into scenarios, and used to justify interventions. The abstraction gains function by being formalized into the language of expertise.

     In classrooms, the metric is taught before it is questioned. Students learn to graph its rise, associate it with danger, and interpret its slope as a measure of planetary health—long before they understand what temperature is, how systems exchange energy, or why equilibrium matters. The fiction becomes something easy to teach. It shapes how future scientists think, not by clarifying mechanism, but by dramatizing trend.

     When the metric is challenged, the response rarely involves conceptual analysis—it defaults to defensive argumentation. Consensus is invoked not to explain, but to silence. Critics are framed as deniers, contrarians, or threats to collective action. The metric is defended not on thermodynamic grounds, but on moral ones. It, thus, becomes untouchable. The fiction gains function by becoming immune to critique.

Function in the Service of What?

     The fiction functions to mobilize belief as follows:

Institutional Legitimacy

     The metric reinforces the authority of agencies, Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and academic institutions. It becomes a badge of seriousness—a way to signal that “we are doing something.” The fiction serves as a currency of credibility, even if the underlying mechanism is incoherent. Belief is mobilized to sustain institutional relevance, funding, and influence.

Policy Justification

     The global temperature metric anchors treaties, targets, and interventions. It simplifies complexity into a number that can be tracked, projected, and enforced. But this simplification often masks the absence of mechanistic clarity. Belief is mobilized to justify action—sometimes urgent, sometimes symbolic, often unexamined.

Pedagogical Control

     By teaching the metric as foundational, educators shape how future scientists think. The fiction becomes a lens through which all climate discourse is filtered. It narrows inquiry before it begins. Belief is mobilized to reproduce a framework, not to question it.

Moral Alignment

The metric becomes a moral talisman. To question it is to risk being cast as indifferent, irresponsible, or worse. Consensus becomes a shield, not a dialogue. Belief is mobilized to enforce conformity, not to invite understanding.

The Consequences of Complacency

     The global temperature metric did not gain its great institutional power through correctness or clarity. It gained power through repetition, emotional framing, and a widespread failure to question its meaning. Everyone involved in endorsing and promoting it became dependent on it and, therefore, complacent with the comfort or convenience that it enabled. This complacency—across media, academia, education, and policy—allowed a category error to masquerade as scientific truth. The metric was not questioned, because it felt familiar. It was not challenged, because it served strategic ends. And it was not corrected, because its rhetorical appeal outweighed its logical inconsistency. 

     The result has been a debasement of science itself. Now government policy is shaped by a number that lacks thermodynamic grounding. Educational materials teach symbolic constructs as diagnostic truths. Public discourse overflows with metaphors that seriously misrepresent mechanisms. And disagreement falls under the banner of denial.

     This is not science. It is persuasion that repurposes language to mobilize belief—for fame, for funding, and for control. The consequences are the degradation of epistemic integrity,  the loss of public trust, and the corruption of science into a fraudulent profession that no longer values truth.

# # #

[Written with assistance from Microsoft Copilot AI]

.pdf copy of this article