I never thought I would participate in a serious debate on the definition of “temperature.” But it happened on twitter, and with people who have degrees in physics and other hard sciences! Since I worked with kinetic and effective temperature estimates for 42 years as a petrophysicist, I knew these topics intimately and never gave them a second thought. So, to hear people say (paraphrasing) that they were not really temperatures came as a shock. Their proposed sole definition of “temperature:” is the thermodynamic statistical definition:
Equation 1:

Where T is temperature, U is the internal energy, S is entropy, ∂U/∂S is the partial derivative of internal energy with respect to entropy, N is the number of particles, and V is the volume. The derivative is taken while keeping the volume and number of particles fixed, thus it is an equilibrium temperature and has no meaning outside the laboratory. Besides, entropy is a well-defined state function only in equilibrium thermodynamics; outside equilibrium, entropy can be defined statistically (see Boltzmann), but it is not unique and does not serve the same role.
Equation 1 can be called a definition of the “equilibrium temperature,” and when a system is in equilibrium it is an exact definition. It follows directly from the first law of thermodynamics. The first law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. That said, the first law is not the sole definition of temperature, as the word is used today. There are many other temperature definitions in common usage as well as in science. Let’s look at some of them:
Kinetic temperature
You can measure the instantaneous temperature of molecules in a shock wave, a plasma, a turbulent flow, or a laser-heated gas. It is a function of the mean kinetic energy of the molecules in the gas (or other fluid) (Reif, 2009). This temperature is widely used in shock physics, plasma physics, petrophysics (my former profession), and in molecular dynamics simulations. It is a valid temperature that does not require thermodynamic equilibrium.
Effective temperature
There are some systems that have no equilibrium temperature at all. Yet, we routinely define an effective temperature for these systems (Herzberg, 1950). These include turbulence, granular materials, active matter, moving dissipative systems, etc. These are legitimate temperatures and useful.
Non-equilibrium systems have a temperature, sometimes more than one depending upon the parameters used. For example, a molecular beam can have a vibrational or rotational temperature and they can be different. Plasmas may have an electron temperature or an ion temperature. NMRs have a spin temperature. Electronic circuits have a noise temperature. These temperatures are meaningful and important especially when the system is far from equilibrium.
Local temperature
This is the temperature used in climate and meteorological studies. It is the foundation of heat conduction, and hydrodynamics. One assumes local thermodynamic equilibrium over some volume and measures or assumes a local temperature for the volume. This is the logic used in the famous Navier-Stokes equations. This assumed “local equilibrium” is valid over small volumes (for example an “air parcel”) for short time periods. The problem with some climate models is that they assume “local equilibrium” for volumes and time periods that are too large and too long.
Discussion
Temperature is not a primitive mechanical property like mass; it is an emergent statistical property that characterizes the distribution of energy among degrees of freedom (Landau & Lifshitz, 1980). Mass can be measured independently of the rest of the universe or system and does not change as the system around it changes. Temperature follows from the 0th law of thermodynamics, which says:
If system A is in thermal equilibrium with system B,
and system B is in thermal equilibrium with system C,
then A is in thermal equilibrium with C.
The 0th law establishes that “temperature” is a meaningful physical quantity because thermal equilibrium is transitive. It does not define temperature, but it guarantees that temperature is meaningful and measurable. We often hear that temperature is transitive, but this is only true in laboratory settings or at equilibrium. Outside equilibrium, temperature can lose transitivity and different degrees of freedom can produce different temperatures. Transitivity is the basis of equilibrium temperature, but not all temperature measurements.
In summary, the thermodynamic definition of temperature applies only to equilibrium states, but physics uses many other temperature concepts like kinetic, effective, local, and generalized that are essential for describing real systems far from equilibrium. Restricting “temperature” to its equilibrium definition ignores the vast range of physical systems where temperature is well-defined and indispensable.
Some additional non-equilibrium temperature references are cited and discussed here.
Bibliography
Herzberg, G. (1950). Molecular Spectra and Molecular Structure. Volume I: Spectra of Diatomic Molecules. Second Edition. D. Van Nostrand.
Landau, L. D., & Lifshitz, E. M. (1980). Statistical Physics, Third Edition. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Reif, F. (2009). Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics. Waveland Press, Inc.
For those interested in more detail, I added a link to an annotated bibliography of non-equilibrium temperature references to the article. Look for this: “Some additional non-equilibrium temperature references are cited and discussed here.”
I especially liked this one from your link.
This seems generally addressed by using a collection of volumes (being in space or time) and having statistical analysis done over the resulting set. This way trends or “averages” appear despite the local equilibria themselves not being able to cross boundaries.
It would be interesting to hear why this cannot be done this way. A lot of weather and climate models are chopping up large zones and time scales. Even while the resulting number is not a physical property of anything, it’s still reflects a mathematical, statistical meaning?
Statistical descriptors have no meaning unless the data being described can provide it. Finding an average value for a set of numbers that can’t be physically combined in the real world tells you nothing. The average by itself can’t even fully describe the distribution!
As a statistical descriptor, the average is merely the center of gravity of a distribution. It may or may not be the most likely value in the distribution.
Cogitate on this: How do you determine the “volumes” being collected? Should they be weighted in some manner? Or are they “numbers is just numbers”? If the volumes themselves are formed from averages, then you are averaging averages. Does the average of averages tell you anything about the base data forming the base averages? What if the base data changes but their average stays the same? E.g. 60F and 70F average to 65F. 55F and 75F average to 65F. If you are trending the average value of the average’s things would appear to be stable, a slope of zero.
Consider this: the diurnal temperature profile is highly skewed, it is definitely not Gaussian. The typical “average” used by climate science is (max + min)/2. But this is *NOT* an average, a specific statistical descriptor. It is a “mid-range” value, it’s determined by the range and not the distribution. Symmetric distributions like a Gaussian or triangle can give the same mid-range value as a highly left or right skewed distribution. So what does averaging mid-range values actually tell you about anything?
Mathematicians and statisticians that tell you that numbers have meaning are being fooled by the meme of “numbers is just numbers”. If I give you the numbers 60 and 70 does their average tell you anything that is meaningful? If I give you the numbers 55 and 75 does their average tell you anything meaningful other than their average is the same as 60 and 70? Can you use those averages for anything, or do they just represent a mathematical masturbation?
Tim Gorman’s answer is quite good. Temperature has no meaning, or maybe it has multiple meanings depending upon how the measurement was done. Measurements at a weather station are measurements of the temperature of a small local thermodynamic equilibrium volume or LTE. If you have 10,000 measurements of 10,000 LTEs, how do you combine them if the planet is not in equilibrium? The global average temperature is meaningless; it is just a number.
The only proper way to combine them is to convert them to an extensive property, in this context that would be enthalpy.
I am surprised I could find no papers about comparing enthalpy growth to temperature growth. Many auto stations have humidity records that a computer could massage very quickly.
“The global average temperature is meaningless; it is just a number.”
So if next year we enter an ice age would you expect that meaningless number to go up or down?
What we call temperature would provide a qualitative estimate of the direction of movement or change in enthalpy. It would not tell us anything quantitative about the enthalpy.
So? I wasn’t asking about the change in enthalpy but the change in temperature.
The main point is calling something meaningless, just because it doesn’t tell you everything. If the global average temperature was just a meaningless number it would have no relation to changes in the system. The fact that we can expect the average to drop as we enter an ice age or go up when the world warms should indicate it is not completely meaningless.
As far as enthalpy is concerned, who cares if temperatures are plummeting. It’s temperature that tells you how cold you are, not enthalpy. If we enter an ice age, but somehow enthalpy stayed the same, would that stop you freezing. It would raise a lot a lot of scientific questions, but the world would still be getting colder.
Should the use of “feels like” hot/cold temperatures be done away with? That is what you are dismissing as not important.
How does the GHG theory work if the enthalpy from water vapor is simply dismissed?
You won’t get an answer.
“Should the use of “feels like” hot/cold temperatures be done away with?”
No. Why would you think that?
“That is what you are dismissing as not important.”
I said nothing about “feels like” temperatures. We were discussing enthalpy, and I’ve no idea when you think I said it wasn’t important.
What I said is that enthalpy doesn’t on it’s tell you what the temperature is, and that when you are considering temperature you want to know what the temperature is, not the enthalpy.
“How does the GHG theory work if the enthalpy from water vapor is simply dismissed?”
Why do you think it’s dismissed?
Wrong question. Would I expect enthalpy of the surface air to change, you bet. But would a temperature average tell me the change in heat? No. That ΔT would need to be applied to the mass and specific heat of the atmosphere to determine the heat loss/gain. Heat is the reason for an ice age. To determine why the amount of heat has changed, you must examine heat, not just temperature. Why? Because energy is involved and energy can only be analyzed with heat values, not temperature.
Wrap your around this. Thermodynamics is not about temperature change. Thermodynamics is about heat, real thermodynamic change in heat. The SI unit of heat is Joule, not temperature. The CGS unit of heat is the calorie, not temperature. Is temperature involved, sure. but it is not the only variable that determines heat, specific heat and mass are also involved.
“Wrong question. ”
Sorry. I didn’t realise there were questions we were not allowed to ask.
” But would a temperature average tell me the change in heat? No. ”
Could you explain under what circumstances we could enter an ice age and not see a reduction in temperature?
It might be theoretically possible to see a reduction in enthalpy but temperatures staying the same (though I can’t think of a practical way that would happen), but if temperatures are not going down, in what sense have you entered an ice age?
” Heat is the reason for an ice age.”
What change in heat flux would produce an ice age without a change in temperature?
” To determine why the amount of heat has changed, you must examine heat, not just temperature. ”
I’m not asking about the cause. I’m just saying that a drop in temperature is what would be expected during an ice age. Hence temperature is not a completely meaningless figure.
What drop? Will the diurnal range change or just the average? Will the temperature max change or just the amount of time the temperature profile remains low?
This is where current climate science fails. Using a mid-range value for the temperature metric will *NOT* identify an average change if the temperature range doesn’t change. And there is no guarantee that the max temp at six feet in the air will change much.
If you aren’t interested in the cause then how can you judge what will happen? What if the cause is that the earth’s surface and interior begins *losing* more heat at night, i.e. the emissivity changes for some reason? That may or may not change the mid-range temperature significantly.
“What drop?”
Try to pay attention. A hypothetical drop in average temperatures when a hypothetical ice age arrives.
“Will the diurnal range change or just the average?”
Who knows? It’s irrelevant to my question. Will you expect average temperatures to drop when we are in an ice age.
“Using a mid-range value for the temperature metric will *NOT* identify an average change if the temperature range doesn’t change.”
If you enter an ice age and average temperatures stay the same it can only be because either max or min temperatures are increasing rapidly to counter the other side cooling. That seems like a pretty unlikely thing to be happening during an ice age.
You keep talking about “average temperatures” but climate science doesn’t use “average temperatures”. It uses MID-RANGE temperatures.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
In other words: “I don’t know the answer”.
You have absolutely *NO* understanding of physcial science.
The amount of time the temperature stays below freezing can change while the range of temperatures does not change.
If you don’t measure the “average” temperature then how are you going to know if it changed or not?
“You keep talking about “average temperatures” but climate science doesn’t use “average temperatures”.”
Huh? You’ve been saying all along that climate science is wrong becasue it uses average temperatures that don;t exist. And now you deny they use average temperatures.
“Try to pay attention. A hypothetical drop in average temperatures when a hypothetical ice age arrives.”
I see. You are ASSuming that the average temperature will drop. You can’t justify that ASSumption but you want to make a point using it.
“Who knows? It’s irrelevant to my question”
If the diurnal range doesn’t change then the current method of determining a “global average” won’t change either. *YOU* calling it a statistical mean doesn’t make it one.
Are you also ASSuming that climate science is going to change how they calculate the “global average” from using mid-range values to using actual averages?
“You are ASSuming ”
“You can’t justify that ASSumption”
“Are you also ASSuming”
How old are you?
This is just trolling behavior.
Again, you are conflating the MEASUREMENT with the PROPERTY.
They are two different things.