Global warming is not anthropogenic

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote: Does 'global warming' have heat? Or a temperature?

Great question!

What would a violation of physics have? Pete Rogers is all about his Atmospheric Thermal Enhacement being the result of gravity performing negative work. It sounds exactly like a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, ergo ... it is unheat ... or the undead version of heat.

... of course I could be mistaken. It might be an untemperature, in which case I would have unegg on my face.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
Better yet, why not stick your head in the flame just to be sure you don't confuse heat with temperature.

Better yet, why don't you tell us the difference between heat and temperature so that we can begin to take you seriously.

You are trying to pass the buck, which is against the rules of epistemology and - very much to the contrary - is the very method by which the scumbag politician misdirects the bystander to get himself out of a hole.
Assuming you are an honest man - and by no means a scumbag poilitician - please either explain your position fully and cogently within the context of the discussion or go ahead and stick your head in the heat so you can prove the relevance of your point and write up your experience. Upon successful completion of either you will have every reason to proceed, but first things first if you please - and no more wriggling.

You are quite the angry little man, eh?
Tell you what. I'm short on time but I'll tell you this real quick...
It is a bit chilly this morning, so I put a hat on to reduce the heat, thereby keeping me warmer.

keepit wrote:
Why don't you guys just look it up in a physics dictionary and quit arguing?

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

The temperature of the flame;

Flames have no temperature.

If flames have volume then they have temperature.

Flames have no volume and they have no temperature. They are not mass.

James___ wrote:
It's the large amount of energy flowing between highly charged ions that are heat. Aren't you tired of discussing the basics ITN?

Flames are not heat.

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
Better yet, why not stick your head in the flame just to be sure you don't confuse heat with temperature.

Better yet, why don't you tell us the difference between heat and temperature so that we can begin to take you seriously.

You are trying to pass the buck, which is against the rules of epistemology and - very much to the contrary - is the very method by which the scumbag politician misdirects the bystander to get himself out of a hole.
Assuming you are an honest man - and by no means a scumbag poilitician - please either explain your position fully and cogently within the context of the discussion or go ahead and stick your head in the heat so you can prove the relevance of your point and write up your experience. Upon successful completion of either you will have every reason to proceed, but first things first if you please - and no more wriggling.

You are quite the angry little man, eh?
Tell you what. I'm short on time but I'll tell you this real quick...
It is a bit chilly this morning, so I put a hat on to reduce the heat, thereby keeping me warmer.

I am not in the slightest angry; what would be the point of that? I now understand that you have the extraordinary ability to reduce heat by putting a hat on. How do you manage that, I know of no other who possesses such talent - do tell.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote: Does 'global warming' have heat? Or a temperature?

Great question!

What would a violation of physics have? Pete Rogers is all about his Atmospheric Thermal Enhacement being the result of gravity performing negative work. It sounds exactly like a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, ergo ... it is unheat ... or the undead version of heat.

... of course I could be mistaken. It might be an untemperature, in which case I would have unegg on my face.


.

Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: There is no place for incivility in a scientific examination

Pete, you need to actually be discussing science to have that protection.

The moment you start preaching and imposing your religion onto others, civility has leave to depart the premises.

It is not in your power to make up or change the rules by which we conduct analysis,

Pete Rogers wrote:
they are the laws of epistemology

Pete Rogers wrote:
so your arrogance at imposing your own will be noted and it will not change them - the narcissist alone thinks otherwise - so either obey the Laws or go away and play with such juveniles as might yet be impressed by the pomposity of another. It is the child and its grown up counterpart - the big baby - who thinks force of ego should be enough to hold sway over its audience. Grown-ups rightly scoff at such hubris.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Your phrase "you need to actually be discussing science" suggests that you know otherwise, but in the absence of substantiation there is no way of confirming that you do.

Pete Rogers wrote:
It's just another angry teddy flying out of your stroller past my left ear, but I won't be picking it up, you will have to do that for yourself.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Making statements as if their mere utterance is sufficient for them to hold sway is how the Bible and the Church work - not to mention all other religious initiatives. There is nothing like preaching to the effect that one's adversary is preaching.

Pete Rogers wrote:
So let's ask "What is the definition of when someone accuses another of doing things they are themselves guilty of?".

Pete Rogers wrote:
Here is an answer "it could be rhetorical, hypocritical, or psychopathological. The person accusing the other of doing what he himself is actually doing is normally a narcissist. They often accuse people of doing things that they themselves are doing as a form of deflection so as to control the conversation. It can be a form of abuse."
If you want to play with the grown-ups start observing the rules of earnest discussion instead of wasting everyone's time with your teddys.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: The underlying cause of changing glaciation is insolation not weight

Nope. Changes in glaciation are caused by changes in the weather, which are random.

Bravo, well done! Changes in weather being principally causedy by matters associated with insolation of course.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Stop preaching and start discussing science.

This is a perfect example of that narcissism discussed above. The only preacher there has ever been around here is you, but there you go again, deflecting attention away from that - preaching includes the technique of accusation without proof - in order to try to control that which you ought not.

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Roger's wrote: ... the laws of epistemology

IBdaMann, I'm wondering, should this be included in the manual?

Possibly, I need to think about it. I'm open to input from the board.

You were keen to sniff this out. Where have you heard this before, just in different wording?

Hint [spoiler]: This is Pete Roger's way of claiming ownership over "what we know."

Hmmmmm.


.

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
It is not in your power to make up or change the rules by which we conduct analysis, they are the laws of epistemology so your arrogance at imposing your own will be noted and it will not change them -

Where do you suppose I could get me a copy of that rulebook?

Easy as you like, just Google the principles of epistemology and have a little read.

Pete Rogers wrote:
It is the method by which inadequate opinion - such as yours

Pete Rogers wrote:
in the way you try to argue (use of unsupported assertion,

Pete Rogers wrote:
breaking the "tether" and employment of the ad hominem fallacy are your main offences)

Pete Rogers wrote:
- can be distinguished from knowledge (being correct opinion).

Pete Rogers wrote:
One of the principles - as you will see - is that of "tethering" the opinion.

Pete Rogers wrote:
This means not allowing the advocate to pass on questions (usually done by the blocking act of switching the discussion onto something else,

Pete Rogers wrote:
a continual transgression in your case e.g. the thing you tried with "Better yet") showing that you refuse examination whereas it is only by embracing it

Pete Rogers wrote:
- and the more rigorous the better (no dodging the bullets you see, to show you are bulletproof) -

Pete Rogers wrote:
that the opinion can ever achieve the status of knowledge.

Pete Rogers wrote:
With respect you do not even try to abide by any examination system,

Pete Rogers wrote:
your approach being that of the advocate,

Pete Rogers wrote:
whereas the true scientist has the approach of the juror.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The reason is that the job of the advocate is to win at all costs - your approach - playing any game that suits him for that purpose,

Pete Rogers wrote:
whereas the role of the juror is to honour impartial assessment as required by science.

Pete Rogers wrote:
You seem to proceed from the conceit that you are rightand quickly descend to mocking

Pete Rogers wrote:
those who's examination you need for validation of your opinion

Pete Rogers wrote:
when they ask questions you don't prefer.

Pete Rogers wrote:
It's really time for you to switch your integrity on and your hormones off.

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Where do you suppose I could get me a copy of that rulebook?

Easy as you like, just Google the principles of epistemology and have a little read.

The "Redirect Dodge." Into the Night doesn't have this specifically in his Mantra List but it really is a combined 4a&b.

Pete Rogers is trying to argue that his Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement, which is just Greenhouse Effect under a different name, is "what we know" because he mentions the buzz word "epistemology."

Pete, until you start discussion the scientific method, your ATE is not science and is not "what we know."


.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:[quote]Pete Roger's wrote: ... the laws of epistemology

IBdaMann, I'm wondering, should this be included in the manual?

Possibly, I need to think about it. I'm open to input from the board.

You were keen to sniff this out. Where have you heard this before, just in different wording?

Hint [spoiler]: This is Pete Roger's way of claiming ownership over "what we know."

Hmmmmm.

I don't own Plato's epistemology, we all do. It is the basis of the Scientific Method after all. Snide remarks such as yours have no place in this kind of discussion.

keepit wrote:
Get off it IBD, You aren't an expert on the scientific method. You don't have enough science to even explain your qualifications.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote: Does 'global warming' have heat? Or a temperature?

Great question!

What would a violation of physics have? Pete Rogers is all about his Atmospheric Thermal Enhacement being the result of gravity performing negative work. It sounds exactly like a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, ergo ... it is unheat ... or the undead version of heat.

... of course I could be mistaken. It might be an untemperature, in which case I would have unegg on my face.

All planetary bodies with atmospheres above 10kPa are subject to ATE. It is the nature of the Laws of Fluid Dynamics

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
Better yet, why not stick your head in the flame just to be sure you don't confuse heat with temperature.

Better yet, why don't you tell us the difference between heat and temperature so that we can begin to take you seriously.

You are trying to pass the buck, which is against the rules of epistemology and - very much to the contrary - is the very method by which the scumbag politician misdirects the bystander to get himself out of a hole.
Assuming you are an honest man - and by no means a scumbag poilitician - please either explain your position fully and cogently within the context of the discussion or go ahead and stick your head in the heat so you can prove the relevance of your point and write up your experience. Upon successful completion of either you will have every reason to proceed, but first things first if you please - and no more wriggling.

You are quite the angry little man, eh?
Tell you what. I'm short on time but I'll tell you this real quick...
It is a bit chilly this morning, so I put a hat on to reduce the heat, thereby keeping me warmer.

I am not in the slightest angry; what would be the point of that? I now understand that you have the extraordinary ability to reduce heat by putting a hat on. How do you manage that, I know of no other who possesses such talent - do tell.

Pete Rogers wrote:

keepit wrote:
Why don't you guys just look it up in a physics dictionary and quit arguing?

It seems to me that he does not accept the entries. According to the physics dictionaries,

Pete Rogers wrote:
and Fluid Dynamics,

Pete Rogers wrote:
the compression of an adiabatic Gas body causes enhancement of its temperature. He is arguing against that.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

The temperature of the flame;

Flames have no temperature.

If flames have volume then they have temperature.

Flames have no volume and they have no temperature. They are not mass.

James___ wrote:
It's the large amount of energy flowing between highly charged ions that are heat. Aren't you tired of discussing the basics ITN?

Flames are not heat.

How come they are hot then?

Pete Rogers wrote:
I mean, having no heat and all - according to you.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote: Does 'global warming' have heat? Or a temperature?

Great question!

What would a violation of physics have? Pete Rogers is all about his Atmospheric Thermal Enhacement being the result of gravity performing negative work. It sounds exactly like a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, ergo ... it is unheat ... or the undead version of heat.

... of course I could be mistaken. It might be an untemperature, in which case I would have unegg on my face.


.

The planet always has heat and temperature, more of each when it warms of course.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The ATE is a simple result of compression concentrating the heat energy within the adiabatic atmosphere which forces the temperature up. It is exactly the same phenomenon that is witnessed in the case of all planetary bodies with a troposphere.

Pete Rogers wrote:
By the way I think you have egg pretty much everywhere by now.

Into the Night wrote:

Heat has no temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
It is not in your power to make up or change the rules by which we conduct analysis, they are the laws of epistemology so your arrogance at imposing your own will be noted and it will not change them -

Where do you suppose I could get me a copy of that rulebook?

Easy as you like, just Google the principles of epistemology and have a little read. It is the method by which inadequate opinion - such as yours in the way you try to argue (use of unsupported assertion, breaking the "tether" and employment of the ad hominem fallacy are your main offences) - can be distinguished from knowledge (being correct opinion). One of the principles - as you will see - is that of "tethering" the opinion. This means not allowing the advocate to pass on questions (usually done by the blocking act of switching the discussion onto something else, a continual transgression in your case e.g. the thing you tried with "Better yet") showing that you refuse examination whereas it is only by embracing it - and the more rigorous the better (no dodging the bullets you see, to show you are bulletproof) - that the opinion can ever achieve the status of knowledge. With respect you do not even try to abide by any examination system, your approach being that of the advocate, whereas the true scientist has the approach of the juror. The reason is that the job of the advocate is to win at all costs - your approach - playing any game that suits him for that purpose, whereas the role of the juror is to honour impartial assessment as required by science. You seem to proceed from the conceit that you are right and quickly descend to mocking those who's examination you need for validation of your opinion when they ask questions you don't prefer. It's really time for you to switch your integrity on and your hormones off.

duncan61 wrote:
ITN I need more information on flames an example I will use is practical.

duncan61 wrote:
I solder copper pipes with an Oxygen and LPG welding set,I like to run a slightly carburising flame as the temperature at the cone of unburnt gas is under 2000 C.If I add more oxygen the cone will become smaller and increase to around 3500 C.

duncan61 wrote:
Copper tube and brass melt very easily and the carburising flame will take longer to heat the copper pipe and brass fitting but gives me more time to apply the solder and is less likely to melt the work.

duncan61 wrote:
Its a flame, Its hot, How would you describe the flame not having heat??

Into the Night wrote:

A flame is a visible chemical reaction.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

A flame is a visible chemical reaction.

A spark is a visible chemical reaction. A flame has more to do with plasma and high energy particles.

p.s., I'd hope that you guys would know the difference by now.

Pete Rogers wrote:

keepit wrote:
Why don't you guys just look it up in a physics dictionary and quit arguing?

It seems to me that he does not accept the entries. According to the physics dictionaries, and Fluid Dynamics, the compression of an adiabatic Gas body causes enhancement of its temperature. He is arguing against that.

tmiddles wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:The problem for them is that there is a much better explanation for the ATE - Gravity. The weight of the atmosphere at 1ton per sq ft means its volume is severely reduced by compression under its own weight (autocompression) so there are less units of volume for the heat energy passed into it from the surface to be spread between so the temperature rises.

Pete Rogers wrote:If the atmosphere were under lower pressure ... it would still contain the same heat energy - having the same mass - but that heat energy would be spread between ...so the temperature would be lower

Pete Rogers wrote:Venus is 90 times that of Earth due to its 96% CO2 content. Using the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law this pressure exactly predicts the enhanced surface temperature of 900K.

tgoebbles wrote: Gravity is not compressing anything. What does "compressing" mean?
"flatten by pressure; squeeze or press." There is a before and an after in that concept. Work is done. The atmosphere has a pressure but no work was done on it by gravity.

tgoebbles wrote:Would you say a scuba divers tank was compressing the gas inside it? No

tgoebbles wrote:Remember that the gas is under pressure due to gravity but it is NOT being "compressed" by gravity in the the sense that any work is being done.

tgoebbles wrote:My understanding is the gravity plays a roll in crating a very uneven distribution of temperature, hot at ground level, colder up high.

tgoebbles wrote:My understanding is that there is an altitude high in the Venutian atmosphere that is the actual emitting surface of Venus.

duncan61 wrote:
Thanks ITN for the heat explaination I get it.

duncan61 wrote:
I am a big fan of the correct terminology

duncan61 wrote:
people say they have no pressure in the water pipe but it is flow that is lacking due to a blockage the pressure remains constant.

duncan61 wrote:
Increasing the pipe size will increase the flow but not the pressure.

duncan61 wrote:
Speeding the pump up will increase both flow and pressure.

duncan61 wrote:
I watched a good show where the team tested airfilters on various cars and compared horsepower. A different airfilter will not increase horsepower.

duncan61 wrote:
To do that you have to change the fuel or engine mechanics.

duncan61 wrote:
What they did not do was test under road conditions I have a 4.0l jeep cherokee and I put a pod filter straight on the manifold and cut a hole in the bonnet and fitted a bonnet scoop.The throttle response was more than I expected and it makes a cute sucking noise in the mornings when I first start up.It goes away for some reason also at highway speed I am getting a small boost of cold air.It works for me

GasGuzzler wrote:
Ha! Takes me back to high school automotive class. I got into a HUGE argument with my teacher because I suggested it should be called an air pedal instead of a gas pedal.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Ha! Takes me back to high school automotive class. I got into a HUGE argument with my teacher because I suggested it should be called an air pedal instead of a gas pedal.

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:Ha! Takes me back to high school automotive class. I got into a HUGE argument with my teacher because I suggested it should be called an air pedal instead of a gas pedal.

Heh. It's amazing how much these teachers don't know!

I had the same kind of arguments with an electronics teacher, who was convinced that electrons flowed from + to -.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:Ha! Takes me back to high school automotive class. I got into a HUGE argument with my teacher because I suggested it should be called an air pedal instead of a gas pedal.

Heh. It's amazing how much these teachers don't know!

I had the same kind of arguments with an electronics teacher, who was convinced that electrons flowed from + to -.

I became convinced that college philosophy professors were only good at getting things wrong. The two I had were morons; I wanted to offer to teach them what they were supposed to know.

The first one was lecturing on Socrates getting the Sophists to contradict themselves by getting them to first claim that things were pius because the gods love them and then getting them to claim that gods love things because they are pius. I raised my hand and asked why that was a contradiction? After getting the "Isn't it obvious?" with an eyeroll, I explained that Socrates had simply pointed out a biconditional, like "Pressure increases because of an increase in temperature, and temperature increases because of an increase in pressure." I remember a brief awkward silence followed by an unintelligible dismissal that flowed seamlessly into the next point.

The second professor asked as an exam question "In your opinion what do you think of Aristotle's claim that happiness is the greatest good?" I wrote that I didn't care much for it because Aristotle did not include a uniqueness proof showing that there was no other good that also met the definition of "greatest good." I specified that all Aristotle had to do was show that if A and B were both greatest goods that A therefore must equal B, i.e. a uniqueness of "the greatest good" and not "multiple "greatest goods." Well, Mr. philosophy professor got a bug up his ass and gave me a "D" on the entire exam just because he didn't like my answer to that question. I mentioned that I had gotten everything else correct. He insisted that my answer to that question demonstrated that I knew nothing of Aristotle. I mentioned that a uniqueness proof is absolutely required in the Math department for any superlative claim of something being the "x-est", e.g. the greatest value, the furthest distance, the smallest number, i.e. superlative of anything. He insisted that mathematicians aren't philosophers. I mentioned that the question clearly stated "In my opinion ..." to which he reluctantly changed my grade to a "C."

Dumbass.

What did I learn in college? How stupid people can be and still be hired as professors.

When it comes to philosophy, I typically respect the thoughts of everyone over philosophy professors.


.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:Ha! Takes me back to high school automotive class. I got into a HUGE argument with my teacher because I suggested it should be called an air pedal instead of a gas pedal.

Heh. It's amazing how much these teachers don't know!

I had the same kind of arguments with an electronics teacher, who was convinced that electrons flowed from + to -.

I became convinced that college philosophy professors were only good at getting things wrong. The two I had were morons; I wanted to offer to teach them what they were supposed to know.

The first one was lecturing on Socrates getting the Sophists to contradict themselves by getting them to first claim that things were pius because the gods love them and then getting them to claim that gods love things because they are pius. I raised my hand and asked why that was a contradiction? After getting the "Isn't it obvious?" with an eyeroll, I explained that Socrates had simply pointed out a biconditional, like "Pressure increases because of an increase in temperature, and temperature increases because of an increase in pressure." I remember a brief awkward silence followed by an unintelligible dismissal that flowed seamlessly into the next point.

The second professor asked as an exam question "In your opinion what do you think of Aristotle's claim that happiness is the greatest good?" I wrote that I didn't care much for it because Aristotle did not include a uniqueness proof showing that there was no other good that also met the definition of "greatest good." I specified that all Aristotle had to do was show that if A and B were both greatest goods that A therefore must equal B, i.e. a uniqueness of "the greatest good" and not "multiple "greatest goods." Well, Mr. philosophy professor got a bug up his ass and gave me a "D" on the entire exam just because he didn't like my answer to that question. I mentioned that I had gotten everything else correct. He insisted that my answer to that question demonstrated that I knew nothing of Aristotle. I mentioned that a uniqueness proof is absolutely required in the Math department for any superlative claim of something being the "x-est", e.g. the greatest value, the furthest distance, the smallest number, i.e. superlative of anything. He insisted that mathematicians aren't philosophers. I mentioned that the question clearly stated "In my opinion ..." to which he reluctantly changed my grade to a "C."

Dumbass.

What did I learn in college? How stupid people can be and still be hired as professors.

When it comes to philosophy, I typically respect the thoughts of everyone over philosophy professors.


.

Pete Rogers wrote:...the Kelvin Helmholtz effect, whereby large gas bodies acheive billions of degrees by autocompression such that stars are created. The atmosphere is a negligible as a body compared to that scale of course.

Xadoman wrote: Atmospheric pressure has no effect on temperature.

Xadoman wrote: Venus is hot because it has a lot of internal energy that reaches to the surface.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:Ha! Takes me back to high school automotive class. I got into a HUGE argument with my teacher because I suggested it should be called an air pedal instead of a gas pedal.

Heh. It's amazing how much these teachers don't know!

I had the same kind of arguments with an electronics teacher, who was convinced that electrons flowed from + to -.

I became convinced that college philosophy professors were only good at getting things wrong. The two I had were morons; I wanted to offer to teach them what they were supposed to know.

The first one was lecturing on Socrates getting the Sophists to contradict themselves by getting them to first claim that things were pius because the gods love them and then getting them to claim that gods love things because they are pius. I raised my hand and asked why that was a contradiction? After getting the "Isn't it obvious?" with an eyeroll, I explained that Socrates had simply pointed out a biconditional, like "Pressure increases because of an increase in temperature, and temperature increases because of an increase in pressure." I remember a brief awkward silence followed by an unintelligible dismissal that flowed seamlessly into the next point.

The second professor asked as an exam question "In your opinion what do you think of Aristotle's claim that happiness is the greatest good?" I wrote that I didn't care much for it because Aristotle did not include a uniqueness proof showing that there was no other good that also met the definition of "greatest good." I specified that all Aristotle had to do was show that if A and B were both greatest goods that A therefore must equal B, i.e. a uniqueness of "the greatest good" and not "multiple "greatest goods." Well, Mr. philosophy professor got a bug up his ass and gave me a "D" on the entire exam just because he didn't like my answer to that question. I mentioned that I had gotten everything else correct. He insisted that my answer to that question demonstrated that I knew nothing of Aristotle. I mentioned that a uniqueness proof is absolutely required in the Math department for any superlative claim of something being the "x-est", e.g. the greatest value, the furthest distance, the smallest number, i.e. superlative of anything. He insisted that mathematicians aren't philosophers. I mentioned that the question clearly stated "In my opinion ..." to which he reluctantly changed my grade to a "C."

Dumbass.

What did I learn in college? How stupid people can be and still be hired as professors.

When it comes to philosophy, I typically respect the thoughts of everyone over philosophy professors.


.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Climate change is from the variability of net insolation. The ATE doesn't change as it is a simple function of gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere leading to autocompression thus reducing the available volume for surface heat to conduct into causing more heat energy per M3 than would otherwise be the case. It is actually a minor example of the Kelvin Helmholtz effect, whereby large gas bodies acheive billions of degrees by autocompression such that stars are created. The atmosphere is a negligible as a body compared to that scale of course.