Even more, The blanket argument. What you describe as insulation with a sweater, the mechanism involved there, is the retardation of convection. The warmth of your skin, relative to the cooler air, generates tiny little eddies that wick heat away from your skin. The same thing happens to the surface of the Earth itself. Real greenhouses, and sweaters, STOP convection – they stop the air from circulating and from wicking the heat away either from the surface (greenhouse) or your skin (sweater). You heat up the sweater to closer to your skin temperature than the air is, and then you feel warmer. The sweater can be heated up by your body because it is a small mass, whereas you can’t warm up the open air because it is effectively an infinite sink/mass compared to the heat that you put out. Incoming solar radiation is capable of heating the surface to scalding temperatures. This induces air circulation because as the air, in contact with the surface, is heated by conduction/diffusion/convection/radiation from the surface, and warm air is less dense and so the warm air rises away. Since the warm air rises away, then this keeps the remaining air cooler. Witness the inside of your vehicle with windows closed on a sunny day where the air was stopped from rising away, compared to air just outside the vehicle: the vehicle interior air is much much warmer than the air just outside the vehicle. The inside of your car is the same thing as a real greenhouse: it stopped convection, stopped the air from being able to rise away or be exchanged, and thus the air inside your car or greenhouse rises to the temperature at which it is being heated – which is quite hot, from the sun, easily 120F and more. Raw solar power is actually up tp +121C, or 286F. In radiative terms, and these are the terms of the greenhouse effect of climate alarm (the greenhouse effect of climate alarm is not about convection as per how an actual greenhouse functions, but is about radiation), then insulation is called emissivity. The poorer that a surface or object or substance can radiate thermal energy, the lower its so-called emissivity. Thus if a fixed amount of energy must be radiated, then an object with a lower emissivity must attain a higher temperature in order to be able to pump out the necessary energy. Vice versa, a substance with higher emissivity can emit the same amount of radiant thermal energy at a lower temperature.The existence of CO2 in the atmosphere: does not change the ground/physical surface’s emissivity, since the emissivity of a substance is a property of the substance/surface itself, not a property of something else nearby or touching the object. CO2 in the atmosphere does not change the emissivity of the physical surface, hence does not alter the radiative ability of the surface, hence cannot change the temperature of the surface this way. increases the emissivity of the atmosphere, because the entire point of so-called “greenhouse gases” is that they emit. The atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and oxygen which do not emit thermal radiation…so 99% of the atmosphere has very low emissive power, i.e., low emissivity. This means that 99% of the atmosphere already very efficiently holds on to thermal energy, to its temperature. But now we add CO2, which is emissive, and thus we’ve given the atmosphere a vector by which it can emit thermal radiation to space where it couldn’t at all before. So adding emissivity to something which had low emissivity previously is going to allow the substance to cool, or equilibrate at a cooler temperature then before. So the actual physics of radiation insulation would indicate that adding an emissive substance (CO2) into a non-emissive substance (N2 and O2 99%) is now going provide a vector by which the non-emissive substance can shed thermal energy, because obviously the N2 and O2 physically bumb into CO2 and give CO2 their energy, and then the CO2 radiatively emits that energy. CO2 is collisionally-dominated with N2 and O2 – for every photon CO2 emits, it is bumped physically by N2/O2 something like a billion times. So N2/O2 are constantly dumping their energy into CO2, and occasionally CO2 emits that energy whereas without CO2 that energy wouldn’t have been able to escape. The point is that the entire scheme and premise of the climate alarmist radiative greenhouse effect contradicts basic physics theory, notwithstanding, and perhaps as a result of, it being based on false modeling premises in the first place. Lastly, the scheme of the radiative greenhouse should actually then also explain how a real greenhouse functions, and it should predict the temperature inside a greenhouse. However, the temperatures predicted by the climate alarmist radiative greenhouse mechanics are not observed inside a real greenhouse, and the only temperatures measured inside a real greenhouse are those expected from the stoppage of convection only…there is no additional effect from “radiation insulation”. So this is empirical proof to go along with the existing theory which demonstrates that the climate alarmist radiative greenhouse effect does not exist or function. Thermodynamics took hundreds of years to solve for a reason. It is still one of the most difficult fields…really. A comment from my favorite thermodynamics textbook (Schroeder, 2000): “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.” temperature, energy, and heat – it is crucial to understand that these are not all the same thing…for one thing anyway