A commentator in a previous post said:
DC: “When you change the amount of energy streaming in from the outside, or out – TO the outside, you change the equilibrium temperature, the temperature it settles on after a time.”
I totally agree with that. And the only way to do that with radiation is by changing emissivity. If the emissivity of a surface and/or gas decreases then indeed there would be a rise in temperature. This is precisely how a shiny “thermal space-blanket” works: first, it is a physical barrier to convective cooling for the body inside it. But second, shiny surfaces always have low emissivity and this means that the exterior of the blanket is a poor emitter of radiation. Therefore, the temperature of the surface and its interior must increase in temperature in order to emit the energy being generated by the body inside the blanket. This is all well and good.
Greenhouse gases do not decrease emissivity but are said to increase emissivity. The fundamental nature of a greenhouse gas is that it is good at emitting thermal radiation. An increase in emissivity leads to cooling, as a decrease in emissivity leads to warming.
Meanwhile, the non-greenhouse gases of N2 and O2, which are 99% of the atmosphere, have very little to no emissive power at all and so in fact it is these gases that make themselves (99% of the atmosphere) be warmer than otherwise than if they had higher emissivity like greenhouse gases.
Additionally, a change in the components of the atmosphere doesn’t change the emissivity of the surface. All of the concern is over the surface temperature changing and if this were to happen by radiation it would be by changing its emissivity, but changing the atmosphere doesn’t change the emissive properties of the surface.
The science of the radiative greenhouse effect and climate alarm is totally inverted, backwards to the fundamentals and definitions in thermodynamics, physics, mathematics, and logic.