Not the same. In the case of the solar emission hitting high altitude CO2, the CO2 was blocking particles and absorbing their energy, visibile light was still passing right through. In the case of IR hitting CO2 molecules, the molecules gain energy because of resonance, between the wavelength of the IR and the frequency of the CO2 molecule. No, I think you have a wrong interpretation of NASA's observations. As Watts pointed out.
Yes. Another interesting thing is how the greenhouse effect of CO2 is evident via the reduction of stratospheric temperatures. The heat is being retained in the tropo, resulting in a cooling strato.
You keep misrepresenting watts and the point of the science... "The claim by the “slayers” is the worst form of science misinterpretation I’ve seen in a long time. By itself I would have ignored it, but some of our friends in other blogs have picked up the story, and because of the NASA link, thought it was credible example as the “slayers” framed it. It isn’t, it is a twisting of the facts in a press release about solar flares and the thermosphere to make it look like the lower atmosphere works the same way. To some extent it does, but the direction of the source of LWIR energy is reversed, and CO2 and other GHG’s impede the transfer of LWIR energy to the top of the atmosphere where it is finally re-radiated into space. Without GHG’s, the lower atmosphere would be very cold. (Updated: For those who doubt this, see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/ – Anthony)" here is the context... (the "claim" by the slayers... was supposedly that co2 would cool in the lower atmosphere... from what I read.) We can see that Watts was saying co2 absorbs and then emits IR the same way in the upper atmosphere as it does in the lower. Therefore it cools in the upper and warms in the lower. (which is what I have been saying on this subject since the NASA study came out.) And also note... "to some extent it does" I believe is a reference to the a that co2 does not let all the sun's energy through. The sun does emit some IR and CO2 catches and re emits some of it back into space. In short ricter... nobody but you is denying that CO2 causes cooling in the upper atmosphere. Certainly not Watts. Watts is saying the process, at least in part, is the same. However the results are reversed.
"Therefore it cools in the upper and warms in the lower. (which is what I have been saying on this subject since the NASA study came out.)" If you're admitting CO2 at low altitude warms, then I'm satisfied, you can have the pawn that is high altitude CO2.
You're wrong. CO2 warms the lower atmosphere and cools the upper. What you have been repeating is nonsense.
Watch Apollo Astronaut Walt Cunningham on TV: ‘Models are not data’ Calls AGW ‘one of the biggest scientific hoaxes in history’