That's interesting. If you have a reference for the troposheric warming term, I'd like to look at it. Understand my primary interest here is tracking power, keeping a power budget. To do that I must distinguish between modeled quantities and correlations on the one hand, and experimentally verified physical observations that measure watts per square meter on the other.
Do you know of a paper that explains, "we actually measure and see so and so many watts per square meter, in excess of direct CO2 forcing, from tropospheric heating"? (Also, don't satellite and balloon measurements show precious little high altitude temperature change, as opposed to surface measurements, to begin with?)
The second question being, is this alleged troposphere (lower) amplification just another way of saying the surface temperature measurements are higher? Or do they directly measure radiation from above and from below at N C and at N+1 C? See, the way they directly measure the power involves using an altitude change. You need an appreciable quantity of air between one level and another, for any greenhouse effect to be noticable. It is not something you can seriously measure at a single altitude.