The original NASA article doesn't mention a thing about climate change. Also, here, note that it says:
"'Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,' explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. 'When the
upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up [emphasis added], these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.'
...
Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
...
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space."
So, here, basically what is happening is the CO2 and NO are absorbing the energy released into the upper atmosphere and then release it again as thermal radiation in the infrared wavelengths. This is exactly what greenhouse gases do. They absorb light of higher wavelengths and re-emit it as infrared rays. In the case of the upper atmosphere, the air is so thin that the vast majority of this radiation is able to escape into space. Not so in the lower atmosphere, where the weather occurs. Here, most of this energy remains trapped, leading to a warming effect. Without this greenhouse effect, the Earth would in fact be much cooler.
And CO2 has always existed in all layers of Earth's atmosphere. It's not completely man-made, just the excess that we see today is. Also, the article does not say that the majority of all sunlight is reflected back into space. It says that the majority of all of the thermal energy from
solar storms is scattered back out into space. It turns out that
69% of all solar energy makes it to the Earth's surface.
Also, the article that you posted, Harvey, was from an online journal that's
notorious for climate change denial. It simply distorted the original NASA article in order to fit the climate change denial narrative. Clearly there's no bias there.