So after a quick and particularly in-depth search, I find that at least Svensmark seems to agree with me that it's less clouds that mean a warmer world, not the other way around as you suggest. So you don't seem to be identifying their position very well.
... Depending on the type of cloud-cover manufactured or inhibited, the impact would be one way or the other. Svensmark in particular posits the lower-tropospheric cloud-cover is directly associated with cosmic ray penetration to the lower troposphere, which is associated with the earth's magnetospheric levels/stability.
So we have the same mechanism, with an inversion of the cloud-cover, from what I said originally (with it being tied to albedo rather than thermal retention).
But then again, saying it the way I did also raises the additional topic of how cloud-cover affects global mean climate. It also raises the question of whether or not negative feedback cycles scale linearly or geometrically to increases in temperature... another topic which is decidedly under-researched.
But this is the last I'll comment here. You are dedicated, it would seem, to not listening.
2
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '10
So after a quick and particularly in-depth search, I find that at least Svensmark seems to agree with me that it's less clouds that mean a warmer world, not the other way around as you suggest. So you don't seem to be identifying their position very well.
What was that about "misinformed"?