An important part of the picture is clouds. Whether this fellow has better modeled them than the “warmist” models, I do not know, but an expected effect would be that if the air begins to retain more heat, more clouds will appear and in turn reflect sunlight, pushing the system back towards equilibrium.
On the other hand, clouds, particularly at night, prevent heat radiating into space.
The issue of positive vs. negative feedback is what the entire model long term predictions are based on.
If it's positive feedback (think putting your microphone too near to the speaker) then things get worse much faster (like the IPCC models) and it's a disaster.
Small number changes can make big differences in the models and this mathematical part never seems to get fully analyzed.
A somewhat biased view here -
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/feedbacks
And the UK Met Office saying how wonderful they are (in spite of there lousy short term predictions) -
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/explained/feedbacks
Clouds are caused by particles from the Sun.
In “The Chilling Stars,” Svensmark makes a great case for his theory that:
Super high energy gamma rays from universe background create high altitude particle cascades resulting in nucleation of droplets creating low level cloud formation;
Low level daytime clouds cool the earth;
Sunspots increase magnetic sheild around earth, blocking gamma rays.
Hence sunspots = warmer earth, lack of sunspots = cooling. He proposed experiments at CERN to verify. They quietly did the experiments. Svensmark was right.