W:>>Plus you haven’t responded to the CO2 issue I mentioned due to the tremendous amount of volcanic activity in your Flood model. I suggest that the steep increase in greenhouse gases would overwhelm any increase in albedo caused by more clouds.>>
My suggestion does not add CO2 at all...just some amount of water vapor. If added volcanic activity for say 10 years adds CO2, then that might increase GE for a few years until the ocean absorbed the CO2 and reached an equilibrium. But I have suggested it is cloud cover not volcanoes which increase the albedo which would cause the cooling effect. And that could be very substantial.
>>I can assure you that the Gulf stream today moderates the temperatures of the whole of the UK and much of north western Europe. As you head further eastwards into Europe the colder the winters become. We generally only get only a handful of snow days each winter, obviously with elevation it becomes more frequent but the only fairly continuous winter snow cover is on the highest peaks in Scotland. >>
You didn't address my challenge...so what can YOU say about the Gulf Stream back when YOU say ice covered much of England and also Europe? There was probably an even greater temp differential of the lower vs higher latitudes then. Yet, that was not able to offset whatever the cooling effects were in YOUR model. And besides, it is about moisture content of clouds and temperature of clouds, not nec. the temp at ground level, which determines if snow falls. And if enough falls then even a warmer coastal climate due to Gulf Stream could be overwhelmed.
>>Imagine what increasing the sea temperatures by 10 or 20 degrees would do. A glaciation would not be the consequence.>>
I haven't said what the amount of increase in ocean temp would be. However, the cause of massive snow dumps has to be explained, not by just drops in temperature. Cold and DRY air won't cause an ice age. More moisture must get into the atm...and that means warmer ocean temps are the best way to explain that.
>>I suggest that increasing the present 29 % albedo to 90 % is well over board.>>
And I don't accept your suggestion. You want to judge my model by PRESENT conditions and that is not what my model has. It is very ABnormal conditions. But I will agree to back off my 90% number. That much is not needed to cause an ice age.
>>You’re equating albedo with cloudiness and arbitrarily predicting cloudiness would be 90%.>>
Most of albedo is caused by clouds and snow cover. And snow cover becomes irrelevant if that snow pack is covered by clouds most of the time. The sun never has a chance to hit the snow. Or hardly ever does.
>>However, the current average observed cloud cover for the planet is about 60% whereas the albedo is 29 so clearly a large chunk of energy is allowed in.>>
To say that Earth's cloud cover is 60% neglects to differentiate between types of clouds...some of which can allow sunlight in, and others that do not. If you only speak of clouds that reflect away sunlight, then that number is probably 15% or so. Also as I previously posted, the lower types of clouds have a net COOLING effect because they do not have much of a GE. So if the Flood caused an increase of 50% (using your number of 60% to 90%) of total cloud cover, but caused an increase of (say) 500% of the lower types of clouds, then we would expect massive net cooling. Even if total cloud cover stayed at 60%, you could still have a large increase in albedo if the TYPE of clouds changed due to a warmer ocean. Do you agree that if most of the increase in clouds were of the lower type, then there would be net cooling...and the only question then is whether a warmer ocean would cause no added snow to form? It is absurd to think that a warmer ocean would offset the massive losses of solar energy due to increased albedo...INSIDE THE CONTINENTS.
>>If I run the calculator with 40% albedo>>
That number is barely above present albedo. I believe I read one source that said it is presently around 37%. Many seem to agree though at 30%. This Link says that only a 1% change (loss) in albedo has the same effect as a DOUBLING of CO2!
"A change of just 1% to the Earth's albedo has a radiative effect of 3.4 Wm-2, comparable to the forcing from a doubling of CO2."
However, using the calculator, I had to increase albedo from 29 to 45 in order to perfectly offset a doubling of the GE.
>>and greenhouse effect of 2 (remember lots of water vapour and CO2) then average temp becomes 22 C – about 7 deg more than today.>>
And as I said, the calculator seems at odds with the quote I found (in more than one place) that just 1% of change in albedo is equivalent to doubling GE.
Only increasing water vapor from the avg today of about 40% relative humidity to say 70% (my guess in a post-Flood world...at cloud level) would be unlikely to double GE, but let's accept that for now. (Remember that my sources say that if you increase the lower clouds that has little effect on GE...and there is net cooling. The higher clouds...such as cirrus...are what can increase GE) Using that calculator, then if you had only an increase of albedo to 60%...then that results in a -7C global temp...not counting for warming effects from the ocean. That is a massive 22dC change. Only a 5C lowering of temp would have serious effects in global climate and could trigger an ice age today in the higher latitudes. The deepest ice formations occurred with a global temp decrease of only 6C, acc. to wiki link.
>>Plus you’ve still got the additional factor of an enormous heat sink of a globally warm ocean.>>
I don't know how that would affect snow fall or accumulation inside the continents. If the albedo did change massively and cause a 22C drop in global temps, then I would think the warmer ocean would have minimal effects in the air temps at the level where snow is formed, and very very little effects on the melting of ground snow inside the continents.