W:>>Why not ? Is it because you can see it makes no sense for there to be an ice sheet in Britain with surface sea temperatures much higher than today’s but you aren’t able to admit it ? I mean come on, snow persisting through the summer>>
If indeed the albedo is doubled (or more) then it would be unlikely that anything like what we would call "summer" would take place.
>>with winds blowing off a warm ocean with the coast just a few miles away (I'll give you a little further than today due to lower sea levels), really ?>>
I have not said what I believe is the likely ocean temp post flood. It could be no higher than what it is today with the Gulf Stream effects. An ocean temp of 40dF in January cannot prevent TODAY amassing deep snows in New England...right up to within a mile of the ocean. And NE also gets benefit from the GS. So if virtually all solar energy is reflected/blocked for centuries after the Flood, there could indeed be substantial accumulation of snow...even in England...without it being melted away during summer. Even if the ocean temps were (say) 10C warmer. I don't think either of us can PROVE what would be true about this. I can give my opinion and then you can give yours.
>>There is evidence that the LIA corresponded to a weakening of the Gulf Stream.>>
Having a warmer ocean nearby in no way guarantees that you won't get lots of snow!
>>It’s not a lesser ice age, it’s the same one.>>
I have simply said it was less extreme in England...not that it was a different time period. Do you deny it was less extreme than in N Am? If so, then I will look into this.
>>And we haven’t even touched on the fact that the rocks show there was glaciation (from the previous Ice Age in the Permian when the continents were joined together as Pangaea) in southern Africa, India, Australia. Does your model account for that too >>
Yes. Those places are not on the equator anyway. Having albedo of only 50 (I believe it would have been higher) would (acc. to that calculator) cause major changes in the global temp (22C colder as I recall). The coldest ice age was 7C colder than today.
>>I don’t believe I did agree that warmer oceans would cause more low level clouds.>>
No...you worded it in a more dodgey way. Saying (approx. quote) "I didn't say it WOULD have no effect on cloud cover." Here's your exact quote: "No of course I'm not saying there would be zero effect and I haven't said that."
>>Probably there would be more cloud in general, which I did agree would increase albedo, but whether that would cool temperatures at the surface, is not certain (because of increased retention of heat)>>
More argumentum ab incredulo. The sources I showed said that if you had more lower level clouds then that WOULD cause net cooling. So your attempt to say GE would offset the lack of solar influx failed. The only question is HOW MUCH net cooling there would be. The calculator showed it would be MAJOR.
>>Saying lower clouds don’t cause greenhouse effect is incorrect. Net cooling yes but they still trap long wave radiation emitted by the earth.>>
If you get enough albedo, then there is little solar heat to trap. You not only have reflection of the solar heat, but the cloud layer would ABSORB heat that doesn't get reflected away...preventing it from directly reaching the surface. That means the clouds would radiate some heat downward but also much would be radiated upward to space. Were it not for the warmer ocean also heating the cloud layer, the earth would have had an even deeper ice age.
Also, I believe you are conflating two ideas...GE and the "blanketing" effect of lower clouds. The lower clouds don't cause GE. Here again is what I quoted:
However, the cooling effect is dominant with low-étage stratocumuliform and stratiform clouds made of very small water droplets that have an average radius of about 0.002 mm (0.00008 in)., especially when they form in extensive sheets that block out more of the sun. These include middle-étage layers of altocumulus and altostratus as well as low stratocumulus, and stratus. Small-droplet aerosols are not good at absorbing long-wave radiation reflected back from Earth, so there is a net cooling with almost no long-wave effect.
The part in purple directly contradicts you.
>>There is no reason to believe there would such a big swing in cloud type to low clouds (stratus), nor do you have evidence that there would be so much more of this type of cloud that a doubling of albedo could be achieved.>>
Well, I'm not sure I can PROVE that having a warmer ocean MUST cause double the albedo. However it is reasonable for sure. Perhaps much MORE than double. The ocean would evaporate far more than now. How much more? I don't know. But your incredulity is not enough for me to conclude it can't be enough to increase the lower level clouds so that there would be a doubling of the albedo.
>>Is average cloudiness in the tropics today significantly more than in cool temperate latitudes ? If not, and I don’t think it is, then how would globally warm water cause the increase in a albedo that you need ?>>
If you agree that warmer water increases evaporation and that increases lower level clouds (have you agreed to this???) then that would indeed cause much higher albedo...and not much (if any) more GE. If you think you have a good argument that there would be no fewer clouds in the higher latitudes than in the tropics, then I think that could be fairly easily disproved. Are you sure you want to assert that?