Thanks, Wibble...it might be a good thing I had an excuse to take a break! Things are now back to where they used to be...still using my older WinXP machine from 2012 or so...which was already out of date when I got it. I tried many fixes myself but had to give up and take it in...and got away with a fairly low cost repair.
I have to admit I did not find the comment I made about it being "quite possible that no snowing would occur" when I did a quick search of what I wrote. As you found (and I appreciate your showing this too) I did also say that "snowing could indeed happen over the ocean". You apparently have decided that would NOT be possible even though neither of us knows and I have never said what temp the ocean would be. In about any ice age scenario, there must be lots of snowing, and that means some way to get moisture into the air and then move it over land areas. My idea (and that of other YE's like Oard) does indeed supply that. Your idea just lowers air temps and you (or was it Pi?) have said that NORMALLY means DRIER air too.
If indeed the planet were (let's say) 10-15C colder but the ocean was maybe 5C warmer than today, that would be a very very odd "setup" and it would be pretty hard I think to claim to know if that would or wouldn't allow for lots of snow over England. If it DID snow, then it would be likely to not melt in the colder summers. You said even today you can get large amounts of snow if the conditions are right. Well, the idea of very cold planet temps while having a source for warm moist air IS JUST THAT. You say that today the "just so" conditions won't last long. Well, I believe they WOULD last a long time and it wouldn't matter if the wind blew from the west or the east...or even the south. You can maybe challenge IF the temps would be 10-15C colder...but if they WERE, and if there were a constant source of moisture, I would expect almost every meteorologist would say that you couldn't avoid getting massive snows, even in England. I know you think England is some "magic bullet" against my view, but I guess you'll have to keep thinking that because I don't want to take much more time to change your mind. I would guess if I researched it, I'd find that England's Ice Age(s) were indeed not as severe as in other places, and that just could be due to its being surrounded by ocean. A milder Ice Age, perhaps. Avoiding one all together? Not likely. Not if you had 15C lower planet temps and a source of moisture.
Me>>And just what would be the CAUSE of changing the orbit once (to make it colder) and then again (to make it warm again) within a few thousand years??? (I'm sure they've come up with some wacky reason but it probably is ad hoc and FOOLISH).>>
W>>There's nothing wacky about Milankovitch cycles. Have you not heard of them ?>>
No, but I knew of the precession of the tilt of the axis. I thought you meant some change in Earth's distance from the Sun...which is what "changes in Earth's orbit" would normally suggest. And that would take some perturbation to move it further from the Sun (or make the orbit more elliptical) and then a change BACK. I don't think that precession of axis tilt is really much of a good answer, since (I believe) that would just mean the winters and summers would be switched and then switched back...not nec. a cooling (and rewarming) of the planet.
As for any changes in eccentricity, those are very slight, and unless it changed the distance to the Sun, the average yearly temp would not change anyway...even if the eccentricity were much much larger than today's. (Yes, I could see SOME change if there were a LARGE change in eccentricity, due to the squaring effect for energy loss/gain with distance. But maybe NOT, since the shorter time spent nearer the Sun offsets (totally?...not sure) the increased energy absorption.). I could see how that if there were some alignment of Jupiter, Saturn and Earth, that could alter eccentricity very slightly every so often (and it would be harder to change it BACK)...but annual insolation would not really change. Plus if you DID get a temp change of 7C from that (unlikely) you still would have to have a warmer ocean to get the moisture into the air. Cooling the whole planet would mean the oceans also get cooler...so the air would be DRIER. Maybe you could "fix" that by postulating some event that would increase under-ocean volcanic activity to heat the ocean...is that your view? Seems pretty "ad hoc."
>>We have the ocean to our south and west, which is much warmer than today according to you. How are they going to be cold wind directions ? Even a north wind would have to be warm, so even less opportunity for snow. Makes no difference if you think it would be cold high up in the clouds.>>
I guess I don't get that. If indeed you had (say) 60dF air at the ocean surface, but maybe -10dF at 20,000 feet, when the lower air moves up to that height, it would lose its moisture and form either snow or little ice chunks...like hail, but not like summer hail, that requires repeated updrafts to form. If there were enough moisture and if the upper clouds were cold enough, larger chunks could form. Or maybe there would be repeated (or constant) updrafts (from the warm air at the surface) to build up the "hail" size...to perhaps far larger than we see today. That sort of thing would fall and hit the ground without melting in the 5 seconds or less that it would be in the warmer air near the surface as it falls. Again, the conditions post-Flood would be very unlike anything we could try to picture today, so it would be unlikely that we could do a good job of predicting the effects.
>>Surely warmer oceans than today (therefore more available energy) are going to produce taller, convective type clouds. I'm basing this on what I see today of the type of cloud in equatorial regions. Is that not logical ?>>
Could be. What is not very certain/"surely" however is if the whole planet (or at least areas where it was ocean) had taller convective clouds (which are far more reflective than the cirrus type that dominates most of the sky) and these moved over land to cause big snows...if you would see much GE happening. I believe what is the cause of GE is that the atm (clouds) gets heated by longwave from the surface and then it either radiates heat back toward cooler areas of the surface or it radiates upward to the cooler region of space. Today, we don't have a very warm ocean so that means a warmer atm can radiate more downward...than it would if the ocean were warmer. No one to my knowledge has tried to figure if GE would increase in the post-flood scenario of having a warmer ocean. I think it is fairly undeniable though that albedo would increase substantially. Your hope (for your view!) has to be that GE would go up by the same amount as albedo's cooling effects, and that is a stretch.
(I want to keep this post from being too long so I'll end this here.)