You have opened up another chapter in the overall problem associated with climate science. The “slow feedback” concept is very speculative and has been grouped with the other highly questionable assumptions used in writing computer models. The use of computer models is a very large part of the problem. The models must be written so as to reproduce existing data; this step will also include some assumptions such as the effect of CO2 on the temperature of the atmosphere or the ground. Then critical assumptions must be made in order to predict the future. That’s where everything goes wrong. The models used up to now always predict exactly what the author wants it to. Not good science…
The reflectivity of snow is a perfectly reasonable assumption. But what happened to the Gulf Stream argument? New data clarified that the nature of the flow of that current was not understood at all in the past and is not going to be rerouted by fresh water streaming in from Greenland.
Let’s get right at the most egregious assumption: that CO2 is the primary culprit in warming the globe. There are only a few parts per MILLION of CO2 in the air. There is no information on the global distribution of that CO2; local measurements from a relatively small number of sites is expanded using assumptions. Is it primarily close to the ground? Is it mostly in one of the higher strata of the atmosphere? Does it quickly distribute itself uniformly throughout the entire atmosphere? How fast does it move away from population centers? I could go on and on and on.
There’s more. There just isn’t any way that a few parts per million of CO2 could be so powerful. It only absorbs a fairly narrow frequency band so there isn’t a lot of energy for it to get compared with the total incident radiation from the sun. Measurements are confirming that more CO2 will not increase the temperature of the globe appreciably. The level of diminishing returns has been passed.
Water vapor vastly outperforms CO2 anyway. Clouds and water vapor are far more important to study.
I hope that I have briefly illustrated how much science there is to do and how much has already been done. The most salient point is that global warming is probably over. Sun spot activity has dropped off, as it should according to the regular cycles of sun activity. We are starting a cooling phase. By next year I will be surprised if anyone remembers the global warming fear any more than they remember the original reason that the IPCC was formed: the fear of a new ice age starting in the ‘70’s. Yes, that is why the IPCC was formed. They are having a tough time justifying their existence. Personally, I would cut all their funding immediately.