One is a CO2 outgass/uptake from/back to the oceans. The other is an albedo feedback: more land covered with a few mm of ice means higher albedo and more cooling - and vice versa.
These feedbacks are of vital importance in the switch between Ice Age and Holocene - but both are subject to a ‘saturation’ effect beyond which there are sharply diminishing returns.
Our current CO2 level is such that *doubling* the CO2 would IIRC increase the CO2 greenhouse effect by only 10%. All the quick wins for increased CO2 already happened - at the end of the last Ice Age.
Similarly our current ice coverage is so situated (e.g. considering only the summer ice at/near sea-level, it’s only on bits that are at a high slant to the direction of insolation like Greenland or the Poles) that increased solar output isn’t going to make any more headway. Again all the quick wins on Albedo reduction (e.g. melting the ice across Europe) happened at the end of the last Ice Age.
Cog, do you have an insight on this post?
A Saturated Gassy Argument is a long explanation of why the above is incorrect.
Similarly our current ice coverage is so situated (e.g. considering only the summer ice at/near sea-level, it’s only on bits that are at a high slant to the direction of insolation like Greenland or the Poles) that increased solar output isn’t going to make any more headway. Again all the quick wins on Albedo reduction (e.g. melting the ice across Europe) happened at the end of the last Ice Age.
That seems right to me. Because there's so much less ice now than during continental glaciations, albedo changes due to ice are not a major effect. Cloud reflection might be, though.