No.
There are a lot of other factors that influence climate. Off the top of my head,
Some of the natural factors would be:
On a global scale: variations in the sun's output, Earth's orbital perturbations, geologic activity (sea floor spreading rates and volcanic eruptions), wind patterns, greenhouse gas levels and ocean circulations.
On a local scale: latitude, elevation, local topography, and nearness to water.
And then there is humanity's climate impact. Despite all of those natural variations, we are massively changing Earth's climate, largely through an increased greenhouse effect from burning fossil fuels. But we also change albedo from land use changes and black carbon. We put reflective aerosols into the atmosphere negating some of that positive forcing.
So no. Albedo is pretty important. But temperature is really both a resultant and a cause as far as climate is concerned. Your question is pretty ambiguous, but I will give you some credit for knowing that temperature is a related term. But there are many other factors whose influence can mean the difference between ice age and Pasadena.
The facts are that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that without greenhouse albedogasses the earth average temperature would be 33C colder (a giant snowball) and that we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere. There is not one scientist who denies these facts. Changes in albedo is a feedback.
We all know that temperatures fluctuate due to our research and documented history. It takes a lot more than what humans do to upset the climate.
The whole idea of Climate Change and humans causing it is mainly based on the idea of humans contribution of CO2 increases the temperature. There is a 90% certainty that man is causing temperatures to rise according "so-called" experts in climate science. Most of their evidence is presented in climate models. The continuing problems they have in accurately depicting our climate in future states shows how ignorant climate scientists can be. A 90% surety might as well be 0% if they can't accurately predict the climate. There are at least 2 issues I know of that they are having problems with:
1) They can't replicate clouds in their models which has a lot to do with our climate.
2) They can't forecast how the oceans transfer heat. To say that the whole of the oceans are warming takes millions of measurements and weeding out and identifying the "forcings" of each temperature measurement. - All of the world's population takes up the space equal to less than 1/3rd of a cubic mile. If there are 10,000 climate scientists, then they equal the space of 20,000 square feet when they are all standing. They have their work cut out for them to prove this fallacy, but to say there is a 90% probability that man is causing our climate to change is total propaganda.
No there are hundreds of different ways, climate can change if you want to learn about them, go go "wattsupwiththat" web site, click on reference pages, click on research, click on potential climate variables. and you will find a lot, most from wikipedia.
From that you will find it would be extremely difficult to build an Earths climate computer model because there are so many possible variables some proven, most not, so until you understand all the processes, how can you predict.
It may be looks like
There are a few other factors.
http://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/pla...
If it's a good thing then credit nature. If it's a bad thing then blame mankind.
Does it all come down to albedo and Earths temperature
