In Part 1, we discussed how the idea for the atmospheric greenhouse effect (AGHE) originated in the first place, and that it was due to a simple and needles mathematical error of diluting the power of sunshine from its real value to a value which is far too cold and doesn’t actually have anything to do with reality.
Many of the climate scientists I have discussed this problem with say that the difference between a flat Earth and a round Earth is irrelevant, because the diluted and cold “average” value of sunshine power is simply how much strength it has over an entire day, and so the result, they claim, is the same.
But is this correct? Well, if you’ve read the “Copernicus” paper, you would understand how obvious it is that unrealistic freezing cold sunshine at -18oC can’t do any of the same things that the real power of sunshine can actually do all by itself. You can only get the fictional model with -18oC solar input to do the same things which the real model with real sunshine can do by itself, if you invent a fictional heating mechanism to make up the difference. That was the whole point of inventing the AGHE in the first place!
So, no, a fictional flat Earth model and a real model couldn’t be any more different. They are different, and so they are different. They don’t do the same thing.
Other climate scientists, on the other hand, have admitted that the flat Earth/cold Sunshine model isn’t actually real, and that they’re only used for teaching, and that it was silly for me to criticize it. However, they only admitted that such models were fiction after I had exposed it and forced them into saying so: they weren’t very open about it at all. Also, why would we use something fictional that doesn’t actually physically exist to teach the exact same thing which is claimed to exist? Why would we teach non-reality physics as reality? How incredibly contradictory. It would be good for these climate scientists to resolve their disagreement with the other bunch who claim that the difference between fiction and reality makes no difference. The one thing no one can admit, however, is that without the cold-sunshine paradigm, there is no reason to invent the AGHE at all.
So let us have a look at the reality-based model once again and briefly develop an understanding of how reality actually works with the real power of sunshine. An updated version (it is a work in progress) of the global energy model is shown below.
What this model represents is an actual schematic of reality, that allows for representation and indication for real-time realistic inputs and outputs, and starts to incorporate internal responses of the system. The smaller print may be fairly too small to read easily, so the text on the left-hand side of the diagram is copied here:
“Climate is all internal response effects. Internal cycling of energy (i.e. all weather phenomena including “backradiation”) is not production of new energy or new heat or higher temperatures. Most climate effects are cooling phenomena, except for the release of latent heat which prevents cooling and keeps things warmer than otherwise.”
That quote is a very important thing to understand. At the top of the diagram we see the real (physically actual) input power of sunshine, and the shading of the top-hemisphere correctly indicates that this input sunshine gets non-linearly (unevenly) distributed on one side of the planet only. The correct and physically real mathematical distribution of this energy represents an input temperature on the day-time side of +49oC. Isn’t that just an incredible difference from the way climate science incorrectly dilutes the power of solar heating to -18oC?
The circle on the top of sphere indicates the to-scale surface area at which the solar heating power is 90% or more of its maximum power of +88oC; it is a huge surface area and is about 30% larger in area than the entire continent of North America. So there is clearly a vast area that is being heated with quite a lot of power from the real Sun.
With such strong heating and realistic energy input, it now becomes clear that all the weather and all the actions of the climate are natural responses to the actual solar input. The input temperature is +49oC but the day-time side never actually achieves this temperature because the atmosphere and climate start generating clouds and perform many other cooling functions. During the night these functions continue to cool, except for latent heat release which prevents cooling and will provide energy output to space without actually allowing a decrease in the temperature. This is why gardeners mist their plots before a night that is expected to produce frost: the latent heat from the water prevents the temperature from dropping that low. There are centuries worth of latent heat in the oceans and about 10 days’ worth of such in the atmosphere, and this is what helps keep the system warmer overnight and at the poles. Eventually, all the energy escapes that comes in, and has a power temperature of about -18oC.
Now here is the really interesting to understand in regards to the error of the AGHE models and climate science: they start at the end, on the right hand side of the diagram, and then try to represent the processes in the reverse order that they actually occur. That is, they start with the cold energy output, reverse the situation, and model it as the input. Then, because this artificial input is too cold, they use the weather and climate to generate more heat, which is the reverse of the cooling function they actually provide in reality. The climate generates heat in this reverse situation, in the exact proportion by which it actually causes cooling in reality!
So isn’t it amazing how the logic of that works out? Not only is the climate-science understanding of reality based on fiction, and processes invented as fiction to save the appearances, but it ends up that this fiction functions in reverse to actual reality. The weather and the climate is used to generate more heat and higher temperatures, so that they can match what the real actual input of solar energy is already doing in the first place! It is just amazing that what a small group of people think of as science can be so incredibly and perfectly backwards from reality.
It gives a whole new meaning to the term “flat-earther’s”!
Stay subscribed for my next post.