We have been discussing the problem with flat Earth models and understanding that they artificially invent an atmospheric greenhouse effect. What I haven’t shown yet is an actual schematic (drawing/ picture, etc) of a flat Earth model from climate science.
From this link, we find a peer-reviewed climate science publication demonstrating their understanding (lack thereof) of how energy comes in and goes out of the system Earth; their model is copied in the figure below:
My own model is copied once again, below, for comparison. But let us first take a look at the surface in the figure above. Yes, it is flat – it is circular, but it is a flat circle. But because it has numbers all over the place and even drew in clouds and rain, you honestly get tricked into accepting it because your sense-perception functions accept that such things (clouds and rain) occur in reality. On the other hand, your senses only ever experience the Earth as flat, and so no one actually has an intuitive sense-based understanding that the Earth is actually spherical; therefore, it just doesn’t consciously register that you should have rejected this model based on a flat Earth. Whether by accident or on purpose, you get tricked into accepting everything that follows about this diagram, even though it has nothing to do with real reality; it takes advantage of the inherent rational limitations of sense-perception.
Take a look at the incoming power of Sunshine in the climate science model: it denotes a value of 341 W/m2. What is this value? It is our old friend of P divided by 4; or in other words 341*4 = 1364 W/m2, which is (rounding for error) the actual value of sunshine power that I show in the reality-model below of 1370 W/m2. So there you have it right there: the input power of sunshine is diluted by the factor of four.
Then, factoring in losses from reflection and the atmosphere, the power of heating at the surface is listed as only 161 W/m2, which is a temperature of -42oC. That’s minus forty two Celsius. So how is the difference made up then, given that this entirely unrealistic and fictional power of Sunshine is literally freezing cold? The difference between reality and fiction is made up by inventing another fiction, “back radiation” heating, on the right hand side of the figure, which requires a power of an additional 333 W/m2 of heating for the system. This figure is literally just stuck right on to the side of their diagram out of nowhere, with no justification other than that it is required to make the model work, to “save the appearances”. And thus the greenhouse effect is born. With 161 W/m2 plus 333 W/m2 of heating power, the climate science model can now get up to 494 W/m2 worth of heating power, which is 32.5oC. Note that this still isn’t even as warm as reality and the reality-based model below of +49oC of heating power, and I don’t need to do anything to my model to make it work – it works because it represents reality.
A question I have for you is: If you were to compare my model and the climate science model side-by-side, which one would you pick? Even forget about paying attention to the numbers and what they mean, and just based visually on the aesthetic and the shapes within the model, which would you pick as the model which looks like reality? Does the picture below help make the decision?
There is a difference in how my model presents incoming sunshine relative to this picture (from “the top” vs. from “the side”), however, my model is an abstract representation of reality that is meant to nonetheless capture the actual physics of the energy processes involved; it is a “mind object” or “mental object” that captures the actually real properties of the system as they actually exist. For a scientist thinking intelligently and rationally, rather than irrationally through sense-perception, the abstract reality model validly represents the actual processes involved, and it needs to invent nothing to save the appearances. Rotation and day and night are implicit in the comprehension of the reality model.
The point is: use your brain, not sense-perception devoid of reason. What makes more sense: a flat Earth which invents additional heating out of nowhere, or, a spherical Earth which represents the actual system and invents nothing?