This is a good primer post on energy balance by Joe Postma on his new blog. It explains his thesis in easier everyday language than his older ‘Copernicus’ post which was published here in April this year.
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. Theyare 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 at the top.
Read the rest here