It’s been a while, but I discovered a fundamental flaw in the foundation of the greenhouse theory. It deserves to be mentioned.
It’s said that the surface is ”warmer than it should be” based on a calculation where sunlight received on a disc (πr²) is the total energy available for emission by the whole sphere (4πr²). If that’s not a flat Earth theory I don’t know what is. That disc doesn’t exist, it has no relevance for planetary heat flow. Earth receives heat on a hemisphere, 2πr², double the area of a disc. But the incident angle on a hemisphere varies from equator to poles. By just doing a simple average from the max and min values, 1360.8-680.4W/m², you get 1020W/m²*2(πr²)=2040W. That’s a lot more than the assumptions made in the GHE. And 1020W/m² agrees with observed direct solar irradiance at the surface, measured to 1000W/m² practically everywhere on the dayside of Earth. By repeating the same averaging procedure for the solid surface hemisphere, varying between 1020-510W/m², you get an average of 2(πr²)*765W/m²=1530W worth of absorbed energy. For emission by a sphere, this leads to an average of 1530/4(πr²)=383W/m²
Exactly the surface temperature of Earth. And it’s another way of calculating it than I’ve done earlier, but it gets the exact same result.
Of course there’s theoretically less than 680W/m² at a small area at the edge to the nightside. 680W/m² is found at 60° latitude, 1360*cos60°. But this area, that on a solid sphere gets below 680W/m² is so small compared to the area that receives much higer intensity, that this toymodel gives a good approximation. Also, sunlight doesn’t strike a solid surface at TOA, so sunlight doesn’t spread out like when it strikes the surface. Which is confirmed by the levels of incident radiation as far north as here in Sweden, at 60° we get 1000W/m² on a clear day.