Turns out climate science uses a flat earth model instead of 3d?? I never knew this.
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/20937/why-divide-total-insolation-by-4
>As was explained earlier, the factor 4 comes into play for an averaged model of Earth, that is represented either by a point (0-D) or a 1-D profile. An averaged model does not have pole-caps or a hot equator, where ice would melt. If you want all those details, do a 3-D model, then you won't worry about this factor of 4.
Shit, I think the flat earthers are on to something.
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/20937/why-divide-total-insolation-by-4
>As was explained earlier, the factor 4 comes into play for an averaged model of Earth, that is represented either by a point (0-D) or a 1-D profile. An averaged model does not have pole-caps or a hot equator, where ice would melt. If you want all those details, do a 3-D model, then you won't worry about this factor of 4.
Shit, I think the flat earthers are on to something.
