Discernible, perhaps, but not obvious. I had no idea you were talking about a spherical shell 20km thick and, quite honestly, wasn't planning to go thru a lot of "what if's" to try to determine how you came up with your numbers. Clarity is the responsibility of the poster.

As to the remainder of your response, I could go thru it and refute your statements and assumptions point by point, but that's not useful.

Instead let me just say that you have very grossly overstated the computational complexity of global weather modeling and grossly understated the computational needs of the IC (Intelligence Community, which includes DoD/NSA/CIA/etc), You then used these bad assumptions to support a conclusion (determined a priori?) that is simply wrong. If this were done intentionally, it would fall into the realm of a "strawman argument", but I suspect it was just a matter of "uncareful" estimation.

Nothing wrong with "back of the envelop" or "orders of magnitude" estimation but you need to use valid assumptions and not just pull numbers and tasks out of thin air.