No, I'm sorry, but the type of measurement of shadows can not explain a circumference of a flat circle, if there is no curvature of the ground between staffs and their shadow, not at all on a flat surface, it won't add up correctly. You can only measure if there is curvature, it would work on a cylinder as opposed to just a globe, but not at all on a flat surface, even if the dimensions you mention about the dome and sun are true.
It only works to estimate the distance of the sun as you mention, and it could add up in that way, either way far or close, small or big, flat or curved, using the different scales. But it can not determine the outside circumference of a flat circle.
This really is simple trigonometry and geometry. It just doesn't work without curvature no matter the distance or size of the sun on a flat surface.
Humidity doesn't explain the coriolis effect, not at all. I'm sorry but it doesn't.
And if wind patterns are manipulated, and humidity could explain the coriolis effect on opposite sides of the equator, that still would in no way explain the way water drains in opposite directions on opposite sides of the equator.
I am completely familiar with the dome model, like I said, it can't explain the way when you look towards the southern star in the southern hemisphere, that the stars rotate the opposite way they do when you look towards the north star.
If south was flat and way from the center, there would be no way the things would appear to spin in the opposite direction as when you look towards the north star, as they would on a globe or cylinder.
Seriously, think about it, it isn't hard to envision in your mind at all. On a cylinder or globe, when you look up, if the stars are even rotating around the globe or cylinder instead of the other way around, and then when you look down to the south, then yes the spin would look the opposite direction, but not on a flat surface towards center or away from center.
And also easy to envision in your mind, the north star would have to be very near the top middle of this dome, if it were a dome, and even from the outer most edge of the circle, if you look up and towards the center, and especially if it was at only about 3000 miles or even somewhat more assuming this north star is quite a bit higher than the sun, you would still be able to see this north star at top and center from the farthest edges of the circle if you were looking towards the center of a flat circle.
On the equator you can see both polar stars, but much further in either direction away from the equator you can not.
Maybe as @Niala suggests, the word for circle in the ancient text actually does mean globe. I'm not trying to dispute religion or the bible at all.
And in fact I was raised in the Christian Church as well as public school myself, my step-grandfather was actually a reverend in the baptist church, and he was very well read and very well respected in the church.
And my father even went to Catholic private school when he was young.
My real mother was raised in the Christian church as well and her entire family is very involved in the church.
My step mom, my paternal grandmother and my maternal grandmother took me to church all my life.
When I was entering Jr. High, I decided to read the bible cover to cover, just to know what was in it for myself. I'm not able to recite chapter and verse, but I do clearly remember all the themes in all the stories contained within, and the moral of the stories, if you will.
I really don't think the bible and mainstream science have to conflict at all. Nor the words of our Father, only the men that wrote and re-wrote the bible, over and over are imperfect and made any of the mistakes.
In fact we absolutely know this happened by comparing the King James version of the bible to more modern translations from the same ancient scripts. King James had an agenda and his self serving desires contributed to these discrepancies, not at all because of the word of our Father, which of course would be perfect as He is.