Isn't it interesting that both you and @steampunkkaja went to mirages.
Because there is a big deal of mystery in this phenomena.
And we really do not know how it works. (we do have all kinds of pieces...)
However, the photographs of things over the horizon is becoming a larger and larger body of repeatable evidences.
And the lighthouses.
Are you stating that the reason you can see them from the distance that The US govern-cement printed is because of constant and continual refraction?
Every instance I have seen thus far of something appearing over the horizon at a greater distance than the mathematics would otherwise suggest has exhibited the characteristic distortions of a mirage, or demonstrated a failure in the mathematical model assumed by the "globe debunker." Such mirages do not require the "constant and continual" refraction you seem to believe they demonstrate. All I know is that when I have visited the Great Lakes and the Pacific coast, my personal observations lined up with the predictions of the spheroid earth model.
Doubts about possibility A does not prove possibilities B, C, or D. It doesn't even disprove A. Allow me to attempt an analogy. Let us suppose the entire narrative of 9/11 is a lie. I am willing to consider that possibility. Even so, my doubts regarding the official story do not necessarily prove any given alternative, or disprove that airplanes hit two towers and the Pentagon.