In many scientific theories (e.g. e=mc^2) two apparently unrelated entities interact to produce observable phenomena. The interaction is often formulated as a multiplicative relationship (as in the above example). Although in all cases the formula is mathematically understood an interaction CAN NEVER BE understood empirically (I thank C.Veit and her early work for this thesis.) (If you don't believe me just look at the recent additions to Einstein's Twin Paradox).

In most of the discussion of climate change the phrase "global warming" is used. But this is empirically inaccurate. Data clearly show that there is increased winter cooling and increased summer heating. Thus the entity "global" must be separated into two entities: summer hemisphere and winter hemisphere. NO theory which attempts to explain global warming by the use of a single variable (e,g. an increase in the sun's heat output) can explain what is happening.

In my opinion there is a "cascading effect" of heat absorption and dissipation which goes part of the way to explaining the summer/winter hemisphere interaction with heat input. This is based on the mostly forgotten and scientifically mysterious phenomena of ice absorbing heat without melting.

For many years I tried to understand interactions in my own work (on reading). I believe it isn't possible (even with two variables, let alone the 100+ that Oak Ridge uses to model climate change). I hope that people concerned with averting climate catastrophe will from now on not be misled by the phrase "global warming"

ZDK