Warming it up?

A recent video on MSN mentions a "Recent Study on Global Warming) (here is the link). The research paper cited in the video is available here (full text here) and - surprise! - the "new and recent study" was originally published in 2005! New? Not by any chance!

I don't know what goes on with certain media outlets, but to classify this research as new is the same as saying that your 2 year-old car is new. Good luck trying to sell it for the price of a new car. Moving on, the research paper says:

If the rate of increase of CO2 emissions were to continue up to 2025 and then were cut to zero, a temperature increase of {approx}1.3°C (my note: 2.34° F) compared to preindustrial conditions would still occur in 2100, whereas a constant-CO2-emissions scenario after 2025 would more than double the 2100 warming. These calculations illustrate the manner in which each generation inherits substantial climate change caused by CO2 emissions that occurred previously, particularly those of their parents, and shows that current CO2 emissions will contribute significantly to the climate change of future generations.

So we are talking about an increase of 2.6°C (or 4.7°F) in 80 years!! And that is assuming there are no major natural events that may cause a reduction in Earth's temeprature, such as a major volcanic eruption such as Pinatubo's. It also relies that carbon dioxide emissions will remain as they are or increase; which assumes that all the ongoing efforts are nothing. The other point of this theory is that it assumes that there will be a nuclear explosion in 2025 and all human life form will be eliminated.

None of these proposals seem reasonable, which begs the questions: where is the common sense in scientists? What about dealing with global warming with reasonable assumptions? And, more important, what will the tempreature increase really cause? (The real answer is: we don't know). The article concludes:

The simple calculations shown here illustrate that each past generation has inherited substantial climate change caused by carbon dioxide increases that occurred previously. Although substantial quantitative uncertainties are associated with the highly simplified approach taken in this article, the results are qualitatively robust and linked to basic physical considerations. They serve to illustrate how each human generation to date has added to carbon dioxide concentrations, thereby passing increasing warming commitments on to its children, grandchildren, and later descendants. Thus, today's carbon dioxide emissions can be expected to contribute significantly to the climate to be experienced by future generations.

Here is the chicken and the egg questions: is CO2 that causes globla warming or is the increase in temperature that increases CO2? In other words, does A causes B or B causes A? All the theories are that CO2 increases tempreature, but it could be the opposite. I have not seen any studies CEARLY linking increase in CO2 to increase in temperatures.


There is a lot to be learned about CO2 and global warming, and the media reports only provide the "scientific consensus" (whatever that means). I would like to see the data by myself, but no one has showed it to me. There are at least two big questions in this topic:

1) How strong is the correlation between CO2 and temperature increase? My guess is: lower than 20%.

2) Human made CO2 accounts for 5% or less of all emissions of CO2. Human emissions have been increasing over the years, but what about natural emissions?

I think blaming human-made CO2 is the easy way out, because it sorts of give a sense of empowerement, that we can do something. It this was not the case, then we would have to resort to G'd or a Higher Power. And that can be a scary thought to many people.

What Global Warming?

According to the USA Today

A look at the average global temperature since the year A.D. 200. Over the past 30 years, the Earth
has warmed by 1.08 degrees. Over the past 100 years, it has warmed by 1.44 degrees.

The "little" detail is that the newspaper makes no comment about past increases in temperatures. I would love to see a long-term chart of temperature and the science behind global warming. Call me skeptical, but 1.44 degrees in 100 years does not convince me of global warming. Maybe there is a case for Global Warming, but USA Today's position was just too weak.

Economists

This is a comic skit on Economics, posted on You Tube (where else?). Very funny if you know a little of economics. I particularly liked this one: Macroeconomists predicted 9 out of the 5 last recessions. Enjoy!

ABOUT COFFEE AND FISH

According to a news piece on Yahoo! (the whole story is here):

"[...] researchers at the Rush University Medical Center in Chicago followed more than 3000 men and women for six years to see how diet affected memory.
People who ate fish at least once a week had a 10 percent slower decline compared with those who did not eat fish, a difference that gave them the memory and thinking ability of a person three years younger. [...]"

The author links the positive effect to Omega 3 fatty acids, but there's no claim in the article that connects the increase to Omega 3! Sometimes I do not like the oversimplification of some piece of news. For example, how much fish did the person eat a week? 10z or 1lb? Does the type of fish make a difference? Does a fish stick at Long John Silver count as fish? And, in this case, what about all the fat in those sticks? Finally, was the difference perceived in person of all ages or just in a group?

The piece continues:

Researchers from the University of Innsbruck in Austria used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine the brain activity of people working on a memory task. The volunteers were tested twice, once after receiving the caffeine equivalent of about two cups of coffee, and once without any caffeine. Caffeine improved the memory skills and reactions times of the volunteers. In addition,
caffeine increased brain activity in two locations-the memory-rich frontal lobe and the attention-controlling anterior cingulum. Without caffeine, there was no increase in brain activity. So if memory problems are a major concern for you, and if you don't have a medical condition that precludes caffeine, feel free to indulge in a cup or two in the morning to jump-start your brain.

Being a coffee lover, I liked the news; but does it apply to the muddy, weak liquid sold as coffee in most places in the US? That's a good. At least that's something we don't need to remember doing. It is hard to remember eating fish, but not hard to remember drinking coffee. Maybe the solution is fish and coffee in the morning.

Some Changes

OK, so this blog was originally about marketing; but I decided to change it. With the lack of postings, I did not find the right tone.

This will be almost like an anti-Jerry Seinfield. Seinfield's show was about nothing. This blog will be about everything. From a a marketing perspective, not very clever. One of the first lessons in marketing is that a brand or product should have a positioning and mean something so a certain audience. Somehow, Seinfield already owns the "nothing" space. I think I will be the anti-Seinfield; or the Bizarro-Seinfield.

At any rate, I will see how it goes. This is a new project, and there will be changes along the way.