What is the Importance of Press Release?

By admin1 • July 7th, 2011

A press release is all about the publicity that you can do for your online business. The more publicity you do for your goods and services the more your business gets recognized everywhere on and off of the web. The trick is in making use of all the publicity tools including press releases in the correct way to draw attention to your site. Publishing press releases on the web is one great way of going about the successful publicity of your site.

Well, it is not enough just to write Press Release and publish them on the web, you must know the correct way of writing a press release to be noticed on the web. There are hundreds of press releases posted on the web on a daily basis and there are chances that the one you write will get lost among the lot. The press release that you write must be just perfect to make you visible on the web.

The first and foremost rule of writing a good press release is that the information that you give throughout the press release must be newsworthy. Who will even read the press release that you have written if the information is not newsworthy? Remember, your press release must not sound like an advertisement. Rather it should be newsworthy information about the product or service you are offering to customers. There is a very thin line between writing about your site and the write up not appearing as advertisement of your business.

Always remember to ask the question how you as a customer will feel while reading your write up. And if you feel that you would not like to read it, then you drastically need to change your press release. If you do not like something chances are no one else will like it either. Put special emphasis on the first paragraph of your press release. Most editors do not go beyond the first paragraph and if you are going to create a first impression then half the work is done. If some one likes to read your first paragraph then they will go through the entire thing.

Press releases have more credibility among all the other publicity methods. While reading a press release readers do not feel that they are reading some other disguised advertisement about a product. Readers and online visitors are more likely to trust credible sources like columnists, editors and reviewers about the authenticity of any write up appearing anywhere. Editors will not publish anything that is not well written.

The buck does not stop here. The next step for you is to submit your press release to the proper places. You need a proper channel to publish your press release be it online or offline. Lots of people must have access to your press release if you are serious about this and want to create an effect. Create very impressive and eye catching headlines for your press release. A catchy headline guarantees that you press release will grab attention and compel people to read it.

Take care that there are no spelling and grammatical errors in your press release. Get someone to proof read it two or three times so that there is no chance for any mistakes. Incorrect spelling and grammar usage is not acceptable. Stick to the facts while giving information to readers and do not try to use fancy language and adjectives in your writing.

Steve Waganer


what is the importance of the Allan and Sherwood paper?"Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds".

According to their press release it says:

"Computer models and basic principles predict atmospheric temperatures should rise slightly faster than, not lag, increases in surface temperatures. Also, the models predict the fastest warming should occur at the Tropics at an altitude between eight and 12 kilometers. However, temperature readings taken from weather balloons and satellites have, according to most analysts, shown little if any warming there compared to the surface….

“I think this puts to rest any lingering doubts that the atmosphere really has been warming up more or less as we expect, due mainly to the greenhouse effect of increasing gases like carbon dioxide,” Sherwood said."


I took this to mean that a troposphere hotspot was a unique signature to greenhouse warming and Allan and Sherwood using wind shear were able to find this hotspot.

However, there are others who insists that any type of warming will cause a hotspot, so the lack of it does not disprove the AGW theory. For them this is as sure the law of gravity.

So if any type of warming causes a hotspot what is then the significance of this paper? So they found a hotspot, it could be due to natural variation. Right? But what did Sherwood mean when he said "that the atmosphere really has been warming up more or less as we expect, due mainly to the greenhouse effect of increasing gases like carbon dioxide.” How is this paper proof of the global warming theory?

It also said:
Many scientists, including Allen and Sherwood, have long argued that temperature data were flawed for many reasons such as the change of instrument design over the years.

Sounds to me like two scientists looking to prove preconcieved ideas rather than two scientists searching for the truth but that doesn’t mean they are wrong, it just makes me more skeptical. Instead of measuring the temperature, I think they just measured the wind and said because it was more windy it was warmer. I can’t help but wonder why the weather baloons didn’t record the extra heat rather than simply being blown away by them. I am left skeptical of their claims. These are the sorts of studies that get propped up simply because they are pro AGW rather than based on their merit IMO.References :

By bucket22 on July 7th, 2011 at 4:39 pm

In contrast to mathematics, science doesn’t seek to "prove" theories correct. The Theory of Relativity isn’t proven, for example.

Warming in the troposphere or the tropical hotspot isn’t proof of greenhouse warming, but observations of such are consistent with theory. When a variety of types of observations over time are consistent with theory, the theory is generally accepted. In addition, other explanations for the warming, such as increased solar activity, aren’t consistent, since such an increase, in contrast to greenhouse gas warming, would cause the stratosphere to warm. Yet the stratosphere has been cooling.

Also, your article is clear evidence that observations contrary to anthropogenic warming shouldn’t be immediately taking as fact. We’ve seen this happen many times among "skeptics". Roy Spencer ("skeptic") once practically swore by his atmospheric measurements, and claimed all contradictory data is wrong as well as models. We must always look at the full preponderance of evidence on a topic, and not ignore this in favor of one contrary potentially-flawed observation.

jim z says:

"Sounds to me like two scientists looking to prove preconcieved ideas"

Except just prior jim z quoted them as saying "Many scientists, including Allen and Sherwood, have long argued that temperature data were flawed for many reasons such as the change of instrument design over the years. "

…which gives a clear rational reason for their skeptism of the data. Roy Spencer could learn from them.


"However, there are others who insists that any type of warming will cause a hotspot"

I’m not sure who claims this, but it’s incorrect.

See page 675 for comparisons between solar and greenhouse forcing:


Further discussion:




You’re right. Although I would like to use the excuse that contrarians mislead me (with arguments like "tropospheric hot spot doesn’t exist so warming must be from some other cause"), the description of Figure 9.1 is pretty clear. My bad.References :

By Dana1981, Master of Science on July 7th, 2011 at 4:41 pm

The importance is that climate models say the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface, and their research indicates that this is what’s happening. From their paper:

"The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change."

As for the Sherwood quote "…due mainly to the greenhouse effect of increasing gases like carbon dioxide,” I don’t know why he threw that part in. The paper itself doesn’t say anything about an anthropogenic signal, and as noted, the tropical troposphere hot spot is not dependent on the cause of the surface warming.

I suspect Sherwood meant this particular quote as 2 seperate statements. To paraphrase:

1) "I think this puts to rest any lingering doubts that the atmosphere really has been warming up more or less as we expect"

2) "the warming is due mainly to the greenhouse effect of increasing gases like carbon dioxide"

Of course that’s just my guess as to what Sherwood meant. You’d have to ask him.

Regardless, the significance of the paper is that it shows that there doesn’t appear to be an inconsistency between the models and the physical reality of the atmosphere. If the upper troposphere isn’t warming as the models predict in response to the surface warming, it means there’s something wrong with the physics, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the surface warming is caused by something else.

I also agree with Dawei that Sherwood is rather overstating the conclusiveness of this paper. It’s a piece of evidence that indicates this may not be a model-data discrepancy, but not sufficient to prove it. I know I’ve still got some lingering doubt. I suspect his data is correct, but more research is needed.

*edit* Bucket I believe you’re misinterpreting Figure 9.1. See the answers from me and Dawei here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Al6nsKhdSp6rQNr3WV4cHFUAAAAA;_ylv=3?qid=20090720191743AAQ3TCJReferences :

I would not say that this "puts to rest any lingering doubt", since he’s using atmospheric winds as a proxy for temperature. If anything it’s a rather minor piece of observational evidence that the hot spot exists, but just the fact that it’s a proxy makes me hesitant to call it conclusive.

I don’t really see how you took this to mean that the hot spot is a unique signature of greenhouse warming. Sherwood is just saying that the warming due to CO2 would cause a hot spot. Where does he say that *only* a greenhouse warming would cause a hot spot? Maybe I’m missing something?References : edit:

pegminer: "the wind shear between two levels is proportional to the horizontal gradient of the mean temperature between the levels"

So would this approach be complicated by stratospheric cooling and ozone depletion?

By pegminer on July 7th, 2011 at 4:45 pm

I am no expert on the tropospheric hotspot that’s supposed to be a signature of global warming. However, I do think this is a very clever way to look for the upper tropospheric warming. There are many problems with weather balloon data: it is sparse geographically, it is only taken twice a day and mostly over land masses, there are problems with instrument response times. This is a different way at getting at the temperature data, through something called the thermal wind equation. It states that the wind shear between two levels is proportional to the horizontal gradient of the mean temperature between the levels. It is a consequence of the hydrostatic equation and geostrophy. This method is a way of getting an average over a large geographic area and avoiding the problems associated with balky radiosondes. I’m sure it won’t satisfy everyone, but it is an ingenious way of getting at the problems.

EDIT: No, I think they used 200 mb as an upper limit, staying below the tropical tropopause and therefore out of the stratosphere.References :


Leave a Comment

« | Home | »

  • January 2020
    M T W T F S S
    « Feb    
  • It used to be said that the only guarantees in life are death and taxes. Add that picture your friend took of you last week and posted it on MySpace! It’ll be there forever. –Laura Betterly

  • There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary. Brendan Behan

  • Publicity is the life of this culture – in so far as without publicity capitalism could not survive – and at the same time publicity is its dream. John Berger

  • Ninety eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hardworking, honest Americans. It’s the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity. But then, we elected them. Lily Tomlin

  • Without publicity there can be no public support, and without public support every nation must decay. Benjamin Disraeli

  • Of course I’m a publicity hound. Aren’t all crusaders? How can you accomplish anything unless people know what you are trying to do? Vivien Kellems