SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (162547)3/8/2009 4:11:09 PM
From: SiouxPal2 Recommendations  Respond to of 361391
 
Scientists to Issue Stark Warning Over Dramatic New Sea Level Figures
Rising sea levels pose a far bigger eco threat than previously thought. This week's climate change conference in Copenhagen will sound an alarm over new floodings - enough to swamp Bangladesh, Florida, the Norfolk Broads and the Thames estuary
by Robin McKie

Scientists will warn this week that rising sea levels, triggered by global warming, pose a far greater danger to the planet than previously estimated. There is now a major risk that many coastal areas around the world will be inundated by the end of the century because Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are melting faster than previously estimated.

With much of the country already below sea level, even a small rise would be devastating for the Dutch. (Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP)Low-lying areas including Bangladesh, Florida, the Maldives and the Netherlands face catastrophic flooding, while, in Britain, large areas of the Norfolk Broads and the Thames estuary are likely to disappear by 2100. In addition, cities including London, Hull and Portsmouth will need new flood defences.

"It is now clear that there are going to be massive flooding disasters around the globe," said Dr David Vaughan, of the British Antarctic Survey. "Populations are shifting to the coast, which means that more and more people are going to be threatened by sea-level rises."

The issue is set to dominate the opening sessions of the international climate change conference in Copenhagen this week, when scientists will outline their latest findings on a host of issues concerning global warming. The meeting has been organised to set the agenda for this December's international climate talks (also to be held in Copenhagen), which will draw up a treaty to replace the current Kyoto protocol for limiting carbon dioxide emissions.

And key to these deliberations will be the issue of ice-sheet melting. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - when it presented its most up-to-date report on the likely impact of global warming in 2007 - concluded that sea-level rises of between 20 and 60 centimetres would occur by 2100. These figures were derived from estimates of how much the sea will increase in volume as it heats up, a process called thermal expansion, and from projected increases in run-off water from melting glaciers in the Himalayas and other mountain ranges.

But the report contained an important caveat: that its sea-level rise estimate contained very little input from melting ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland. The IPCC forecast therefore tended to underestimate forthcoming changes.

"The IPCC felt the whole dynamics of polar ice-sheet melting were too poorly understood," added Vaughan. "However, we are now getting a much better idea of what is going on in Greenland and Antarctica and can make much more accurate forecasts about ice-sheet melting and its contribution to sea-level rises."

From studying satellite images, scientists have watched the sea ice that hugs the Greenland and Antarctic shores dwindle and disappear. Sea-ice melting on its own does not cause ocean levels to rise, but its disappearance has a major impact on land ice sheets. Without sea ice to prop them up, the land sheets tip into the water and disintegrate at increasing rates, a phenomenon that is now being studied in detail by researchers.

"It is becoming increasingly apparent from our studies of Greenland and Antarctica that changes to sea ice are being transmitted into the hearts of the land-ice sheets in a remarkably short time," added Vaughan. As a result, those land sheets are breaking up faster and far more melt water is being added to the oceans than was previously expected.

These revisions suggest sea-level rises could easily top a metre by 2100 - a figure that is backed by the US Geological Survey, which this year warned that they could reach as much as 1.5 metres.

In addition, in September, a team led by Tad Pfeffer at the University of Colorado at Boulder published calculations using conservative, medium and extreme glaciological assumptions for sea-level rise expected from Greenland, Antarctica and the world's smaller glaciers and ice caps. They concluded that the most plausible scenario, when factoring in thermal expansion due to warming waters, will lead to a total sea level rise of one to two metres by 2100.

Similarly, a commission of 20 international experts, called on by the Dutch government to help plan its coastal defences, recently gave a range of 55cm to 1.1 metres for sea-level rises by 2100. "Equally important, this commission has highlighted the fact that sea-level rise will not stop in the year 2100," said Professor Stefan Rahmstorf of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "By 2200, they estimate a rise of 1.5 to 3.5m unless we stop the warming. This would spell the end of many of our coastal cities."

This point was backed by Dr Jason Lowe of the Hadley Centre, the UK's foremost climate change research centre. "It is still not clear exactly how much the sea will rise by the end of this century, but it is certain that rises will continue for hundreds of years beyond that - even if we do manage to stabilise carbon dioxide emissions and halt the rise in atmospheric temperature. The sea will continue to heat up and expand. In addition, the Greenland ice sheets will continue to melt," he said.

This latter effect could, ultimately, have a particularly destructive impact. Scientists have calculated that if industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases eventually produce a global temperature increase of around 4C, there is a risk that Greenland's ice covering could melt completely. This could take several hundred years or it might require a couple of thousand. The end result is not in doubt, however. It would add around seven metres to the planet's sea levels. The consequence would be utter devastation.

Such a scenario is distant, but real, scientists insist. However, at present, the most important issue, they argue, is that of short-term sea-level rises: probably around one metre by 2100. When that occurs, the Maldives will be submerged, along with islands like the Sunderbans in the Bay of Bengal, and Kiribati and Tuvalu in the Pacific. The US - which has roughly 12,400 miles of coastline and more than 19,900 square miles of coastal wetlands - would face a bill of around $156bn to protect this land. Cities such as London would require massive investments to provide defences against the rising waters. Others, such as Alexandria, in Egypt, would simply be inundated.

Rising oceans will also contaminate both surface and underground fresh water supplies, worsening the world's existing fresh-water shortage. Underground water sources in Thailand, Israel, China and Vietnam are already experiencing salt-water contamination.

Coastal farmland will be wiped out, triggering massive displacements of men, women and children. It is estimated that a one-metre sea-level rise could flood 17% of Bangladesh, one of the world's poorest countries, reducing its rice-farming land by 50% and leaving tens of millions without homes.

Such destruction would not be caused merely by rising sea levels, however. Other effects of global warming will also worsen the mayhem that lies ahead: in particular, the increase in major storms. "When we talk about the dangers of future sea-level rises, we are not talking about a problem akin to pouring water into a bath," added Dr Colin Brown, director of engineering at the Institution of Mechanical Engineering. "Climate-change research shows there will be significant increases in storms as global temperatures rise. These will produce more intense gales and hurricanes and these, in turn, will produce massive storm surges as they pass over the sea."

The result will be the appearance of the super-surge, a climatic double whammy that will savage low-lying regions that include Britain's south-eastern coastline, in particular East Anglia and the Thames Estuary, along with cities such as London, Portsmouth and Hull, which are rated as being particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise.

In addition to these hotspots, the country will also face massive disruption to its transport and energy systems unless it acts swiftly, according to a report - Climate Change, Adapting to the Inevitable - published last month by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Many rail lines run along river valleys that will be flooded with increased regularity while bridges carrying trains and lorries often cross shipping lanes and may have to be redesigned to accommodate rising water levels.

"Power supplies will also be affected," added Brown. "The Sizewell B nuclear plant has been built on the Suffolk coast, a site that has been earmarked for the construction of several more nuclear plants. However, Sizewell will certainly be affected by rising sea levels. Engineers say they can build concrete walls that will keep out the water throughout the working lives of these new plants. But that is not enough. Nuclear plants may operate for 50 years, but it could take hundreds of years to decommission them. By that time, who knows what sea-level rises and what kinds of inundations the country will be experiencing?"

Most scientists believe Britain remains relatively well placed to combat sea-level rises. "The government has been fairly far-sighted over this issue, with projects such as Thames Estuary 2100 being set up to prepare flooding defence projects," said Professor Robert Nicholls, of Southampton University.

This does not stop the controversy, however. In its report, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers warned that many areas would have to be abandoned because they are simply too expensive to protect. In particular, large areas of the Norfolk coastline would be left to be inundated, a massive loss of human habitat.

But this approach represents an abrogation of national duty to many people - particularly those whose homes will be destroyed, individuals such as Martin George, former chairman of the Broads Society. "A country that has the technological know-how to extract oil and coal from below the North Sea should surely be capable of finding a way to protect a concrete sea wall against the effects of climate change. We should do our damnedest to safeguard our heritage," he said.

Additional research by Lisa Kjellsson
Why the sea is rising


Thermal expansion. All bodies expand when they are heated, and that is true for the water that covers 70 per cent of the planet. The oceans are expanding - upwards. It is estimated this increase in volume will raise levels by 10-40 cms.
Melting glaciers and mountain ice caps - outside Greenland and Antarctica - are also adding water to rivers that flow to the oceans. However, these remain a modest source of sea-level rise. Possibly around 10 cms.
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets represent vast reserves of frozen fresh water. The former would add 7m to sea levels if melted completely; the latter would bring a further 60m rise to the levels of the world's oceans.

Published on Sunday, March 8, 2009 by The Guardian/UK



To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (162547)3/8/2009 11:50:56 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361391
 
The market is now very oversold in the medium-term and long-term, but in a secular bear market this is not a cause for rejoicing. Bear markets can crash out of oversold conditions...

decisionpoint.com



To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (162547)3/9/2009 9:13:47 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361391
 
Obama Bets Need for Speed Trumps Risk of Overloading Congress

By Julianna Goldman and Michael Tackett

March 9 (Bloomberg) -- After his landslide electoral victory in 1964, President Lyndon Johnson acted urgently because his power would wane with time.

“This honeymoon won’t last,” Johnson said to aide Jack Valenti. “Every day I lose a little more political capital. That’s why we have to keep at it, never letting up.”

Barack Obama, who during his 2008 campaign talked about Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy, is governing more like LBJ. Halfway to the 100-day mark in his presidency, Obama has committed more than $2 trillion to stimulate the economy, rescue Citigroup Inc., American International Group Inc. and other financial companies, expand health care and wean the U.S. from its dependence on foreign oil.

“The times demanded that we had to act and had to act quickly,” says David Axelrod, a senior White House adviser. “If all you do is husband your political capital, you’re not going to really accomplish very much.”

Obama, 47, is in a race between the desire to use that capital, fueled by public-approval ratings at 60 percent, and a still-deteriorating economy that has seen the Dow Jones Industrial Average drop more than 1,300 points since his inauguration. The risk is that his efforts prove to be too much, too soon, leading to a backlash that erodes his current support.

“If he’s mistaken in his judgment about what the economy and the political system can bear, then he will end up overloading the Congress and getting less than he might have done otherwise,” says Bill Galston, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton.

Big Plans

Obama won passage of the $787 billion stimulus plan 20 days into his presidency. He outlined a budget that aims to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term and included a $634 billion “down-payment” for health-care reform.

The president, a Democrat, attacked one of the causes of the recession by pushing a $275 billion plan to cut mortgage payments for as many as 9 million struggling homeowners. He has asked Congress to come up with legislation overhauling the financial-regulatory system by April and has signaled that as much as $750 billion more may be needed to help revive credit markets.

“His 50 days is fairly equivalent of what many presidents had over their first 100 days, just because of the intensity of the crisis,” says Julian Zelizer, a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University in New Jersey.

Echoes of LBJ

Obama’s record is comparable to what Johnson, another Democrat, achieved in 1965 with his “Great Society” programs. That agenda, the most ambitious since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, included the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, and a national beautification program. It also entailed a major escalation of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which ultimately destroyed Johnson’s presidency.

For the most part, Obama has been sticking to his campaign pledges, which included ending the war in Iraq, cutting taxes for the middle class, broadening health care and achieving energy independence. Events have prompted him to adopt the other, potentially competing agenda that involves the deepest government intervention in the economy in 76 years.

“He has some genuine accomplishments at the beginning of his presidency,” says Galston, now an analyst at the Brookings Institution. “At the same time, I believe, that he has wagered his presidency on the bold course to pursuing his two agendas simultaneously.”

Falling Short

Obama has fallen short in one area: achieving bipartisanship. “Despite his substantial efforts to reach out, certainly symbolically, and to be civil, the payoff is at the moment, pretty slim,” says George Edwards, author of “The Strategic President: Persuasion and Opportunity in Presidential Leadership.” The Republican Party “seems to have found its voice in adamant opposition to Obama, and it’s gearing up for more.”

House Republicans unanimously rejected Obama’s stimulus bill; in the Senate only three Republicans voted for it. “They don’t want to miss the opportunity of a crisis to do all the things they’ve wanted to do,” says Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, a member of the House Republican leadership.

Obama’s team says it made concessions to Republicans to get the stimulus passed. “I may rue the day I say this: It’s just the price you pay for getting a deal done,” White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said on Feb. 12, the day before the bill’s final passage. “You keep mirroring your economic priorities within a political process.”

Bigger Battles

Bigger battles are likely in the coming months when debates over the president’s $3.55 trillion budget take place, especially if the economy doesn’t improve, says Ari Fleischer, who was press secretary to former President George W. Bush.

“The capitalist wing of the Republican Party will be reborn and will find its voice,” Fleischer says. “It just takes time.”

The opposition won’t be limited to Republicans. Obama, who called Wall Street bonuses “shameful,” will have to reconcile his own rules for executive pay with a plan for more stringent curbs proposed by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, has expressed concern over the decision to leave a residual force of as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq. And House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland says Obama can’t tell Congress what to do when it comes to inserting lawmakers’ pet projects in spending bills.

Setbacks

“He’s trying to get this system to do a lot all at once,” says Paul Begala, a onetime top adviser to President Bill Clinton. Congress “hasn’t been doing very much lately, so he’s going to have setbacks.”

To counter those setbacks, Obama has put himself in front of the American people in campaign-style events, in which he often casts Wall Street as the greedy villain and the middle class as heroes.

“Voters understand that this will be a long process,” says Begala. “He’s dealing with a culture whose idea of a long- term commitment is all 10 weeks of ‘American Idol,’ and he’s trying to get us to look at decades.”

While some presidents including predecessor Bush -- who pursued a more conservative agenda as president than he ran on in 2000 -- Obama is trying to persuade Americans that he’s honoring promises made during the campaign.

“This president I think has a connection with the American people, and the way you lose your connection with people is by forgetting about what you told them,” says Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, one of two Republicans in Obama’s Cabinet. “And he hasn’t forgotten.”

Taking Ownership

Yet as Obama assumes ownership of a weakening economy, it becomes more difficult to fulfill those promises. Gradually, the economy becomes less about what he has inherited and more about his responsibility for actions he’s taken.

The president has “to be ever mindful that it’s going to be handed off to you at some stage,” says Washington political pollster Peter Hart, a Democrat. “Eventually, this will move from being ‘the Bush recession’ to ‘the current recession,’” Hart says.

Some Republicans say it already has. “This is their turn,” says John Feehery, a Republican strategist and Washington consultant whose clients include Ford Motor Co., News Corp. and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “This is his baby now.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Julianna Goldman in Washington at Jgoldman6@bloomberg.net; Michael Tackett in Washington at mtackett@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: March 8, 2009 20:00 EDT



To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (162547)3/9/2009 9:37:27 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361391
 
BRIEF-Buffett praises Bernanke; says Citigroup "may be a special case"

cnbc.com

09 Mar 2009 | 08:57 AM ET Text Size March 9 (Reuters) - Warren Buffett spoke on CNBC television: * Warren Buffett says Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke "should be given a lot of credit" for doing things that needed to be done * Warren Buffett says "card check" for unions is a mistake * Warren Buffett says a number of banks with terrific earnings power will do very well in future, so long as they don't need to sell huge amounts of stock * Buffett says fear that broader public view of banking system may be reflective of what's happening at Citigroup ; system will largely "cure itself" * Warren Buffett says investors are lumping banks together and considering many of them troubled; Citigroup Inc he says, "may be a special case" (New York Equities Desk; tel: +1 646 223 6000) COPYRIGHT Copyright Thomson Reuters 2009.