Has David Bellamy gone mad? 14 July 04

As it happens, David Bellamy is an anagram of Badly Mad Evil. Pardon me for lowering the tone.

People who bring up the carbon dioxide fertilization argument to put a positive spin on increasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere drive me crazy! For a start carbon dioxide is often not a limiting factor in the growth of plants, therefore an increase in its availability will not necessarily enhance plant growth. Second, in the instance that a particular group of plants might benefit from increased carbon dioxide levels, like some mangrove species, they are likely to either be severely knocked around by the consequences of climate change, like rising sea levels which mangroves are potentially quite sensitive to, or they may start to behave more like a weed taking over other sections of the ecosystem. This does not seem like a particularly positive outcome of rising carbon dioxide levels.

Looks like the world’s GW skeptics have a “VIP” new entry on their shrinking membership list. Denial truly is more than a river in Egypt! Wonder what he thinks about the recent news that the amount of CO2 the oceans are absorbing are starting to make them too acidic for some forms of sea life? Or maybe I DON’T wonder—or care anymore. I’d rather discuss these matters with people who face facts.

I don’t think David Bellamy grasps just how significant a 0.3% change in tempreature actually is:

Any calculation using percentages like this must be on an absolute scale. i.e. Degrees Kelvin.

Assuming 25 Deg.C as the current average global temperature (it isn’t – I’ve just picked a number which sounds reasonable). That’s 298.15 Deg. K

0.3% of that is a 9 Deg difference (in both Celcius and Kelvin terms).

In global warming terms, that’s huge:

that’s an ice age!

one important fact,i think everyone should know about bellamy,is that he is being paid a lot of money by the ANTI WIND FARM POSSE to start spouting off complete lies about co2 emmissions etc etc the man is a fool and way past talking sense whatsoever, about the enviroment and all related issues do us all a favour bellamy and shut up once and for all!!!!!!!

Having attended a recent seminar organised by Emirates Environmental Group (NGO) in Dubai I can clearly conclude that David Bellamy is far from insane. Although I have never studied psychiatry, I believe that he is as sane as you or I and that he is simply a confident, knowledgeable chap who has definite opinions that cannot be easily swayed by the popular concensus of opinion just because the media desires it. His 90 minute talk about “commerce through conservation” was a valid and apt topic for our particular area which showed a clear and intellectual delivery. It is nice to see a public figure who is passionate about his vision and not afraid to share it with other even if it leads to ridicule. Seem familiar? This ridicule is simply a human trait which has condemned many scientists in history.

Nobody can deny that we are going through a period of climatic change, after all this cyclical pattern is historical. What nobody can prove however is the extent of which increasing CO2 emissions will have on this natural phenomenon. The future holds these truths, which only our children’s children will find out. Until then we can merely speculate. What if he is right? What will that mean for you?

I beg all scientists to keep an open mind and ask the question “what if?” to all those disciples that they are so passionate about. Until such time, I will gladly re-read “A short history of nearly everything” by Bill Bryson just to reiterate that we are only human after all.

I understand and agree with everything you already said and you said it well.

I only have additional comments to make since I enjoy interaction with intelligent people on Mark’s site.

I can add that the only positive benefits of carbon dioxide fertilization of plants is that when we plant more trees or consider options like plankton seeding, then the sinks we create and the ones already there will absorb carbon at a faster rate.

Since I am focused on preventative measures to climate change, I enjoy the benefits of knowing anything positive that can keep us out of despair and more focused on solutions at restoring balance.

Yes this is interesting to know Vicki!

I read that the oceans have the equivalent of 18 atmospheres of carbon dioxide. Because of this, it was thought at one time from some scientists that the ocean’s ability to absorb carbon would be sufficient to prevent the carbon buildup we have now.

This was later found to be incorrect since the rate of absorption was not fast enough.

If the ocean is loosing its ability to absorb, then I am thinking it is because the concentration of carbon dioxide is not distributed in the vast volume of the oceans but is concentrated in the waters closer to the surface.

This may slow the ability of the oceans to absorb more carbon at the surface entry point. I am not sure but this sounds reasonable to me.

Based on percentages only, if our excess carbon were absorbed throughout the ocean, then the concentration should be sufficiently diluted.

If the carbon were concentrated at greater depths instead, I wonder if this would decrease the problem on eco systems and allow the surface waters to absorb more from the air.

I have only touched based on the concept of sequestering carbon but this idea may be one worthy of continued scientific investigation.

Our main problem is more from the current buildup of carbon and our ability to reduce emissions quickly enough. It even seems likely that we may need to develop better sinks to prevent positive feedback loops from gaining a foothold.

I know you hate the tech-fix ideas but I am into all preventative measures as you know from reading my posts. I have to encourage people to look at any promising idea no matter how wacky it may appear or rejecting it prematurely from the initial fears of current unknowns which could be understood better with effective research.

I am getting concerned about what I am calling the coal trap. Burning coal releases huge amounts of carbon and this has built up carbon over time. Burning coal has released sulfates that have actually reduced global warming.

If we took all coal power plants off line, we would kill both the carbon output and the sulfate output. Since atmospheric sulfates have a shorter life than carbon dioxide, it appears that the net result is an increase in warming from the sulfates disappearing while the built-up carbon asserts greater influence.

The coal trap is one annoying aspect whereby eliminating the vast pollution of sulfates could have the opposite effect that we would want to have.

Nuclear energy is another one. If we took all nuclear plants offline and replaced them with coal plants, then it seems we would satisfy nuclear critics but the coal trap asserts itself even further.

So, it seems that the problem is so difficult to solve, that we may not have a clean way through it.

So, I am back to the concept of how we can effectively sequester carbon? It seems that this idea needs to be developed further so we can hopefully know how to do this safely enough.

So, I would like all your best thoughts since I am a person who likes to face facts. I may seem like a blind optimist but I am not. I am an engineer who is doing the best he can to help the process along. I am pragmatic to a fault.

I believe we still have to strive for the best and safest solutions we have available to restore balance. We have already tipped the balance too much.

Unusual ideas to restore balance become a necessity now to look at. Achieving a more natural balance in the short term may be more difficult because the patient (the earth) may need some surgery to allow it to heal. Our built up carbon seems to be a cancerous tumor that we may find more difficult to reduce quickly enough and it may warrant direct removal or direct reduction.

Always let me know your thoughts that increase my understanding. I would like to see you take your thoughts to a level of problem solving since if we have a viable way out of this, I would like to know it. If we can have any plan that has a chance of working then the problem becomes one of marketing the plan for implementation.

The best plans offer a means to allow everyone to win at some level. Kyoto had this in mind but I wonder if it is enough. Mass suicide to reduce population may be one option but not one that is viable.

Help me know what you think we can actually do to win!

I like your mathematical employ of using the Kelvin Scale. I think I can top this one in conceptual ways to help others understand the significance of small temperature changes with respect to the earth systems and humans.

First, the earth is vast and the oceans are deep. Small changes in temperature can result in small changes in the earth but these small changes may be huge changes for life.

For example, the ocean depth is measured in miles and a small temperature change may create a mere one ten thousandths of one percent in sea level rise. No big deal for the earth but this is a rise of 10 feet and it would displace 2 billion people and effectively destroy all coastal ecosystems.

To guide people to greater understanding you have to use the principle of transfer I learned in education. No one is capable of understanding a concept until they have a way of relating to something they already understand. So, it is important to use the concept of the parable or showing an analogy to demonstrate the idea you wish to convey!

And with that said, I come back to a common theme of mine. The ones who are most aware are the ones who are most responsible. It is our responsibility to be effective in persuading others. It is my responsibility as well and I encourage others to take what they know and use it. Knowledge is power but only when it is used.

And to build on this: When you succeed in making others aware, then you succeed in making them responsible!

Keep up the good work!

It seems that humans still succumb to the influence of prosperity and loose their objectivity and ignore any contrary evidence that may cause a loss of revenue.

The disciples may not be wrong! A plea for objectivity I agree with!

I cannot have an opinion about Bill Bryson since I did not hear him speak.

Based on your response, I disagree that we have an inability to predict future events. I disagree that our climate problem is not caused by humans but by the response of natural cycles only. And, I disagree with a wait and see approach.

Our climate models are becoming more accurate and their projections do not show favorable results for us. Mark’s book High Tide focused on actual current evidence of glacier meltdown within 2 decades when the glacier has been around since the last ice age! And a wait and see approach is dangerous since if the disciples are correct, then we essentially blew it!!

Your plea for objectivity for scientists to keep an open mind is extremely important. I also agree with this principle in the way of finding viable solutions that reduce the threat of climate change.

The task is difficult enough and we need to know if we are going to slowly (the basic consensus) or maybe too fast. If we speed up the process more than we need to then we may create economic difficulties in the process.

The bottom line is we have to do enough to be successful and for me that may mean thinking outside the box so to speak. I think that we will have to speed things up and find the best plan to avoid economic difficulties. We have to be more creative and more determined. We still have to err on the side of caution to prevent climate change.

Based on your photo, you must be a child prodigy and with such an intellect you are wise beyond your years!

At the rate you are developing, you will soon have the plans that will solve the global climate problem and now I know for sure our future is in good hands! ;-)

As an interested and uncommitted observer, can I mildly remark that your 14th July 2004 piece on Bellamy’s article is not entirely fair; OISM wasnt the “only supporting evidence” he cited. He also invoked a paper “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over The Last Glacial Termination”. I do find that just about every commentator on the causation of global warming – pro or anti – has a vested interest somewhere, so a sceptical approach to both sides seems advisable. Do both sides have a consensus on the pretty basic point – “What percentage of greenhouse gas of all kinds (but in CO2 equivalent for convenience) derives from the activities of man?”

Can I refer you to the discussion about this very subject on the RealClimate site? It’s important to note that ‘consensus’ doesn’t mean truth: but it’s a fairly clear guide of what’s most likely to be the case. Almost all the extra greenhouse gas comes from human activities – the sources can be clearly traced isotopically, and also match up mathematically with the known amount of fossil fuel extracted since the beginning of the industrial revolution. I don’t think this is a point anyone disputes.

John,

Science uses a number of creative approaches to determine the carbon from the biosphere versus carbon from fossil fuels.

First, all fossil fuels being combusted as fuel have been firmly documented, so we know precisely how much carbon we place in the atmosphere each year and all previous years.

The carbon from the fossil fuel contains no radioactive carbon 14 since it decayed a long time ago sheltered underground.

The carbon from the biosphere does contain a precise amount of radioactive carbon. Therefore, scientists can analyze carbon dioxide to determine how much is from fossil fuel is in the atmosphere and dissolved in the oceans.

So, with this technique, I would venture to say that any determination of fossil fuel carbon from humans to be reasonably precise.

Based on these facts, it may be easy to conclude that we have the ability to measure carbon in the atmosphere with precision, know precisely how much came from fossil fuels, precisely know how much the earth absorbed, precisely know how much carbon that was retained in the atmosphere, and the precise ability to monitor annual changes in all factors previously mentioned.

I am sure there is sufficient validity in the methods used to determine concentrations of other greenhouse gases and their global warming potentials.

Now, these global warming potentials do depend on a defined atmospheric time frame. 100 years is often used.

One thing I noticed is that some shorter-lived non-carbon greenhouse gases have a higher global warming potential when looked at for shorter atmospheric time frames.

Methane is a very short-lived gas and its global warming potential will more than double in carbon equivalent when looking at the next 2 decades versus the next 100 years.

The significance to me is that reductions in methane should have a short-term boost to reduce the threat of climate change.

I am perplexed at David Bellamy´s flamboyant plea for ignoring the warning signs. His aggressive language may indicate that he himself feels he hasn´t much of a point.

Also, I spot some conspicuously muddled thinking in his article. He argues that “a gargantuan amount of money” will be spent on “a problem that does not exist” – money that had better be used for “fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment,creating jobs”.

Now take “developing alternative energy sources”, for example. Mr. Bellamy, that´s exactly part of the action against global warming, and will create jobs into the bargain. With his kind of logic, Bellamy might as well have argued that we should stop investing in alternative energy in order to use the money for investing in alternative energy. Doesn´t mahe much sense to me.

Similarly, all the other noble aims he mentions will be furthered rather that betrayed if we cut our fossil fuel abuse. And the good news is that this applies even if predictions were wrong, e.g., even if our interference with the world´s climate machine were to lead to global cooling rather than warming. After all, fossil fuel combustion has a number of nasty side-effects beside CO2, from acid rain to forest dieback to build-up of ground level ozone. But maybe he denies all of that, too.

He also claims that action on fossil fuel burning would drain the world´s economies of “billions, nay trillions of .. dollars”. In fact, insulating our homes, downscaling the overheating and over-cooling of our rooms and the over-use of our automobiles, driving sensible cars rather than Hummers, all of this would leave more money in everybody´s pockets rather than less, and improve the respective countries´ balance-of-payments posíon, which in many cases is heavily burdened by excessive oil imports.

Likewise an economy which invents – or uses existing but under-used technical fixes to get the same amount of goods or services with less and less energy input, in other words an economy which improves its energy efficieny, will of course be more competitive and successful rather than less, even if Bush & Co. claim the latter and Bellamy seems to imply it.

Well done! Developing alternative energy resources does seem pretty stupid as part of developing a case against climate change. Developing alternative energy resources is at the heart of preventative measures for those concerned about our role in creating climate change.

Another critic, Norbertzangox, makes an analytical case about the temperatures in Alaska being invalid to use in computer models predicting climate change but yet valid enough to claim Alaska has not warmed since 1977 despite overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.

There seems to be a pattern emerging with critics in that their ability to use simple logic is flawed. Now using my own deductive reasoning, when critics fail at making a good argument on one very simple issue, then how can we believe them to be correct on other more complex issues?

0.3% of 298 degrees is around 0.9 degrees, not 9.0 degrees suggested by Martin Lord.

Basic maths is required to discuss this topic.

Oh my god!

I can’t believe I got that wrong.

My sincerest apologies Martin

I saw him the other night on TV and the answer is yes, he’s finally lost it. Perhaps it’s senility, or perhaps the inevitable toll of being a hand-waving media celeb for so long, but he has totally lost it. George Monbiot wiped the floor with him, and it was rather embarrassing to see him spluttering and inadequate. All he could say in reply to Monbiot’s ample facts was ‘there are lots of websites’. Well yes David, there are, and some are run by completely insane people. That someone who used to be an academic, albeit on the pale green, conservation end of the spectrum, stoops to quoting loony climate-change denial websites says it all. Don’t anyone give him the url of David Icke or he’ll believe the world is being run by alien lizards.

Just try thinking for a minute. Where did all the fossil fuels come from? They come from trees which grew in the carboniferous, and were buried under plate movements. Eventually, millenia later, animals began to evolve due to the increased oxygen and decreased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Over millions of years the carbon was removed until the atmosphere was suitable for oxygen breathing creatures. A large part of those carbon stores have now been released into the atmosphere, and the rest will follow. And you can forget this childrens children nonsense, just another way of putting it out of our minds so we don’t have to panic. It’s happening now and it will affect you, everyone alive today with the possible exception of Bellamy and others his age. For anyone to deny this is insane and also very dangerous. What we don’t deal with will affect us radically. Considering the vast, ever-expanding human population and the complex global food industry, it will only take one year of severe weather in key areas to throw the planet into famine and total breakdown. I would not have expected the gesticulating clown Bellamy to be able to grasp any of this anyway, he is just abusing his media notoriety without even understanding what he does. Forgive them for they know not what they do? No, I say blame them and castigate them everywhere they raise their silly heads in denial.

Dear David

So pleased to see that an acknowledged expert/academic is prepared to challenge the status quo still… keep up the good work.

Some of your critics were still in nappies when you fist started worrying about environmentalism now they dismiss you.

Its such a difficult message to put across in the current climate (pun).

I tend to use the analogy of the human body being a highly complex HOMEOSTATIC system that can usually accomodate the chaotic changes that naturally occur.

Has the planet earth ‘caught a cold’ from the activities of man? YES! Man is definately an irritant in this system.. but is the biggest issue Carbon Dioxide?

To revisit the analogy… if the CO2 levels in my blood increase, my body will accomodate that change in many subtle and intricate ways.

Its always bothered me that we can ‘predict’ with computers the effect of demolishing the rain forests but we cannot understand the ecosystem on a single tree! What more a forest…

My memories of you were so much someone who appreciated the smallest details of nature, and I am sure it is this that you are essentially being judged on. Its all so much more complex and exquisite than many people think.

Some of the comments Ben makes have struck a harmonic with me. Seems to me that some would do well to dip into Bellamy’s autobiog “Jolly Green Giant” before dismissing the man (and his conservation credentials and achievements) in quite such a cavalier, derogatory, insulting and off-hand manner. There are few still living amongst us today who have achieved all that Bellamy has done, in terms of direct action to change things for the better, and also in terms of his unique ability to inform the masses and inspire them (I speak from personal experience having had the privelege to see the man in action on numerous occassions over many years).

Bellamy raised the bar on the debate concerning global warming, and raised it in the same country I was brought up in: one that believes (I hope!) that opinion and debate is a good and healthy thing, where freedom of expression without fear of oppression or ignorant hostility and ridicule thrives.

Without Bellamy our world would be a much, much less informed and sadder place to live in. So let’s all keep a healthy (and respectful!) perspective on what is an essential debate, and listen to opinions without resorting to abuse.

So anybody who doesnt believe in global warming is mad stupid or just a little crazy. Well I think it is time to get another view it has all been one sided so far and I can remember it wasnt that long ago we were being told we are heading for an ice age have people forgot about that and wasnt it scientists who told us that. Well governments like global warming it is good for creating taxes and people pay for its good for the environment, companies like global warming prices can be adjusted upwards to help combat climate changes, scientists also like global warming they finally have there noses stuck in the feed trough and people are listening to them, and the average person likes global warming as we all like bad news and this certainly is bad news. So global warming is a winner all round, so will heading to an ice age in a few more years when the weather paterns change again. But dont be surprised if the scientists have the answer for that as well, and the Governments and business. Lets at least have an open and honest debate on both sides of global warming and dont get personal if you dont like what you hear. Maybe the outcome just isnt quite as bad as you wanted. Let me think back 6yrs ago when we were all sent in to a panic by scientists and people who know more than me and you about how the world was goin to come to an end because of our computors not changing over on a date, what happened nothing. Except a few people made a lot of money out of scaring half the world. Lets learn from that and remember experts get it wrong all the time.

So anybody who doesnt believe in global warming is mad stupid or just a little crazy. Well I think it is time to get another view it has all been one sided so far and I can remember it wasnt that long ago we were being told we are heading for an ice age have people forgot about that and wasnt it scientists who told us that.Well governments like global warming it is good for creating taxes and people pay for its good for the environment, companies like global warming prices can be adjusted upwards to help combat climate changes, scientists also like global warming they finally have there noses stuck in the feed trough and people are listening to them, and the average person likes global warming as we all like bad news and this certainly is bad news. So global warming is a winner all round, so will heading to an ice age in a few more years when the weather paterns change again. But dont be surprised if the scientists have the answer for that as well, and the Governments and business.Lets at least have an open and honest debate on both sides of global warming and dont get personal if you dont like what you hear. Maybe the outcome just isnt quite as bad as you wanted.Let me think back 6yrs ago when we were all sent in to a panic by scientists and people who know more than me and you about how the world was goin to come to an end because of our computors not changing over on a date, what happened nothing. Except a few people made a lot of money out of scaring half the world. Lets learn from that and remember experts get it wrong all the time.

So anybody who doesnt believe in global warming is mad stupid or just a little crazy. Well I think it is time to get another view it has all been one sided so far and I can remember it wasnt that long ago we were being told we are heading for an ice age have people forgot about that and wasnt it scientists who told us that.Well governments like global warming it is good for creating taxes and people pay for its good for the environment, companies like global warming prices can be adjusted upwards to help combat climate changes, scientists also like global warming they finally have there noses stuck in the feed trough and people are listening to them, and the average person likes global warming as we all like bad news and this certainly is bad news. So global warming is a winner all round, so will heading to an ice age in a few more years when the weather paterns change again. But dont be surprised if the scientists have the answer for that as well, and the Governments and business.Lets at least have an open and honest debate on both sides of global warming and dont get personal if you dont like what you hear. Maybe the outcome just isnt quite as bad as you wanted.Let me think back 6yrs ago when we were all sent in to a panic by scientists and people who know more than me and you about how the world was goin to come to an end because of our computors not changing over on a date, what happened nothing. Except a few people made a lot of money out of scaring half the world. Lets learn from that and remember experts get it wrong all the time.

Just because he is a sceptic doesnt mean he is mad he just has another oppinion and it might be right. It was only 20yrs ago we were heading towards an ice age Scientists were wrong then.

A long time since I’ve read nonsense like this! Go and see An Inconvenient Truth – more than once!!

Douglas Coker

Its always bothered me that we can ‘predict’ with computers the effect of demolishing the rain forests but we cannot understand the ecosystem on a single tree! What more a forest…