RSS

IPCC cites boot cleaning guide for Antarctica tour operators

01 Feb

Evidence of climate change

No that headline is not a joke. The IPCC cited a guide for Antarctica tour operators on decontaminating boots and clothing. Here it is.

The reference is in the Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group II, section 15.7.2 Economic activity and sustainability in the Antarctic. The claim is:

The multiple stresses of climate change and increasing human activity on the Antarctic Peninsula represent a clear vulnerability (see Section 15.6.3), and have necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines for tourist landings on the Antarctic Peninsula (IAATO, 2005).”


This is referenced as:

IAATO, 2005: Update on boot and clothing decontamination guidelines and the introduction and detection of diseases in Antarctic wildlife: IAATO’s perspective. Paper submitted by the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) XXVIII. IAATO, 10 pp. http://www.iaato.org/info.html.

So the IPCC cites a boot and clothing cleaning guide as evidence that the “multiple stresses of climate change…have necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines”. That might be laughable in and of itself, but the problem is the article doesn’t even mention climate change. Once. Nothing at all about global warming, or temperature increase. Nothing!

[wp_campaign_2]

I can’t think of a citation any more pathetic. Read the report, and tell me if you can find anything. This is definitely going on the list of the IPCC’s questionable citations.

Advertisements
 
42 Comments

Posted by on February 1, 2010 in Uncategorized

 

Tags:

42 responses to “IPCC cites boot cleaning guide for Antarctica tour operators

  1. Obelix

    February 1, 2010 at 6:02 pm

    This is incredible! Thanks alot. I will pass on the info (link). Cheers.

     
  2. Ted

    February 1, 2010 at 10:56 pm

    Yeah as it turns out IAATO is doing this because the Antarctic Peninsula is experiencing the most striking warming of any place on the planet. Having led expeditions there for two decades, we see that what used to be perpetually snow and ice covered is now seasonally open water / open land. Therefore, the concern is that newly exposed soil has the potential to harbor introduced species. I wouldn’t take IAATO’s actions themselves as evidence of climate change, but any fool who looks at the Antarctic Peninsula over time can readily see that it is *a lot* warmer now than in previous decades.

     
  3. Ben

    February 1, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    Ted Ted Ted,

    When were you there last?

    The climate warms and cools.
    We are in a cooling period at the moment and there has been no statistical increase in tempuratures for 15 years.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/revealed-antarctic-ice-growing/story-e6frg6no-1225700046908

    http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191

     
  4. Grant

    February 2, 2010 at 12:12 am

    Ted, are you one of those fools?

     
  5. Steve

    February 2, 2010 at 1:43 am

    Ted, have you seen the data on the overall sea ice in Antarctica, and the clear positive trend, despite the localized warming on the Antarctic peninsula?

    Graph here: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
    Go to the little graph on the right hand side and select “Antarctic, monthly”

    The overall temperature trend for Antarctica for the last few decades has been negative.

    Despite your personal experiences, perhaps you should actually read some of the data.

     
  6. Ben

    February 2, 2010 at 3:06 am

    I suppose there is no more to say after Steves contribution.

     
  7. JEM

    February 2, 2010 at 3:27 am

    There’d been some discussion of fudging of Antarctic data on, I think, Jeff Id’s blog some weeks back.

    Summary was that trends at the peninsula were up, but the rest of the continent were trending down.

    Bear in mind, too, that where you have humans you generally have heat-generating activities. There were some great pics of this, the scale of the airport operations and etc. somewhere that have grown up over the past decade, but I can’t find them right now.

     
  8. Ed Darrell

    February 2, 2010 at 5:43 am

    I’m not clear on how you determine that this is a bad citation. What is your evidence that the boot cleaning is not done for environmental protection?

    You’re not an advocate of Leave No Trace Camping, either, are you?

     
  9. Josualdo

    February 2, 2010 at 7:28 am

    When you thought it couldn’t get lower…

    Grant, Steve: AFAIK Ted is right. He’s talking about the peninsula (heating), not the whole Antarctic (cooling).

     
  10. Matt Sykes

    February 2, 2010 at 10:19 am

    Ha haha hahaha hahaha aha guffaaaww guffffaaaww chortle, gasp, lying breathless on the floor now, cant breathe, still helplessly convulsing…
    hahahahahha!

    Oh really, this is just soooooooooooo funny! Oh my god, can the IPC ever get over this?

    And tell me, now that all these dodgy references are coming out, did no one ever check them before?

    Not a sceptic, an alarmist, no one?

    Ha ha ha, and this is supposed to be peer reviewed!

    Ha hahahah hhhahahaa

    And they let this get through!!!!!!!!

    Hahahaha

    hahahha

    oh god, back to floor, gasping, must hit send before I asphixate…

     
  11. Ted

    February 2, 2010 at 11:27 am

    Question: Is this website is about (1) seeking truth through improving the accuracy of climate science via the IPCC, or (2) without attention to any facts, and having already decided that climate change somehow isn’t happening, is this website about ignoring facts and ignoring the bulk of the quality work in the IPCC? Seems like to be the latter.

    Grant: Am I one of those fools?… I do see that there is a big decline in land ice and sea ice in the Peninsular region. That is plain and borne out by statistics. Better a fool than blind.

    Re: antarctic climate change. This extremely complex story is well summarized here:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091130192921.htm (with further depth of detail from there)

    A few quotes:
    10% increase in sea ice around the Antarctic ~ Since 1980 there has been a 10% increase in Antarctic sea ice extent, particularly in the Ross Sea region, as a result of the stronger winds around the continent (due to the ozone hole). In contrast, regional sea ice has decreased west of the Antarctic Peninsula due to changes in local atmospheric circulation and this has also been linked with the very rapid warming seen over land on the west coast of the Peninsula.

    West Antarctic ice loss could contribute to 1.4 m sea level rise ~ Loss of ice from the West Antarctic ice sheet is likely to contribute some tens of centimetres to global sea level by 2100. This will contribute to a projected total sea level rise of up to 1.4 metres (and possibly higher) by 2100.

    Hole in ozone layer has shielded most of Antarctica from global warming ~ The ozone hole has delayed the impact of greenhouse gas increases on the climate of the
    continent. Consequently south polar winds (the polar vortex), have intensified and affected Antarctic weather patterns. Westerly winds over the Southern Ocean that surrounds Antarctica have increased by around 15%. The stronger winds have effectively isolated Antarctica from the warming elsewhere on the planet. As a result during the past 30 years there has been little change in surface temperature over much of the vast Antarctic continent, although West Antarctica has warmed slightly. An important exception is the eastern coast of the Antarctic Peninsula, which has seen rapid summer warming. This warming is caused by stronger westerly winds bringing warm, wet air into the region from the ocean.

    These are the briefest of details in a complex story, but a comprehensive understanding leads us to see that human-induced climate change is the strong reality on the Antarctic, and the planet as a whole.

    Cheers,
    Ted

     
  12. ClimateQuoter

    February 2, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    Answer: http://climatequotes.com/2010/01/06/hello-world/

    That is why I started the site. If you don’t like the site, that’s fine.

    “is this website about ignoring facts and ignoring the bulk of the quality work in the IPCC?”

    ‘Quality’ must mean something different to you. Citing the WWF and Greenpeace, a magazine, a student thesis (which admits it is all a guess), and a guide to boot de-contamination for tour guides doesn’t seem like quality. Maybe you mean the peer-reviewed paper that showed Himalayan glaciers were going to melt in 25 years leaving hundreds of millions without water? I can’t simply overlook such errors as you can, and trust me, there are many more of those errors that will soon be exposed. How many more will it take for you to admit the IPCC and ‘quality’ don’t belong in the same sentence?

     
  13. Ed Darrell

    February 3, 2010 at 11:02 am

    Quality shouldn’t mean misrepresenting the facts, and especially the words of others.

    IPCC noted tourism impacts in Antarctica, and pointed to the boot decontamination issue with footnotes and peer-reviewed testimony.

    You represented it instead as a mis-citation to a different issue.

    So, yeah, I guess the site is about ignoring the bulk of the quality work in the IPCC, and in this case intentionally distorting it.

    In the name of fairness and good policy, why would you do such a thing?

     
  14. Ed Darrell

    February 3, 2010 at 11:03 am

    So, Ted, have you got some real experience in Antarctica?

     
  15. Ed Darrell

    February 3, 2010 at 11:04 am

    Maybe you mean the peer-reviewed paper that showed Himalayan glaciers were going to melt in 25 years leaving hundreds of millions without water? I can’t simply overlook such errors as you can, and trust me, there are many more of those errors that will soon be exposed. How many more will it take for you to admit the IPCC and ‘quality’ don’t belong in the same sentence?

    Saying the glaciers could be gone in 35 years is more accurate than denying that they are melting and denying that there are water problems as a result.

     
  16. Anonymous

    February 25, 2010 at 11:59 pm

    This IPCC is organized pretty much along the Soviet style propaganda. That it can get away with it is due to the fact that governments have degraded the educational/indoctrinational system to such extent that most people are too stupid to make their own evaluation of the — still available — published facts. The next step will, of curse be suppression or inaccessibility of published statistical facts.
    Vlado Bevc
    akobevc@sbcglobal.net

     
  17. Roger

    July 11, 2010 at 7:54 am

    @Ed Darrell:

    Saying the glaciers could be gone in 35 years is more accurate than denying that they are melting and denying that there are water problems as a result.

    First, “could be gone in 35 years” is not what the disputed quote claimed. It claimed that “the likelihood … is very high” [elsewhere defined as >90%] that all would be gone by 2035 (27 years from the date of publication.) Despite IPCC AR4 claiming that this was from a peer-reviewed source, the total number of professional glaciologists who actually believed that date either then or now — including IPCCs own glaciologists — is none whatsoever. Even Syed Hasnain (the original source of the quote, in a telephone interview to a magazine) does not believe it; at the time he actually said it was an outside possibility in the worst case scenario, but has since concluded that even that speculation was too pessimistic.

    It is not too difficult to see why this figure is not just wrong but obviously absurd. The mean rate of measured retreat was about 15 m per year. That might sound a lot but when you are looking at structures 5,000 to 30,000 metres long, 15 m/yr is clearly not going to totally or even largely consume that structure in 25 years, or even in 100 years. In fact the earliest date that has actually been accepted in peer-reviewed journals, is more than three centuries away – even under the assumption that not only does nothing get better, but that things continue to get worse at the current rate.

    Secondly, there is nothing wrong with denying that they are melting, because most of them aren’t. Glaciers retreat and advance all the time, in extremely complex patterns only distantly related to current weather conditions. From the 1970s to the early 2000s, there was a period when the balance was definitely on the side of overall retreat, and during the 1990s the fraction retreating exceeded 90% – nearly all of them were retreating at once, in some cases relatively quite quickly. This was claimed, superficially reasonably but on the basis of no scientific evidence whatsoever, to be caused by global warming.

    However even by the time AR4 was published in 2007, that phase had already passed. In fact most Himalayan glaciers are currently either retreating at a very low and sustainable rate, stable, or even growing again, and have been for a decade. To take an example at random, simply because it is one of the most studied (being the source of the Ganges River), between 1971 and 1996 Gangotri retreated at 32 to 34 metres per year; from 1996 to 2001, some parts kept up 30 m/yr but most of the “snout” slowed to about 10 m/yr; and since then it slowed even further, averaging 4 m/yr with some parts not retreating at all. Gangotri is what they usually mean when they talk about glacial meltwater provinding water for “millions” as against a few thousand villagers, because Gangotri is the source of the Ganges. And it is 30,200 m long. Even at 30 m/yr, it will clearly last many centuries; at 4 m/yr, millennia.

    Further, detailed research by Indian glaciologists had shown that the cause of “negative annual mass balance” was almost entirely due to reduced precipitation in the monsoon season, not due to increased melting in summer. This might be indirectly caused by climate change, but there is no evidence for it. Moreover, it means that the retreat will not speed up with time, it will gradually slow down, even if nothing else changes. The glaciers will not melt away completely, they will asymptotically approach a new “equilibrium line”, and probably take over a thousand years to get there.

    There is an exception to this: in the Eastern Himalaya, there are glaciers that are still retreating fast, and that is due to increased surface melt, caused by soot deposits from Chinese coal-fired power stations. This is still related to reduced precipitation (one good snowfall can cover up decades worth of soot accumulation), but at least it may also be a much easier problem to fix.

     
  18. Antarctica Tourism

    September 21, 2010 at 2:03 am

    At the time you visit Antarctica you will have an experience like none you’ve ever had before, regardless of how many places you’ve been. You shall not experience fine dining and exciting night life. You won�t be enjoying weather that may be milder than wherever you originate from. What you will really get is astonishing and breathtaking views, a way to see wildlife included in the natural habitat and also an opportunity to observe how you choose to do in extreme climate conditions on the ends of the earth!

     
  19. Limpieza

    December 10, 2010 at 5:59 am

    Sincereamente genial, tenia dudas , ahora, si se me han aclarado las ideas . Buen trabajo el contenido del blog. Os seguiré siempre para ampliar mas sobre el tema.

     
  20. Pasquale Cieslinski

    January 14, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    excellent put up! wonderful suggestions, will take on board!

     
  21. viagra

    January 26, 2011 at 11:42 pm

    Hello! I simply wish to give a huge thumbs up for the nice info you have got right here on this post. I can be coming back to your weblog for extra soon.

     
  22. offdb

    October 18, 2011 at 7:34 am

    Further, detailed research by Indian glaciologists had shown that the cause of “negative annual mass balance” was almost entirely due to reduced precipitation in the monsoon season, not due to increased melting in summer. This might be indirectly caused by climate change, but there is no evidence for it. Moreover, it means that the retreat will not speed up with time, it will gradually slow down, even if nothing else changes. The glaciers will not melt away completely, they will asymptotically approach a new “equilibrium line”, and probably take over a thousand years to get there.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: