WUWT reader “ClimateQuoter” brings this latest IPCC AR 4 reference to our attention. It seems the issue is about preventing footwear borne biological contamination. It appears this has nothing to do with Antarctic climate at all and seems more than a bit of a stretch in the way IPCC cites it. How does climate change link to the need for boot cleaning? I can understand it by itself, don’t contaminate the local bio environment with spores on your shoes, but linking it to climate change? Even the organization for a similar and very real shoe borne contamination problem, suddenoakdeath.org don’t try to link climate change in their shoe cleaning guide here (PDF) or website.
From ClimateQuotes
IPCC cites boot cleaning guide for Antarctica tour operators
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!
I can’t think of a citation any more pathetic. Read the report , (link to MS Word DOC from IAATO, PDF is available here from WUWT) and tell me if you can find anything.
===========================================
Maybe the IPCC should take a cue from Calvin and Hobbes
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, I put my stinky shoes in the freezer for a couple of days (IN A PLASTIC BAG to prevent cross contamination) to kill the bacteria and get rid of odor. I did not need a 3 year study to prove that this really works. Therefore, my conclusion is that climate change causes stinky feet!
Policyguy, McIntyre(and others, Lucia?) already showed those two clowns(and the world) where they were wrong. If I’m attributing incorrectly, please forgive and correct, please. And so many other issues where they were totally incorrect, I believe we should be calling them the denialists. We just have to be louder.
Another OT and only pertinent to me at the moment, “Beer is proof God wishes us to be happy.”—–Thomas Jefferson Cheers!!
The 2500 top scientists in the world approved this to be in the report?
Pamela Gray (17:45:27) :
D
Pamela Gray (17:45:27) :
Digital Nasal Cavity Evacuation in a Dryer Climate, Thumb, Finger et al, 2035
Bootgate
I wish somehow Microsoft was involved so we could have Billgate.
(my joke crashed and burned!)
This reminds me of the old Cheech and Chong skit, “Cheborneck”.
I found another alarming citation: http://www.jir.com/geographic.html
C’mon guys, give them a break. You criticise the IPCC writers for not using ‘peer-reviewed’ sources, then chide one of them for using a legitimate reference to support a probably widely accepted assertion that human activity is likely affecting the Antarctic biosphere.
Other than references to boots, there are only four other references in the whole section. Compare this with references in the three-times larger preceding section concerning the Arctic for which there are many more likely sources of impact. I call that gross imbalance.
But as I read it, the whole section could be criticised because it is completely inadequate; the writer was able only to cite tourism and fishing as likely causes of impact. [The most obvious other source of current impact would be scientist investigators themselves]. The aim of the section is to debate implications for sustainable development. It is a statement of the status quo, not what climate change might have on that. There is no prediction of likely impacts on, say, the illegal fishing operations mentioned. What of whaling? What might be future demands to search for hydrocarbons?
The whole subject needs more effort.
Pamela Gray (17:45:27) :
Next I fear you will find an IPCC reference to a paper describing the affects of climate change on nose picking!
——-
If you are nosepicking semi-hygienically, kleenex (paper tissues for the Brits) is involved. Obviously the manufacturing of said tissues, whether from recycled materials or not, will generate heat and GHGs. Much better for the environment to place a finger to one nostril and violently expel air (and contents) through the other nostril. The IPCC must have a position on this!
Dr. Bob, uhmm…..it was so sad that I actually laughed. Thanks!
I think that it is a reasonable precautionary measure. a quote from the IAATO report ..
Antarctica is vast, isolated and inhospitable. Few studies of the microflora of indigenous species have been undertaken, and still fewer of disease. A small number of mass mortality events have been observed in penguins, both on the continent and on the sub-Antarctic islands.
The link to CC is obscure, but, let us treat the Antarctic and surrounding islands with care and reduce one factor in any future ‘mass mortality event’.
Bryn (19:17:29) :
…..But as I read it, the whole section could be criticised because it is completely inadequate;……….
Yes, but robustly so!!!
I saw this elsewhere:
Did you hear about the teacher who was helping one of her students put on his carbon boots? He asked for help and she could see why. Even with her pulling and him pushing, the boots still didn’t want to go on. By the time they got the second boot on, she had worked up a sweat.
She almost cried when the student said, “Teacher, they’re on the wrong feet.” She looked, and sure enough, they were. It wasn’t any easier pulling the boots off than it was putting them on. She managed to keep her cool as, together, they worked to get the carbon boots back on, this time on the right feet. He then announced, “These aren’t my boots.”
She bit her tongue, rather than get right in his face and scream, “Why didn’t you say so?”, like she wanted to. Once again she struggled to help him pull the ill-fitting boots off his l feet. No sooner had they gotten the boots off when he said, “They’re my brother Al’s carbon boots. My eco-parents made me wear ’em to reduce my footprint.”
Now she didn’t know if she should laugh or cry. But she mustered up what grace and courage she had left to wrestle the boots on his feet again.
Helping him into his coat, she asked, “Now, where are your gloves?” He said, “I stuffed ’em in the toes of my boots.”
————–
She will be eligible for parole in three years.
After googling the reference in the above article for the “Australian concerns” found these paragraphs on page 20 of the following link (131 is most relevant): https://www.comnap.aq/publications/atcm/2005_cep_report
“(129) Australia introduced ATCM XXVIII/WP28 Measures to address the unintentional introduction and spread of nonnative biota and disease to the Antarctic Treaty Area, recalling that the intent of Article 4 of the Protocol is that unintentional introductions of nonnative species to the Antarctic Treaty Area will be minimised.
(130) This issue had been raised in several papers previously submitted to the CEP, and is one of global concern, as also raised in ATCM XXVIII/IP063 Introduction of Nonnative Species, Parasites and Diseases (IUCN) and ATCM XXVIII/IP097 Update on Boot and Clothing Decontamination Guidelines and the Introduction and Detection of Diseases in Antarctic Wildlife: IAATO’s perspective (IAATO).
(131) Australia highlighted the difficulty and cost of eradicating introduced species and noted that no formal assessment has been undertaken of the risks in the Antarctic context. Increasing visitation to Antarctica, combined with a more benign climate due to global warming, is likely to increase the opportunity for nonnative species to arrive and become established. Australia also emphasised similar concerns regarding transfer of species between Antarctic sites.”
So that seems to be where the link to climate change comes in. So general link is there; but it’s sloppy referencing and it seems like they’re playing Chinese whispers again. Climate change and increased activity have necessitated the protocols, but increase activity has made it a much more sensible thing to do.
From Page 3:
3.1 As far as possible, avoid walking in concentrations of organic material such as guano, seal placenta, seal faeces, in order to avoid moving this material around the landing site
The IPCC should have read that a bit more carefully. They are rolling in seal faeces.
Wait!!!1!one Does this mean if I clean my boots (I wear DMs to work) regularly I can prevent climate change???
Phew… for a minute there I thought we were all headed to Hell in a handcart…
BTW in un-boot-related news, the opposition leader in Australia announces his climate strategy of direct action:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/6750945/abbott-unveils-rival-climate-policy/
I love Calvin and Hobbes;>
This is all getting too silly. If we make it to AR5 I’ll be submitting ‘The effects of climate change on binge drinking and alcoholism on middle aged men”
I should have plenty of material for a paper by then.
Hans Moleman
Your argument is not persuasive. AR4 references the IAATO document in this case; it does not reference the “Diseases of Antarctic Wildlife” document. If they meant that document to be the reference, they should have listed it, they didn’t.
Even if one does follow the trail to the “Diseases” document, it is hardly a solid reference. In this 114 page document, “climate change” is mentioned only three times. In all cases, it is clear it is speculation, not an assertion.
Page 13 – Note the use of the word “may”
“Stress may be the result of direct human disturbance, food shortage (perhaps caused by fisheries competing for the same food stocks), exposure to pollutants and possibly, in the longer term, as a result of climate change.”
Page 33 – the word “may” used twice
“These may include large-scale processes such as global climate change that may threaten entire ecosystems or local phenomena such as sewage effluent and contaminants associated with waste disposal.”
Page 46 – “May” yet again
“Indigenous organisms may become pathogenic when animals are subjected to additional environmental stress such as food shortage and human disturbances and perhaps, in the longer time, as a result of climate change.
This is the problem with AR4; it is filled with idle speculation from unqualified sources. The shock is that it took over 2 years for someone to actually check things out. Now that the word is out, a feeding frenzy is taking place in the UK and Indian media. There is much more to come.
I suppose the IPCC will sell it’s brand of shoe goo cleaner, and TERI will have the product ready to roll.
Never mind the rest of your clothing.
Big Al will have you covered.
Following up on my previous comment to Hans Moleman, the paragraph posted in Han’s comment from page 13 of “Diseases of Antarctic Wildlife” contains the word “could” four times in addition to the word “may”. Not once are any of the contentions stated as anything other than WAGs.
OT:
George Monbiot’s Climate Denier cards:
“Monbiot’s royal flush: Cut out and keep climate change denier cards ”
Stocking fillers for all Guardian readers’ kids next Christmas?
Too creepy for words.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/mar/09/climate-change-deniers-monbiot-cards?picture=344343782
Ironic that the ad placed on this page is advertising Antarctic travel:
http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/travel/index.shtml?gclid=CLOGuono0p8CFQYwpAod3UowbQ
Hey “don’t be evil” Google… didn’t ya read the article? Your ads are killing the planet.
And of course, as usual, no one states the obvious. It’s cold there. Real cold. If it never gets above freezing, 99% of the bacteria, virus’ ect, can’t, don’t and won’t thrive there. It freezes! Yes, I’m aware of a few that do survive, but the odds of people moving a contagion to the region are minimal. (My appeal to authority) I was a U.S. Army medic in Alaska. I can attest that very little thrives in the arctic region except the organisms that seems to have a purpose there. Seeing that it is much colder in most of the Antarctic, I would suspect that the same is true there, also. No peered reviewed studies to offer, just experience. Of course, if it all thaws, all bets are off!!