Now we all know that if there’s one thing us Brits like to talk about it’s the weather! So just what is going on this year? We’ve seen parts of the UK in drought and other parts in flood.
But what does it all mean for our wildlife? We asked reserve staff up and down the UK what it meant for the wildlife on their reserves. This is what they said:
Total washout
The Ouse Washes in Cambridgeshire should now be a patchwork of grassland and pools.
But Jon Reeves, Site Manager, says that currently it’s looking like ‘a giant inland sea’. Now this is great for the passing terns, but not so good for the breeding waders and ducks. All 600 pairs of breeding waders, and 800 pairs of ducks, have been washed out. Many of the waders are currently looking to relocate, but things are looking tough.
It’s a similar story from just down the road at the Nene Washes. Charlie Kitchin remarks: ‘The year-long drought that so badly affected the 2011 breeding season and meant last winter was dry with few wildfowl came to a dramatic end in April. A flood has all but wiped out the nesting season. Hopefully the birds will have time to nest again if the flood water recedes quickly.’
Wet underfoot
In north-west Wales, nestled next to the River Conwy lies the Conwy reserve itself. ‘We’ve missed the worst of the weather and, although it’s a bit wet underfoot, nothing that’s really affecting wildlife except that we’ve barely seen any butterflies’ Site Manager Julian Hughes comments. He’s also happy that the recent rain will make it easier for thrushes etc to find food, as the soil isn’t as rock hard as it’s been in recent springs.
Wrong kind of rain!
‘It’s the wrong kind of rain!’ says Julian Nash, Site Manager of our North Kent reserves. Although, like the other Julian in Wales, he’s pleased that it’s alleviated the recent drought conditions: ‘The rainfall has really helped maintain conditions for breeding waders at a key time.’ So why’s it the wrong type? ‘Persistent heavy rain can kill off young wader chicks, particularly lapwings, as they can’t keep warm enough. However, so far, we’re not seeing this, so fingers crossed’.
Good for the ducks
A big wetland restoration project was completed last year on our Loch Leven nature reserve, with the aim of improving the site for breeding waders.
Reserve Warden Vicky Turnbull tells us how the weather is affecting their first breeding season with the improved wetland: ‘Our early spring lasted for two whole weeks, and I was very worried the reserve would dry out half way through the breeding season. But then the rain came and it hasn't stopped much since – our wetland's looking great, just how we want it. We did lose one lapwing nest to flooding, but other than that the rain's really helped. We want lots of mud for the waders and their chicks, and the ducks like it too.’
Let us know
Despite all this rain it’s worth remembering that parts of south and East of England are still classified as in a drought. So it’s really important to keep conserving water.
How’s the weather affecting the wildlife in your garden or local reserve? Has the drought dried you out, or the rain turned your garden into a bog? Leave a comment and let us know.
For more on our science, check out the RSPB Centre for Conservation Science web pages.
Hi John,
And anyone else who is interested in Climate Change.
Sceptical?
Yes, very wise to be sceptical. In fact this is an important moral principal in Science. Whatever theory about nature is proffered it is necessary to be sceptical and look to evidence – commonly know as part of the scientific method. Politically, however, sceptical is often proffered as denial of a subject.
Accuracy? 2 weeks hence?
The General Weather Forecasts that I observe have no figures of accuracy. The current Met Office forecast (web), for my area shows on one line: Time: 1300. An icon meaning heavy rain, Temp: 14 deg. Wind: SE, 15mph, Gust 33mph. Visability: Good. No accuracy given, but meaningful. Looking out of the window and also at weather station data about two miles away this all looks good. The latter shows Temp=14.2 deg C.
If I dig a bit deeper I find:
www.metoffice.gov.uk/.../forecasts
Quote: “The early morning forecast on our website is used to produce a percentage number of the times when the forecast is accurate to within +/- 2degC.” “Observed at an agreed list of 45 sites across the UK”. This shows that accuracy is embedded within a confidence level. Such will be the case for the various Physical Quantities.
The weather cannot be predicted by deterministic theory alone. Weather patterns emerge and continually change and we have to resort to empirical theory, just like we deal with fluid flows in general. Weather data is collected and the weather pattern for that time is modelled. A model can be run, now by supercomputer, to determine how such will change and thereby obtain a forecast.
The further into the future we run the models the less the confidence in the result. We consequently read in the current Met Office 3-Month Outlook: “For the summer as a whole (JuneJulyAugust), the forecasts indicate a wide range of possible outcomes for UK average rainfall, with chances of both very wet and very dry conditions near or above climatological levels.” Also: “the jet stream over the North Atlantic may end up a little further south than its climatological position.”
See: www.metoffice.gov.uk/.../A3-plots-precip-JJA.pdf .
There is a good read here dealing with uncertainties, caveats, and puzzling consequences – because that is the competent nature of weather.
In your post you appear to suppose: The spread of Weather Forecast errors for two weeks ahead, extrapolate much the same spread of errors for two weeks ahead for Climatic Change Forecast. If such is the case then Climate Change forecast would be intractable.
However, Climate is roughly the average of weather over a geographical area over a long period of time. 30 years is a common standard. We are dealing with different time scales. The mathematical models that we deal with are primarily based on Dynamical Instability Theory also known as Chaos Theory. A prominent feature of this is “scale invariance” (it looks the same at all magnifications), which for our present discussion means that weather spread of errors for two weeks will be comparable to perhaps decades for the climatic case. (Such will depend on specific model parameters.)
For an historical introduction of Chaos theory, the following is recommended, it is not only good for Climatic Change but Ecology and many other good read subjects:
www.imho.com/.../chaos.html
www.tutorgig.info/.../Scale_invariance
Climate models are always open to uncertainties, although not as intractable as your comments suggest.
See: www.metoffice.gov.uk/.../projections
.and subsequent links.
Earlier in my posts I drew attention to what we can be most certain about and to human involvement in such. How we can change our endeavours and mitigate an ever warming climate that is a huge challenge with considerable uncertainties. We need to work on this.
I consider that I am connected with nature. History has shown us how adaptable wildlife is to all sorts of change but it cannot cope with mass destruction of habitat.
With regards weather the point raised about some scientists in the 1970's predicting an Ice Age was to highlight the fact that their forecasts are not always accurate. I still maintain that the records we have are insufficient to make accurate predictions and until meteorologists can forecast accurately 2 weeks hence I will remain sceptical.
Looking at your comments (20th May) John, I must pont to my previous comment:
“The most balanced view to pursue is to know what we are most certain about based on sound evidence and on what is more variable and more difficult to determine. Progress systematically from the known to the unknown”
Also: “Now, should we not be very cautious about taking one or a few instances of weather in the UK pertaining to high or low temperatures and make them say something definitive about World Climate Change? We really need to see such in the whole picture.”
Then: “Thermodynamics predict that with higher temperatures there will be more energy in the system and extremes of weather will be more frequent, although not everywhere”.
Your “recall that in the 1970's many scientists were forecasting a new Ice Age” is an interesting point. Why were some suggesting this? It was because the geological record showed a complex cycling between periods where the permanent ice moved to lower latitudes and then retreated. These are shown to correlate with cyclic changes in the the earths graviational orbit around the sun. Based on this evidence the earth was heading for an ice age if the pattern continues.
But other evidence emerges of a confounding factor – increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human efforts trending to warming. We could perhaps congratulate ourselves that we are averting an ice age; although continuing our efforts in the same way will brings considerable problems of a too warm a climate where thermodynamics predict that with higher temperatures there will be more energy in the system and extremes of weather will be more frequent, although not everywhere.
It was interesting to read in one of your posts: “The biggest threat birds and wildlife in general both in the UK and worldwide is destruction of habitat, this is happening because there are too many of us.” This is very evident and the “too many of us” are driving climate change that is a significant determinate factor on life’s habitats.
I think John, that you need to connect more with nature; particularly in this case with the principles of Physcs and Chemestry.
Those of who are old enough may recall that in the 1970's many scientists were forecasting a new Ice Age. We were also told that oil reserves would run out within 25 years. Well here we are 40 years on now the fear is global warming, meanwhile the number of roads and automobiles have increased dramatically. I am therefore unwilling to accept scientist's predictions based on short term data; 150 years in terms of climate records is a very short time, moreover weather events deemed extreme by the media have usually been experienced on several occasions in the past 100 years.
The matters are high on the political agenda only to justify imposition of taxes. If governments were actually concerned about environmental issues the starting point would be provision of an efficient & affordable public transport system.
From Sherbs and the other John’s comments we are moving into climate change denial based on what is regarded as government and media hype. With RSPB thrown in. “There is no balanced view” was a complaint.
The most balanced view to pursue is to know what we are most certain about based on sound evidence and on what is more variable and more difficult to determine. Progress systematically from known to unknown.
So, the certain ones:
1. Climate can warm or cool due to an increase or decrease in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The greenhouse gas effect is a thermodynamic effect that is rigidly proved by measured experiment. It is termed greenhouse, since the same thermodynamic process takes place in a greenhouse, making the space inside warmer that what it would be without the effect. If there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the earth would be a very cold place indeed
2. Taking the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide there has been an increasing measured concentration from 315 ppm (parts per million) in 1958 to 386 ppm at present, in the atmosphere.
3. Life on earth has largely determined the substance composition of the atmosphere including carbon dioxide. The measured variation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows a cyclic pattern of about 8 ppm which is linked to the seasons where life absorbs or produces the gas.
4. We humans are part of that living nature and through our powered technology we are producing greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide above that which can be absorbed back from the atmosphere. The slow increase in such atmospheric gas is largely if not wholly due to us.
From such certainties we come to how, in detail, will our Climate Change work out.
Such matters are much more complex and a look at the work of those tackling these matters will see plenty of uncertainty estimates.
One recommendation arising is that we should aim to keep average world temperature rise to not greater than 2 deg C or we will be really heading for extremes in climate.
Thermodynamics predict that with higher temperatures there will be more energy in the system and extremes of weather will be more frequent, although not everywhere.
Now, should we not be very cautious about taking one or a few instances of weather in the UK pertaining to high or low temperatures and make them say something definitive about World Climate Change? We really need to see such in the whole picture.
All this is rather brief, and I would recommend the following met office take on this matter at: www.metoffice.gov.uk/.../what-is-it
And the RSPB:
www.rspb.org.uk/.../climatechange20questions_tcm9-170121.pdf
Searches on the web could reveal more
But let’s put this in a bigger picture:
Recent technology has led to tremendous broad-based improvements in human well-being where such has been developed and shows increasing promise towards impoverished areas of mankind. With this is the belated recognition that we are experiencing increasing living environmental distress from short-sighted ways we have applied our technology, increased our population to 7 billon and changed general ecology. We have already reached a point of un-sustainability, in the sense that if we continue using resources the way we use them now at the scale we use them now, we will and already are coming up against harsh boundaries that will do great damage to the earth, to human well-being, and to vast numbers of other living species.
Our science and technology needs wise deployment in redirecting our economies and consequent living environmental impacts for the benefit of all life without ruinous consequences.
These matters are high on the political agenda, both in the UK and across the world.
But redeployment is protracted, difficult and the subject of much debate and opposition. The more of us who will understand, constructively support and challenge on these matters the better our chances of success.