This is a video I took today of two Short-Eared Owls and a Barn Owl quartering Papercourt Meadows (near Send) in Surrey. The quality is rather grainy I'm afraid, as the footage was taken at sunset and the sky was cloudy.

Click HERE  to view the video.

The majority of people understand the need for a stable economy and what measures are needed to attain it. Similarly, academics and students understand that they should not be immune from the consequences of the economic crisis. It is not however, in anyone's interest to limit education to answerability to social and economic impact. There are obvious difficulties in quantifying what that amounts to but the idea that one should pursue this form of simplification of education is dangerous. Relinquishing the teaching of some of the great literary, historical and philosophical texts of the past (as Raimond Gaita put it) - because their teaching is not thought of as something that will have social and economic impact - is already resulting in many graduates entering the adult world unaware of the foundations of their innermost desires and obligations. What is more worrying is the thought, by implication, that the understanding of these things doesn't matter beyond its ability to have social and economic impact.

Yes, there are some university courses that should be scrapped. However, there are also those that are valuable to the individual, irrespective of social and economic impact, insofar as they nurture an ability to think critically and sensitively. What such individuals "give back" to society may take many forms (not necessarily economic or technological) and may also take a number of years to achieve. Sometimes what they can be said to have "given back" may resist quantification. This has been particularly true of many respected cultural figures.

The phrase "giving back to society" is pejorative, but it is one that has been used with increasing frequency in the debate about justifying funding in higher education. It suggests that society has put itself out to provide education, and that those who receive it are morally (and/or financially) in debt to it. Yet those in education do not exist outside society; they are a part of it. Students who have benefitted from higher education funding have not acted as parasites on society; their interests simply run counter to the interests or opinions of others. That is how society functions and what defines it as such. Those who claim that students are required to give something back are merely expressing ways of promoting their own sectional interests by dressing them up as more legitimate; by saying that their interests are those of society rather than those they are opposed to (such as having to pay for higher education in taxes).

It is surely in our best interests to nurture the education of every individual, irrespective of his or her predicted subsequent social and economic impact. An educated society (as opposed to one just geared towards particular ends) will understand itself better, as well as being able to rise more effectively to the demands of external pressures. If our education system continues to be subject to the short-sighted opinions of politicians then we run the risk of being reduced to trading purely on the intellectual capital of our past, and that will eventually have an adverse social and economic effect.

We are now into the last few weeks in which Swifts can be seen. By the end of this month most pairs will have fledged young and be heading back to their wintering grounds in the southern half of Africa. Exploiters of old cavity-saturated building s, these birds - save for feeding their young during the breeding season – are almost exclusively aerial. They eat, sleep, drink and even mate on the wing. Swifts have no legs, just claw-like feet with which they can cling to the sides of buildings and scramble in and out of cavities in which they have nested to feed their young. If grounded, it is very unlikely that they can become airborne again without assistance. They are the ultimate creatures of the air. – For the time being, the remaining birds can be seen screaming down alleyways near their nest sites, particularly during the morning. My nearest colony utilises some of the older buildings adjacent to Jenner Road in Guildford; they also nest in Guildford Castle. Make the most of Swifts in the coming days; they will not return until May 2012.  

On 16^th July, I made a short visit to Boldermere – a lake on Wisley Common in Surrey adjacent to the A3 just south of junction 10 of the M25 – to establish whether or not there were, once again, breeding Common Terns. A few years ago, a couple of pairs established themselves on an artificial raft that had been floated on the lake for that purpose. Sadly, a couple of years later, vandals either waded (the lake is not deep) or boated out to the raft and destroyed it. The raft was replaced with two smaller rafts in time for this year’s breeding season. Happily, my visit (which was long over-due) was rewarded. I observed three birds – two adults (a pair) and one recently fledged juvenile (pictured top left); I doubt it will be long before these elegant terns depart for their West African wintering grounds. Much praise to Surrey Wildlife Trust for persisting with the tern raft policy. 

Other than that, my visit was a quiet one, though there were over 75 Coots (plus a surprisingly small number of fledged birds given the number of adults). A few adult Tufted Duck (left) were also present, as were a family of Mute Swans comprising the parents and seven cygnets, and two Great Crested Grebes.

A few caterpillars of the diurnal Cinnabar moth were feeding on the small number of Ragwort plants growing by the path (pictured left). – Ragwort is a plant that creates controversy. It is the food plant of the Cinnabar moth caterpillar but is also poisonous to cattle.  Anywhere cattle grazing takes place, attempts to eradicate Ragwort are made. Of course, grazing is sometimes an essential component of conservation projects – for example, to certain kinds of heathland restoration; in such cases, conservationists are forced to eradicate the food plant of this beautiful moth. Fortunately, neither Ragwort nor the Cinnabar moth is a threatened species.

It is worth noting here that, if you are engaged in the practice of pulling-up Ragwort, you should always wear gloves. Ragwort is poisonous and can cause severe skin complaints. There have also been cases of hospitalization as a result of liver failure, so be careful and always wear gloves!

Consecutive visits to Bookham Common (in Surrey) on 4th and 5th of July proved wonderfully productive for woodland butterflies; the ancient oak woodland, with its diverse ground layer of plants, provides excellent habitat for the full life-cycle of many such butterflies. Parking at 100 Pound Bridge Car park, the first butterfly I encountered (as I got out of the car) was the magnificent Silver-Washed Fritillary - these are relatively abundant in any glade on the common and I never tire of watching them. Another great spectacle was the flit-flit-glide flight of the White Admiral; though slightly less numerous, this butterfly is almost exclusively confined to Oak woodlands of Southern England.

My main motivation for visiting the common was to catch a glimpse of the rare and wonderful Purple Emperor butterfly. It is Britian's second largest butterfly (the largest being the Swallowtail) and, for me, is the ultimate woodland butterfly - ferociously territorial, males battle with each other in the Oak canopy. Sometimes, they even chase birds. Generally speaking, the best time to see Purple Emperors is on warm sunny mornings in early July (the 10th is often considered to be the best date) when males drop down from the tree-tops to extract minerals from horse and dog faeces and to drink from puddles. Female emperors seldom leave the canopy. This year however, most things have been on the early side - many seabird colonies, for instance, have been deserted three weeks earlier than usual - and the cycle of woodland butterflies has not been an execption. The first male was sighted at Bookham on 13th June (almost unheard of) and by the time I visited (I had wondered if it was still a bit early in July), many of the males had been flying for at least two weeks; their flight period is normally July to early August.

Other butterflies in flight included Purple Hairstreak (see photos), Ringlet, Meadow Brown, Green-Veined White, Small White, Holly Blue and Red Admiral.

Ornithologically, this time of year is quiet. However, it was pleasing to see a Marsh Tit in amongst the other small woodland birds. The animated "chak-chak" call of the Greater-Spotted Woodpecker was omnipresent and I observed Treecreeper. Two Blackcaps were also present near the car park delivering their wonderful "Nightingale understudy" songs. 

Top Row (left to right): Ringlets, Meadow Brown, Purple Emporer (honest!)

Bottom Row (left to right): Comma, Silver-Washed Fritillary, Purple Hairstreak (male).

The majority of people understand the need for a stable economy and what measures are needed to attain it. Similarly, academics and students understand that they should not be immune from the consequences of the economic crisis. It is not however, in anyone's interest to limit education to answerability to social and economic impact. There are obvious difficulties in quantifying what that amounts to but the idea that one should pursue this form of simplification of education is dangerous. Relinquishing the teaching of some of the great literary, historical and philosophical texts of the past - because their teaching is not thought of as something that will have social and economic impact - is already resulting in many graduates entering the adult world unaware of the foundations of their innermost desires and obligations. What is more worrying is the thought, by implication, that the understanding of these things doesn't matter beyond its ability to have social and economic impact.

07/04/2010: Support for Expression in The Arts: Click HERE 

There are several dimensions to the recent public discussions and arguments concerning climate change that raise interesting questions.  Among the most obvious of these dimensions, has been the polarization of the debate into climate change scepticism - the idea that climate change is not happening - and the idea that climate change is entirely the product of human activity. On both sides, there has been a good deal of rhetoric designed to support the positions advocated - much of it at the expense of informed and reasoned argument, and much of it dressed up to look like evidence. 

It is not a reasonable thing to say that the climate is not changing; climate change is a reality. Similarly, is it not reasonable to say that the amount of carbon dioxide and methane and in the atmosphere has little or any effect on surface meteorology. Nonetheless, it is mistaken to believe that climate change is entirely the product of human activity. In the following paragraphs I shall try to articulate why that is, and also ask some questions that, up till now, seem not to have been raised in the public arena.

Water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane are all greenhouse gases. Of these gases, methane is by far the most effective - about 25 times more so than carbon dioxide (CO2). The greenhouse effect is, essentially, the process in which heat (infra-red radiation) from the sun is absorbed and then retained by the atmosphere. However, in the earth's case, a good deal of this heat is also lost back into space. There is a delicate balance that needs to be maintained in this respect: if there was no greenhouse effect, the earth would become extremely cold and life of any kind would struggle to survive. If the greenhouse effect was much more efficient, our atmosphere would end up similar to that of the planet Venus; it would be almost permanently covered in cloud, there would little, if any, diurnal temperature variation and the surface temperature might exceed 400°C. Since the time of the industrial revolution (c.1750), human activity has been responsible for an increased concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere and, to a lesser extent, other gases like methane. In the developed world this has, in recent times, been curtailed somewhat; but any reduction here is compensated for by the activities of developing countries - especially China. Thus, if the efficiency of the greenhouse effect is influenced by the composition of our atmosphere it follows that human activity - through emissions - must affect it. Beyond emissions, human influence also extends to the eradication of features that absorb carbon dioxide, such as the destruction of the rainforests; overall however, it is plankton in the oceans which absorbs the most CO2. If the ecological makeup of the oceans changes in a way that lowers its capacity to absorb CO2 then this will, with emissions (manmade or otherwise) remaining as they are, increase the amount of Carbon Dioxide that is free in the earth's atmosphere, since the absorption rate will be slower.

What seems to have been forgotten - certainly within the media and politics - is that the earth's climate has continually changed throughout its history, sometimes with alarming rapidity. The factors that influence global climate are complex and are not solely related to atmospheric composition. The path that the earth describes around the sun - its orbit - varies from near circular to much more elliptical and back again over a period of about 95,000 years. Currently the earth is closest to the sun during the summer of the southern hemisphere and furthest away during its winter. Thus (at present) the climate is, generally speaking, a little more extreme in the southern hemisphere than it is in the northern, since the summer of the northern hemisphere is cooled slightly due to its greater distance from the sun and its winter is warmed slightly due to its greater proximity to the sun. As the earth gradually oscillates between these two situations, energy transference patterns within the atmosphere change accordingly and affect surface meteorology. In addition, the axial inclination of the earth - its tilt if you like - also varies over a cycle of about 40,000 years between about 22° and 24.5°. This means that the amount of solar radiation received by polar latitudes varies and that will have a profound effect on the ice-caps. Fluctuations in solar activity can also influence climate, as can volcanic eruptions that emit large quantities of greenhouse gases and dust into the atmosphere. A single large eruption could easily compensate for months of substantial cuts in human related emissions. In addition, eruptions which emit large quantities ash and dust can temporarily cool the climate by not allowing as much solar radiation through as usual.

Short term colder spells - over periods of about 500 years or so - often coincide with what is termed the Maunder minimum. This is a cycle within a cycle: a short term cycle - the solar cycle - takes place over a period of about 11 years and represents changes in solar activity (often betrayed by the apparition of sunspots) and, as such, the amount of electrically charged particles streaming into the earth's upper air. Usually these changes are quite marked but every few hundred years they appear to be repressed and the sun undergoes much longer, less energetic, periods with relatively little sunspot activity. It is not fully understood how the solar cycle affects our climate but in most cases, the Maunder minimum has coincided with much cooler global conditions. And it would seem sensible to look to the sun for understanding climate, since it is the sun that drives energy transference patterns in the earth's atmosphere. The last cooler spell was that which occurred between 500 and 150 years ago - a period known as the little ice-age. It is also worth noting that, during the latter part of this period, human activity was increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Small changes in climate caused by any one of these things can alter the life-cycles of plants and animals that absorb greenhouse gases and increase or decrease absorption rates, affecting climate later on. The amount of solar radiation and the reflectivity of the surface of the earth can also have a profound effect. Ice and snow covered surfaces reflect up to 80% of solar radiation whilst desert and vegetation may reflect only 20% to 30%. This determines how much radiation then gets absorbed by the atmosphere - the less the earth reflects, the more it absorbs. Without other factors, the more we absorb the warmer it would continue to become, since the polar ice caps would melt and the percentage of radiation reflected would drop. However, during the carboniferous period (363 to 290 million years ago) the earth was much warmer than it is now; there was a great deal of vegetation and very little, if anything, in the way of polar ice caps. This suggests that factors such as reflectivity are far from decisive in their capacity to alter climate because after the carboniferous the earth cooled again. Similarly, during the carboniferous there was far more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now - enough, indeed, to make the air poisonous to humans. This exposes a common myth that, somehow, humanity is creating abnormal levels of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. In fact, we cannot create it but can only release it. The carbon was there already - as part of the earth's makeup - in the form of fossil fuels; prior to that, of course, it was in other forms. What we are doing - all we are doing - is transferring it from one part of the earth to another either through the direct use of fossil fuels or through materials derived from them such as plastics.  There have been far higher and far lower levels of CO2 in the atmosphere throughout the earth's history than there are at present. One could, therefore, look at the increased emissions that are a result of human activity and our subsequent attempts to cut them as just further stages in the earth's evolution. Such a philosophical perspective is not of much help in terms of responding to the effects of climate change; it is however a perspective that throws a more sober light on thoughts about the earth's climatic history.

In more recent times, but before human activity impinged much on the composition of the atmosphere, there is evidence of substantial and rapid climate change. 13,000 years ago there was an astonishingly rapid increase in global temperature of between 6°C and 10°C in the space of only 100 years. Yet, only 2000 years later, the temperature suddenly dropped and the ice re-advanced only to retreat again after a few hundred years; by 10,000 years ago the last of the ice retreated from Britain. Global sea temperatures are still substantially below the average over geological time but they are rising (and have been since the end of the last ice age) and polar ice is, with some exceptions (parts of eastern Antarctica), still retreating. What is interesting however, is that shortly after the rapid global warming of 13,000 years ago, summer temperatures, in what is now southern England, were higher than those of today. These figures have largely been obtained through analysis of sediments and pollen samples found on beetles that lived at the time. Indeed, there has been significant climatic variation right up to the present day. During the Iron Age the climate cooled before warming again during Roman times and the Middle Ages. And, in Roman times vines were grown for wine-making in Northern England and Scotland - at the present time this is not possible though it may be in the foreseeable future. That warmer spell ended around 800 years ago and the climate again cooled and between 500 to 150 years ago in Britain, the so-called Little Ice Age occurred. These shorter term climate fluctuations could be described as peaks and troughs within a general trend of post glacial warming. Since then, the climate has gradually warmed and it appears that recently (in the last 30 years or so), the rate of warming has increased. Over the last 20 years there have been a greater number of water shortages during summer and fewer colder winters. Some claim that there has also been an increase in storm events. In the short term this might be true but, in fact, the 20th century was one of the quietest since official meteorological records began in 1659. The storm in October 1987 (misnamed hurricane) was the most severe of the 20th century but, anecdotally at least, there have been comparable storms in previous centuries. In 1287 a storm washed away a village on Romney Marsh (on the border of Kent and East Sussex) and has been compared in later histories to West Indian hurricanes - at least in terms of ferocity. A similar storm occurred in 1572. It is unlikely that the 1987 storm was on a par with either of these storms.

There are several things that need to be highlighted. The first, and most important, is that the climate has always changed, with and without human presence, sometimes at great speed. It therefore follows that, no matter which way one looks at it, humanity cannot be solely responsible for climate change as is often suggested. - If it were then, presumably, the climate would have remained static until human action resulted in the emission of substantial quantities of C02 at the start of the industrial revolution. Either that, or there needs to be a lucid, incontrovertible, scientific explanation for why, in the last 250 years, climate change has been caused entirely by the actions of humanity but, prior to that, triggered wholly by other factors. Why have non-human factors completely stopped acting since human ones have started? - That is a question that those who claim climate change is entirely the product of human action need to answer. The second thing that needs to be highlighted is that while atmospheric composition certainly plays an important role in climatic conditions, it is by no means a decisive factor. Other factors such as the eccentricity of the earth's orbit, its axial "wobble", how energetic the sun is over longer periods, ecological changes, as well as changes in the earth's reflectivity all impact on climate. These things are probably all interconnected and show that, while atmospheric composition is a component that affects climate, it is by no means the sole determinant of change. The globe has been warming since the last ice age but it has not been a constant temperature climb; there have been periods of cooler weather, such as those of the Iron Age and the "little ice age" and warmer, wetter, eras such as those of Roman times. Thus, as I've said, the warming has not been steady - there have been short term peaks and troughs within a general trend of warming. Most of these peaks and troughs occurred before substantial human interference. The argument that, in the past, climate change was caused by other factors, but in our own age is caused purely by humanity needs clear scientific justification. It is inevitable that increased levels of C02 will result in the atmosphere becoming more efficient at retaining heat. Nevertheless, even if human carbon emissions were cut by 100% this would not stop climate change. - Neither can we say with any certainty by how much the climate would alter as a result. The fact that the global warming rate has increased more rapidly in recent years has some human influence behind it but it might also be the case that the increase is a part of another short term fluctuation such as those that occurred in Roman and Dickensian times. Until one can decisively separate out (proportionally as a percentage) human influenced warming from warming caused by other factors, it will not be possible to say, with any certainty, by how much we are influencing the climate and by how much carbon emissions cuts will impact upon it.

Of course, there are countless complex political reasons why governments are keen to emphasise mankind's responsibility. The media too, are not guiltless in this respect - always on the lookout for a sensational story after a particular weather event such as a storm or flood; and the blame game gives scope for sanctimony which often seems to find an outlet in environmental agitators.

Arguments surrounding climate change often seem to conflate the wrong things; for example climate change is often considered a fundamentally political issue. Clearly, depending on what changes take place, fundamental political issues may arise but they are, in terms of climate change itself, second order issues; second order because climate change itself is not political. It would be a first order issue if, somehow, politics was directly related to changing in climate in the same way that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is related to it. Yet one continues to encounter criticism of the various opinions and arguments expressed concerning whether or not humanity is responsible for climate change as right or left wing. Climate change sceptics - those who do not believe in any significant man made influence - are popularly considered right wing; those who believe humanity to be killing the planet and solely responsible for it are often taken as liberal lefties. How is the belief that climate change is not answerable to humanity right wing? Similarly, how is the belief that we are killing the planet left wing? Of course, the political options discussed and implemented in response to climate change can legitimately be labelled right or left wing just as they can be in response to the recent economic conditions, for instance.  But it is, I think, wrong - and misleading - to lend arguments about climate change itself such political dimensions. Discussions that centre on climate change and its global consequences, should be wholly informed by science, though that should not preclude continued dispassionate assessment of the scientific methods through which predictions are made and solutions found. In both cases, a conscious effort should be made to keep discussion free from the kind of hysteria and sanctimony that has revealed itself in the recent protests in Copenhagen and in the mouths of certain journalists and headline grabbing politicians. In the end, although it brings the issue of climate change to the public consciousness, much environmental agitation of this kind detracts from a perspicuous and informed view of the many dreadful and deplorable things we do to the environment. Consequently, it becomes increasingly difficult to address the situation properly and develop informed, coherent and sagacious policies in response.

 Part of the reason that much of the public declines to take climate change seriously is because there are still several high profile contradictions in government policy - the highest of these being the two new runways scheduled to be built in the UK in the next few years in order to accommodate the increasing number of flights to and from the UK. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no corresponding drop in air traffic elsewhere on the globe to compensate for this. Other contradictions include nothing being said about high emission sports such as formula 1 which, apart from the races themselves, involve race testing and the continued development of cars by each team throughout the year. -And the amount of power used each Christmas on lights and other forms of entertainment seldom, if ever, provokes comment. Surely these things, non-essential as they are, should be the first practices to be reassessed in the light of concerns about emissions? - That would, perhaps, provide a little more time to develop emission-cutting solutions to those things that are more essential to our everyday lives, and inspire a greater degree of public support.