Royal Meteorology Conferences

From 3rd-6th July 2018 the Royal Meteorological Society (RMetS) held two national conferences at the University of York. The Atmospheric Science Conference, joint with NCAS, started off the week and brought together scientists to present and discuss the latest research findings in weather, climate and atmospheric chemistry. The following two days brought the RMetS Student Conference. Both events were well attended by PhD students from Reading and provided a great opportunity to share our work with the wider scientific community.

For a summary of the work presented by Reading students, stick around until the end of the blog!

Atmospheric Science Conference 2018

Weather, Climate and Air Quality

Many of the presentations focused on seasonal forecasting with Adam Scaife (Met Office) giving a keynote address on “Skilful Long Range Forecasts for Europe”. He presented an interesting analysis on the current progress of predicting the North Atlantic Oscillation showing that there is skill in current predictions which could be improved even further by increasing ensemble size. Adam was also awarded the prestigious Copernicus Medal at the conference dinner. Another notable talk was by Reading’s own Ed Hawkins, who presented the benefits of using citizen scientists to rescue weather records. A summary of Ed’s presentation can be accessed below, and you can read more about research involving Citizen Science in Shannon Jones’ blog.

The poster sessions at the conference also gave a great opportunity to look at the breadth of work going on in institutions around the UK. It was also a great time to catch up with colleagues and forge new academic connections.

One of the highlights of the conference was having the conference dinner in the National Railway Museum. This was a fantastic yet surreal location with dining tables set up in the station hall overlooking a suite of old steam trains . The event was made even better by watching England‘s quarter-final world cup game!


Evolution of Science: Past, Present and Future

Students & Early Career Scientist Conference

The student conference is open to all students with an interest in meteorology, from undergraduate to PhD and early career scientists. The conference aimed to give students the opportunity to meet each other and present their work at an early stage in their career before attending other academic conferences. For many of those attending from Reading this was their first time presenting research at an event outside of the department and provided a great experience to communicate their work with others. Work presented varied from radiative forcing to normal empirical modes (summaries of talks are below). There were also a number of keynote speakers and workshops aimed at addressing the current challenges in atmospheric sciences and skills that are important for researchers.

Rory Fitzpatrick, presenting on skills for writing as an academic. “I have the Best Words” – How to write articles that impact bigly”

Of course there was also time for socialising with an ice-breaker dinner and pub quiz  and a formal Conference dinner on the Thursday. This was the second student conference I have attended and it was a really great place to discuss my work and meet other students from around the country. I have also attended other academic events with several people that I met at the conference last year, it’s always great to see a friendly face!

The student conference is organised by a committee of students from around the UK. Being on the committee was a great opportunity to learn more about how conferences work and to practice skills such as chairing sessions. It has also been great to get to know lots of different people working within meteorology. If you’re interested in helping organise next year’s conference please do get in touch with Victoria Dickinson at RMetS ( or if you’re thinking about attending then you can start by joining the society where you’ll hear about all the other great events they host.

Highlights of the work presented by Reading students:

Godwin Ayesiga presented work on the convective activity that connects Western and Eastern equatorial Africa. Investigating how intraseasonal modes of variability influence intense rainfall.

Matt Priestley presented an assessment of the importance of windstorm clustering on European wintertime insurance losses. More details of this work can be found here.

Lewis Blunn presented his work looking into the ‘grey zone’ of turbulence at model grid scale lengths of 100 m – 1 km. At these scales turbulence is partially resolved by the grid but still needs to be partially parameterised. Lewis finds that spurious grid scale features emerge at scales where turbulence is partially resolved. Model results are poorer in this ‘grey zone’ than when turbulence is fully resolved or fully parameterised.

Alec Vessey presented his work evaluating the representation of Arctic storms in different reanalysis products. He found that there is a difference between different reanlysis and so care should be taken when using these products to analyse Arctic storms.

Dominic Jones presented a technique for extracting modes of variability from atmospheric data, and a test dataset that has been developed to use this technique to examine the relationship of modes of variability associated with the jet-latitude.

Rachael Byrom presented a motivation for quantifying methane’s shortwave radiative forcing. Her work demonstrated a need to use a high resolution narrow-band radiation model to accurately calculate forcings in atmospheric models.

Andrea Marcheggiani presented a poster on the role of resolution in predicting the North Atlantic storm track. An energy budget of the winter climatology (DJF 1979-2018) was presented.

Sally Woodhouse presented her work on the impact of resolution on energy transports into the Arctic. She has found that increasing atmospheric resolution increases the energy transport in the ocean to better agree with observations.

Kaja Milczewska presented work on evaluating the inaccuracies of predicting air quality in the UK.

Having recently passed her viva, Caroline Dunning’s presentation was on precipitation seasonality over Africa under present and future climates. Caroline has developed a new methodology for determining the beginning and end of the wet season across Africa. This has been applied to CMIP5 model output to look at future changes in wet seasons across Africa under climate change.

How the Earth ‘breathes’ on a daily timescale


As the Earth rotates, each location on its surface is periodically exposed to incoming sunlight. For example, over London at the beginning of September, the intensity of incoming sunlight ranges from zero overnight, when the sun is below the horizon, to almost 1000 W m–2 at noon, when the sun is highest in the sky (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Top-of-atmosphere incoming sunlight over London (51.5° N, 0° E) for the first three days in September 2010. Data is from the Met Office numerical weather prediction model.

Earth’s atmosphere and surface respond to this repeating daily cycle of incoming sunlight in ways that can change the amount of energy that is emitted or reflected back to space. For example, the increased amount of sunlight in the afternoon can heat up the surface and cause more thermal energy to be emitted to space. Meanwhile, the surface heating can also cause the air near the surface to warm up and rise to form clouds that will, in turn, reflect sunlight back to space. The resulting daily cycle of the top-of-atmosphere outgoing energy flows is therefore intricate and represents one of the most fundamental cycles of our weather and climate. It is essential that we can properly represent the physical processes controlling this daily variability to obtain accurate weather and climate forecasts. However, the daily variability in Earth’s outgoing energy flows is not currently well observed across the entire globe, and current weather and climate models can struggle to reproduce realistic daily variability, highlighting a lack of understanding.

To improve understanding, dominant patterns of the daily cycle in outgoing energy flows are extracted from Met Office model output using a mathematical technique known as “principal component analysis”.

The daily cycle of reflected sunlight is found to be dominated by the height of the sun in the sky, or the “solar zenith” angle, because the atmosphere and surface are more reflective when the sun is low in the sky. There is a lesser importance from low-level clouds over the ocean, known as “marine stratocumulus” clouds, which burn off during the afternoon, reducing the amount of reflected sunlight, and tall and thick clouds, known as “deep convective” clouds, which develop later in the afternoon over land and increase the amount of reflected sunlight. On the other hand, the daily cycle of emitted thermal energy is dominated by surface heating, which increases the emitted energy at noon, but also by deep convective clouds that have very high and cold tops, reducing the emitted energy later in the afternoon. These dominant processes controlling the daily cycle of Earth’s outgoing energy flows and their relative importance (summarised in Fig. 2) have not been revealed previously at the global scale.

Fig. 2. A schematic diagram showing the first (top) and second (bottom) most important processes controlling the daily cycle in emitted thermal energy (left) and reflected sunlight (right).

The physical processes discussed above are consistent with the daily cycle in other relevant model variables such as the surface temperature and cloud amount, further supporting the findings. Interestingly, a time lag is identified in the response of the emitted thermal energy to cloud variations, which is thought to be related to changes in the humidity of the upper atmosphere once the clouds evaporate.

The new results highlight an important gap in the current observing system, which can be utilized to evaluate and improve deficiencies in weather and climate models.

Gristey, J. J., Chiu, J. C., Gurney, R. J., Morcrette, C. J., Hill, P. G., Russell, J. E., and Brindley, H. E.: Insights into the diurnal cycle of global Earth outgoing radiation using a numerical weather prediction model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 5129-5145,, 2018.

Estimating the Effects of Vertical Wind Shear on Orographic Gravity Wave Drag

Orographic gravity waves occur when air flows over mountains in stably stratified conditions. The flow of air creates a pressure imbalance across the mountain, so a force is exerted on the mountain in the same direction as the flow. An equal and opposite force is exerted back on the atmosphere, and this is gravity wave drag (GWD).

GWD must be parametrized in Global Circulation Models (GCMs), as it is important for large-scale flow. The first parametrization was formulated by Palmer et al. (1986) to reduce a systematic westerly bias. The current parametrization was formulated by Lott and Miller (1997) and partitions the calculation into 2 parts (see figure 1):

  1. The mountain waves. This is calculated by averaging the wind, Brunt-Väisälä frequency and fluid density in a layer between 1 and 2 standard deviations of the subgrid-scale orography above the mean orography.
  2. The blocked flow. This is based on an interpretation of the non-dimensional mountain height.
Fig 1
Figure from Lott and Miller (1997).

The parametrization does not include the effects of wind shear. Wind shear is a change in the wind with height and it alters the vertical wave length of gravity waves and so alters the drag. It has been shown (Teixeira et al., 2004; Teixeira and Miranda, 2006) that a uniform shear profile (i.e. a change in the magnitude of the wind with height) decreases the drag whereas a profile in which the wind turns with height increases the drag. This effect was seen by Miranda et al. (2009) to have the greatest impact over Antarctica, where drag enhancement was seen to occur all year with a peak of ~50% during JJA. Figure 2 shows this.

Fig 2
Figure 2: Annual mean linear GWD stress (1992-2001). Vectors show the surface stress with shear. Shading indicates the anomaly of the modulus of the surface stress due to shear. Computed from ERA-40 data. Taken from Miranda et al. (2009).

The aim of this work is to test the impact of the inclusion of shear effects on the parametrization. The first stage of this is to test the sensitivity of the shear correction to the height in the atmosphere at which the necessary derivatives are approximated. We carry out calculations using 2 different reference heights:

  1. The top of the boundary layer (BLH). This allows us to avoid the effects of boundary layer turbulence, which are not important in this case as they are unrelated to the dynamics of mountain waves.
  2. The middle of the layer between 1 and 2 standard deviations of the sub-grid scale orography (SDH). This is the nominal height used in previous studies and in the parametrization.

All figures shown below focus on Antarctica and are averaged over all JJAs for the decade 2006-2015. We are interested in Antarctica and the JJA season for the reasons highlighted above. All calculations are carried out using ERA-Interim reanalysis data.

We first consider the enhancement assuming axisymmetric orography. The advantage of this is that it considerably simplifies the correction due to terms related to the anisotropy becoming constant (see Teixeira et al, 2004). Figure 3 shows this correction calculated using both reference heights. We can see that the enhancement is greater when the SDH is used.

Fig 3
Figure 3: Drag enhancement over Antarctica with shear corrections computed at the BLH (left) and SDH (right), during JJAs for the decade 2006-2015, using axisymmetric orography.

We now consider the enhancement using mountains with an elliptical horizontal cross-section. This is how the real orography is represented in the parametrization. Again, we see that the enhancement is greater when the SDH is used (figure 4).

Fig 4
Figure 4: Drag enhancement (left) and enhancement of drag stress (in Pa) (right) over Antarctica with shear corrections calculated at the BLH (top) and SDH (bottom), during JJAs for the decade 2006-2015, using orography with an elliptical horizontal cross-section.

It is interesting to note that at both heights the enhancement is greater when axisymmetric orography is used. This occurs because, in the case of elliptical mountains, the shear vector is predominantly aligned along the orography, resulting is weaker enhancement (see figure 5).

Fig 5
Figure 5: Histograms of the orientation of the shear vector relative to the short axis of the orography over Antarctica for JJAs during the decade 2006-2015, using the BLH (left) and SDH (right).

We also investigate the fraction of times at which the terms related to wind profile curvature (i.e. those containing second derivatives) dominate the drag correction. This tells us the fraction of time for which curvature matters for the drag. We see that second derivatives dominate over much of Antarctica for a high proportion of the time (see figure 6).

Fig 6
Figure 6: Fraction of the time at which terms with second derivatives dominate the drag correction relative to terms with first derivatives over orography with an elliptical horizontal cross-section, for JJAs during the decade 2006-2015, calculated using the BLH (left) and SDH (right).

In summary, the main findings are as follows:

  • The drag is quantitatively robust to changes in calculation height, with the geographical distribution, seasonality and sign essentially the same.
  • The drag is considerably enhanced when the SDH is used rather than the BLH.
  • Investigation of the relative magnitudes of terms containing first and second derivatives in the drag correction indicates that second derivatives (i.e. curvature terms) dominate in a large proportion of Antarctica for a large fraction of time. This leads to an average enhancement of the drag which is larger over shorter time intervals.
  • Use of an axisymmetric orography profile causes considerable overestimation of the shear effects. This is due to the shear vector being predominantly aligned along the mountains in the case of the orography with an elliptical horizontal cross-section.

These results highlight the need to ‘tune’ the calculation by identifying the optimum height in the atmosphere at which to approximate the derivatives. This work is ongoing. We expect the optimum height to be that at which the shear has the greatest impact on the surface drag.


Lott F. and Miller M., 1997, A new subgrid-scale orographic drag parametrization: Its formulation and testing, Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 123: 101–127.

Miranda P., Martins J. and Teixeira M., 2009, Assessing wind profile effects on the global atmospheric torque, Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 135: 807–814.

Teixeira M. and Miranda P., 2006, A linear model of gravity wave drag for hydrostatic sheared flow over elliptical mountains, Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 132: 2439–2458.

Teixeira M., Miranda P. and Valente M., 2004, An analytical model of mountain wave drag for wind profiles with shear and curvature, J. Atmos. Sci., 61: 1040–1054.

Visiting Scientist 2018

With thanks to Kaja Milczewska

Every year the PhD students in the Meteorology Department invite a distinguished scientist to spend a few days with us. This year, the students voted for the Visiting Scientist to be Prof. Olivia Romppainnen-Martius, who came to the Department from 4th-7th June 2018.

Prof. Romppainen-Martius is based at the University of Bern, in Switzerland, as an Associate Professor researching climate impacts.

Olivia’s research interests broadly covers mid-latitude atmospheric dynamics, with topics from how blocking events are precursors Sudden Stratospheric Warming events, to more impact based work on heavy Alpine precipitation and extreme hail in and around Switzerland. Her main research areas can be summarised as dynamics of short-term climate variation, forecasting and statistics of high-impact weather events and mid-latitude weather systems. More about her research and publications can be found here.

As is usual for the start of our distinguished visitor’s stay, Prof. Romppainen-Martius’s visit began with an introduction from Prof. Sue Gray during the coffee reception. This was immediately followed by a special seminar, titled “Recent hail research in Switzerland – the challenges and delights of complex orography and crowd-sourced data”. Her talk covered various probabilistic measures for predicting hail in the mountainous region that is Switzerland and how the climatology of these identified events is strongly linked with these mountainous areas. Verification of these predictions has recently been achieved through observer reports via the MeteoSwiss app, where observers record the time, location, and size of the hail they have observed.

The day was rounded off with a social at Zero Degrees, with Olivia and many PhD students engaging in fruitful conversation over pizza and beer.

After a busy first day, the second day of her visit included individual meetings with both research staff and students, and attending the Mesoscale and HHH (Hoskins-Half-Hour) research groups. On Wednesday 5th July, some PhD students presented their research to Olivia to showcase the breadth of topics covered in the Meteorology department. Interestingly, one of the talks ‘reliably’ informed us that Arctic sea-ice melting meant it was now possible to go on holiday cruises to see penguins. Clearly these penguins are on holiday too…


At the weekly PhD Group meeting, Prof. Romppainen-Martius gave some useful advice on careers in academic research and the pathway to her current position – which of course includes lots of skiing. Additionally, she advertised some post-doctoral funding opportunities in Switzerland and Germany, which was sure to encourage the keen skiers in the crowd. This was an engaging open discussion about the realities of research life, and attendance was made all the better by biscuits from the group leaders Beth and Liam.

On the last day of her visit (Thursday 8th June), Olivia gave her second departmental seminar titled “Periods of recurrent synoptic-scale Rossby waves and associated persistent moderate temperature extremes”. The seminar was followed by a well-attended leaving reception, which concluded Olivia’s visit to our department. The students prepared a photo frame and other England themed items as a gift, to thank our distinguished scientist for accepting the invitation to spend an inspiring week with us.  Unfortunately, Olivia could not stay for the ‘world-renowned’ annual Met BBQ and Barn Dance on the Friday, but nonetheless we hope that she enjoyed her visit as much as we did!


Top websites for weather enthusiasts!

If you’re searching for some weather-related procrastination, then look no further – we’ve got just what you need! Here’s our top picks for your coffee break-browsing:

  • Want a cool animated globe that shows you wind, temperature and aerosols, amongst other things? Null School is for you!


  • Severe Weather Europe has photos and videos of awesome hailstorms, supercells and more.
  • If you’re wanting wind maps – then is the place to go.


  • Space weather more your thing? Then help with some research and find Solar Storms. Read more about the science in Shannon’s blog.
  • If you’ve been following all the recent thunderstorms, then check out the locations of all the lightning, updated in near real-time at Blitzortung.


  • The Met Office website has forecasts and pollen counts, but also cool things like podcasts about the weather.
  • Real-time satellite imagery is available at sat24 for the UK and Europe.



  • For articles on climate change and environmental science, Carbon Brief  is the answer.


Hierarchies of Models

With thanks to Inna Polichtchouk.

General circulation models (GCMs) of varying complexity are used in atmospheric and oceanic sciences to study different atmospheric processes and to simulate response of climate to climate change and other forcings.

However, Held (2005) warned the climate community that the gap between understanding and simulating atmospheric and oceanic processes is becoming wider. He stressed the use of model hierarchies for improved understanding of the atmosphere and oceans (Fig. 1). Often at the bottom of the hierarchy lie the well-understood, idealized, one- or two-layer models.  In the middle of the hierarchy lie multi-layer models, which omit certain processes such as land-ocean-atmosphere interactions or moist physics. And finally, at the top of the hierarchy lie fully coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models that are used for climate projections. Such model hierarchies are already well developed in other sciences (Held 2005), such as molecular biology, where studying less complex animals (e.g. mice) infers something about the more complex humans (through evolution).

Figure 1: Model hierarchy of midlatitude atmosphere (as used for studying storm tracks). The simplest models are on the left and the most complex models are on the right. Bottom panels show eddy kinetic energy (EKE, contours) and precipitation (shading) with increase in model hierarchy (left-to-right): No precipitation in a dry core model (left), zonally homogeneous EKE and precipitation in an aquaplanet model (middle), and zonally varying EKE and precipitation in the most complex model (right). Source: Shaw et al. (2016), Fig. B2.

Model hierarchies have now become an important research tool to further our understanding of the climate system [see, e.g., Polvani et al. (2017), Jeevanjee et al. (2017), Vallis et al. (2018)]. This approach allows us to delineate most important processes responsible for circulation response to climate change (e.g., mid-latitude storm track shift, widening of tropical belt etc.), to perform hypothesis testing, and to assess robustness of results in different configurations.

In my PhD, I have extensively used the model hierarchies concept to understand mid-latitude tropospheric dynamics (Fig. 1). One-layer barotropic and two-layer quasi-geostrophic models are often used as a first step to understand large-scale dynamics and to establish the importance of barotropic and baroclinic processes (also discussed in my previous blog post). Subsequently, more realistic “dry” non-linear multi-layer models with simple treatment for boundary layer and radiation [the so-called “Held & Suarez” setup, first introduced in Held and Suarez (1994)] can be used to study zonally homogeneous mid-latitude dynamics without complicating the setup with physical parametrisations (e.g. moist processes), or the full range of ocean-land-ice-atmosphere interactions. For example, I have successfully used the Held & Suarez setup to test the robustness of the annular mode variability (see my previous blog post) to different model climatologies (Boljka et al., 2018). I found that baroclinic annular mode timescale and its link to the barotropic annular mode is sensitive to model climatology. This can have an impact on climate variability in a changing climate.

Additional complexity can be introduced to the multi-layer dry models by adding moist processes and physical parametrisations in the so-called “aquaplanet” setup [e.g. Neale and Hoskins (2000)]. The aquaplanet setup allows us to elucidate the role of moist processes and parametrisations on zonally homogeneous dynamics. For example, mid-latitude cyclones tend to be stronger in moist atmospheres.

To study effects of zonal asymmetries on the mid-latitude dynamics, localized heating or topography can be further introduced to the aquaplanet and Held & Suarez setup to force large-scale stationary waves, reproducing the south-west to north-east tilts in the Northern Hemisphere storm tracks (bottom left panel in Fig. 1). This setup has helped me elucidate the differences between the zonally homogeneous and zonally inhomogeneous atmospheres, where the planetary scale (stationary) waves and their interplay with the synoptic eddies (cyclones) become increasingly important for the mid-latitude storm track dynamics and variability on different temporal and spatial scales.

Even further complexity can be achieved by coupling atmospheric models to the dynamic ocean and/or land and ice models (coupled atmosphere-ocean or atmosphere only GCMs, in Fig. 1), all of which bring the model closer to reality. However, interpreting results from such complex models is very difficult without having first studied the hierarchy of models as too many processes are acting simultaneously in such fully coupled models.  Further insights can also be gained by improving the theoretical (mathematical) understanding of the atmospheric processes by using a similar hierarchical approach [see e.g. Boljka and Shepherd (2018)].


Boljka, L. and T.G. Shepherd, 2018: A multiscale asymptotic theory of extratropical wave–mean flow interaction. J. Atmos. Sci., 75, 1833–1852, .

Boljka, L., T.G. Shepherd, and M. Blackburn, 2018: On the boupling between barotropic and baroclinic modes of extratropical atmospheric variability. J. Atmos. Sci., 75, 1853–1871, .

Held, I. M., 2005: The gap between simulation and understanding in climate modeling. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 86, 1609 – 1614.

Held, I. M. and M. J. Suarez, 1994: A proposal for the intercomparison of the dynamical cores of atmospheric general circulation models. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 75, 1825–1830.

Jeevanjee, N., Hassanzadeh, P., Hill, S., Sheshadri, A., 2017: A perspective on climate model hierarchies. JAMES, 9, 1760-1771.

Neale, R. B., and B. J. Hoskins, 2000: A standard test for AGCMs including their physical parametrizations: I: the proposal. Atmosph. Sci. Lett., 1, 101–107.

Polvani, L. M., A. C. Clement, B. Medeiros, J. J. Benedict, and I. R. Simpson (2017), When less is more: Opening the door to simpler climate models. EOS, 98.

Shaw, T. A., M. Baldwin, E. A. Barnes, R. Caballero, C. I. Garfinkel, Y-T. Hwang, C. Li, P. A. O’Gorman, G. Riviere, I R. Simpson, and A. Voigt, 2016: Storm track processes and the opposing influences of climate change. Nature Geoscience, 9, 656–664.

Vallis, G. K., Colyer, G., Geen, R., Gerber, E., Jucker, M., Maher, P., Paterson, A., Pietschnig, M., Penn, J., and Thomson, S. I., 2018: Isca, v1.0: a framework for the global modelling of the atmospheres of Earth and other planets at varying levels of complexity. Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 843-859.

Polar Prediction School 2018

From 17th-27th April three Reading students trekked to the to the far north to attend the APECS Polar Prediction School at the Abisko Research Station. The aims of this course were to provide a general education in the Polar climates, from ocean and ice to atmosphere to help the participants understand the issues of prediction in polar regions and contribute to the current academic push to improve our understanding and forecasting skill of these regions.




Abisko research station is situated 68°N on the banks of lake Torneträsk, the sixth longest lake in Sweden. Frozen from approximately December to June the lake provided a great base for experiencing taking observations of the poles. On the first full day we put up a met mast which we then used data from to explore boundary layer turbulence. Drilling the holes for the guy ropes to find the ice was still a metre thick was rather reassuring after people had stripped down to t-shirts in the sun.

Throughout the week we also launched multiple radiosondes which was another excellent excuse to spend some time drinking in the scenery. This caused a stir when there was an ice-fishing competition on the lake, so several local school children ended up assisting with the launch.





After a week packed full of lectures, from sea-ice dynamics to observations from an ice breaker, on the Sunday in the middle of the school we had the day off. Most people took this as a chance to explore a bit further afield. A few of us rented snowshoes which turned out to be an excellent idea as there were plenty of places where the snow was still a meter thick. However difficult the terrain the scenery was 100% worth it, and the kanelbullar in our packed lunches certainly helped keep us going.



This was followed by another week of lectures, covering boundary layers, clouds and much more. We also spent time working on our science communication, both to other scientists and the general public. This culminated with everyone giving a 1 minute “Frostbyte” presentation of their work.

The course was a great chance to learn about the polar climate more broadly which has been helpful in putting my PhD work in context. It’s also great to be able to say I have been to the Arctic when people ask in the future!


A big thank you to APECS, APPLICATE and the Polar Prediction Project for supporting the course as well as all the staff who gave their time to speak. More details about the course can be found here.