What’s it like to do a fellowship in Parliament? 

The Social MetworkLeave a comment

By Juan Pablo Garcia Valencia (j.p.garciavalencia@pgr.reading.ac.uk)

In January of 2026, I paused my PhD to do a 3-month fellowship at the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST).  

This blog aims to give a summary of my experience, as well as some tips, tricks, and things to keep in mind if you’re interested in working in policy or science communication.  

What is POST?

The Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST) is an impartial research and knowledge exchange service based in the UK Parliament. Their role is to ensure that members of parliament (including the House of Commons and House of Lords) have access to cutting-edge research evidence and expertise. It covers emerging or complex physical and social science topics, including health, the environment, housing and computing.

The Fellowship 

I first heard about the POST fellowship through a departmental seminar given by a previous POST fellow (shout out Helen Hooker!). From that moment, I knew it was an opportunity I couldn’t miss, as it aligned perfectly with my interest in the science–policy interface. 

The fellowship provides an opportunity to gain real-world experience in the communication of research to policymakers. In this 3-month placement, fellows get the chance to research, write and publish an in-depth research briefing, called POSTnote, on a matter that was either requested by a Parliamentarian or identified as a topic of interest.  

The front page and the list of contents of the POSTnote – Here is the full briefing.

How does it work?  

Before you join, your research topic is agreed upon at a board meeting and communicated to you. Occasionally, you may get a choice between two topics, but most of the time, you are assigned a question that requires investigation.  

The topic will not be related to your PhD, and this is intentional. The aim is to help you write a briefing for parliamentarians who may have no prior knowledge of the subject. In many ways, the less you know at the start, the more likely you are to explain the topic in a simple, clear, and accessible way.  

To help you understand the topic, there is an extensive consultation process involving experts and stakeholders. By interviewing leading figures in the field, from academics to government officials, you will get a good understanding of the main themes, problems and concepts related to your topic and be able to write a well-informed, up-to-date briefing.  

And don’t worry if you have little to no interview experience (like I did), it’s definitely a skill that you perfect with practice, and your supervisor will help you prepare for them.  

Once you’ve completed the interviews, the writing stage begins. The briefings are just over 3,500 words long, so the challenge is often to condense all the valuable information you’ve just learnt. Again, this is a fantastic opportunity to develop your writing and communication skills. 

Your draft is then reviewed internally before being sent to stakeholders for external review, helping ensure that the final version is accurate, impartial, and comprehensive. 

Where is it?

The fellowship is based in Parliament itself, which is one of the best things about it. The POST offices (not to be confused with the actual post office inside Parliament…) are based just outside of the Palace of Westminster, about a 5-minute walk, in a nice and modern building. Most days, we would walk over to the Palace for lunch to enjoy the incredible views of the Terrace Cafeteria, one of the various (subsidised!) cafeterias in Parliament. 

The Palace of Westminster
A view from the Terrace Cafeteria

Pictures outside the Parliament

During your time there, you’re highly encouraged to make the most of being in such an amazing place by joining a Parliament tour, signing up to events in the Speaker’s House, going to the chamber for Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) or oral questions, attending the ‘All Parliamentary Party Group’ meetings, and so many other interesting things there are to do.  

At these events, it’s not uncommon to bump into politicians, public figures, and other fascinating people, which never failed to amaze me. Also, you can bring one or two guests into the Palace, which makes for great lunchtime catch-ups!  

Application process, tips and tricks

I believe the application process has changed slightly since I applied last year, but hopefully some of these tips are still relevant.  

The first step of the application was to fill in a document with many typical application questions, like “Tell me about a time you researched a completely new topic and how you did it”. My biggest recommendation for writing good answers to these is to follow the STAR method, focusing mainly on the Action and Result. This is what they are going to be most interested in: what exactly did you do, and what impact did it have?  

I also had to write a mock POSTnote. I spent some time identifying a topic that wasn’t already covered on the POST website but was currently relevant in political discussions. Reading one or two existing POSTnotes helped me get a feel for the tone and structure before writing my own briefing as clearly, impartially, and evidence-based as possible (the one on Public engagement with the energy transition could be a good start 🙂 ). A top tip to be impartial is to always state who said the point you’ve just made, i.e. “Researchers say…” or “The IPCC stated that…”. 

For the interview, roughly half of the questions focused on general competencies, while the rest was on the mock POSTnote. The emphasis wasn’t so much on the topic itself, but on your process. For example: 

  • How did you choose the topic? 
  • How did you organise your research and manage your time? 
  • How did you ensure impartiality? 

Caveats 

It’s worth noting that your experience may differ considerably depending on where you’re placed. 

Some fellows are based in Select Committees, where they engage more directly with science and policy by supporting scrutiny of government activity. Others are placed in the House of Commons Library, where they undertake work similar to POST but generally without the extensive interview process. 

One thing I would strongly recommend is attending in person as much as possible. This had a huge impact on my experience. Many of the most interesting opportunities arose spontaneously, and I was only able to take advantage of them because I happened to be in the office when someone mentioned them. Being physically present is one of the best ways to make the most of your time in Parliament. 

Pictures inside Parliament

Challenges and things to keep in mind

Although the experience was overwhelmingly positive, there are a few challenges worth highlighting.  

Firstly, I cannot stress enough how quickly the three months go! Deadlines can creep up surprisingly fast, making organisation and time management essential. Fortunately, because so many fellows have completed the programme before, there is an excellent Gantt chart and timeline available to help structure your work. I found this incredibly useful, although others preferred to develop their own systems.  

Another challenge is impartiality. When working for POST, you are expected to remain politically impartial both inside and outside the workplace, as you are effectively representing Parliament. This means thinking carefully before posting strongly partisan opinions on social media, for example.  

This can sometimes feel frustrating, particularly for scientists working in climate-related fields in the current political landscape. However, it is also an incredibly valuable skill that is difficult to develop elsewhere. I came to view it as an important learning experience rather than a limitation. 

Overall

To summarise, I would strongly encourage anyone with even a passing interest in policy, parliamentary processes, or science communication to apply for the fellowship. It’s a unique opportunity to learn how Parliament works while helping policymakers engage with emerging scientific issues. 

Feel free to email me as well if you have any questions; I would be very happy to answer.  

(Some) Space Weather Forecasts are Less Certain during Solar Minimum than Solar Maximum

The Social MetworkLeave a comment

Dechen Gyeltschen (d.l.gyeltshen@pgr.reading.ac.uk)

Summary of Gyeltshen, D. L., et al. (2026) 

What is space weather?

Space weather refers to the short-term changes in the space environment of our solar system. We tend to focus on near-Earth space due to its direct impact on human life and infrastructure. Extreme space weather events can cause disruptions to satellite operations, navigation systems, radio communication, power grids, and rail networks. Additionally, they expose humans in space or on high-altitude flights to harmful radiation and energetic particles. Although mitigation procedures are being developed and refined, their efficacy relies on the accuracy of extreme space weather forecasts. As such, understanding causal phenomena such as solar eruptive processes and high-speed solar wind remains a high priority for improving prediction accuracy. 

Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are drivers of the most severe space weather. They consist of a large structure of plasma and an accompanying magnetic field that have a typical Sun-Earth transit time of 1-5 days. This range exists because a) CMEs are ejected at different speeds and b) CMEs interact with the background ‘ambient’ solar wind and can be accelerated/decelerated due to drag forces. Current CME transit time predictions possess errors on the order ± 10 hours.

How are forecasts made?

Identifying sources of these errors requires an understanding of how CME transit time forecasts are made. The forecast process is outlined as follows, with a visual summary provided in Figure 1: 

  • Information about the Sun’s magnetic field structure in the form of magnetograms is used as initial data. 
  • These are fed into coronal models to generate ambient solar wind speed profiles at 0.1 Astronomical Units from the Sun (1 AU ~ 150 million kilometers). 
  • CME parameters are derived from white light coronagraph images and extrapolated to 0.1 AU. 
  • Together they serve as initial conditions for heliospheric models that simulate CME propagation to Earth and other planetary bodies.  
Figure 1: Schematic of standard space weather forecasting method. From top left to bottom right: A magnetogram, a coronagraph, coronal modelling, derivation of CME parameters, heliospheric modelling to Earth and to outer planets (Owens, M. J., et al. (2026)).

While the models used are imperfect, transit time errors largely stem from initial uncertainties in observations of CME parameters and ambient solar wind conditions.  

What did we do?

Though the sources of transit time errors are identified, the extents of their contributions vary, and isolating individual error contributions for observed events is difficult. In particular, the ambient solar wind properties exhibit substantial variability over the solar cycle. Observations show that during solar minimum, Earth intercepts interchangeable fast and slow winds over the course of a month. On the other hand, the solar wind during solar maximum is less stark in its longitudinal gradients. Does this structural difference between solar cycle phases change the ambient solar wind influence on CME propagation? If yes, by how much?  

We performed simulations of CME propagation using the Heliospheric Upwind eXtrapolation with time-dependence (HUXt) solar wind model to answer these questions. HUXt approximates the solar wind as a one-dimensional and hydrodynamic flow, which allows for low computational cost. We used realistic solar wind data to simulate a statistically average CME and a fast CME every day between 1975 – 2024 (4.5 solar cycles). This is 18,000 runs and 126,000 simulation days (for each CME)! This gave us a dataset of daily CME transit times to Earth that was later used for the analyses. An example of two such simulations is provided in Figure 2. 

Figure 2: Snapshots of solar wind speed in the solar equatorial plane at three different times (from left to right, shown times are 1, 2, and 4 days after CME launch) from two HUXt simulations. The CME is shown by the red outline. Date labels on the left denote initiation time: the top plots were initialized just 1 day before the lower plots, but the arrival times vary a lot! 

What did we find out?

From the dataset of daily transit times, we calculated the monthly medians and interquartile ranges. We used the median to characterise the typical transit time, and the interquartile range to represent short-term variability of transit time. The distributions for these metrics are shown in Figure 3 for both types of CMEs. 

Figure 3: Top: Distributions of monthly transit time medians, during solar minimum and maximum solar phases for average and fast CMEs. Dotted lines represent median values for the distributions. Bottom: The same for distributions of the monthly interquartile range. 

Figure 3 tells us three things: 

  • CMEs arrive faster during solar minimum: the median values show that average CMEs arrive about 5 hours earlier during solar minimum. This is because CMEs encounter either slow or fast wind during solar minimum, but solar maximum presents mostly slow wind that does not accelerate any CME to the same degree. 
  • Transit times are more variable (~6h more variable for an average CME) during solar minimum. The design of our experiment dictates that this effect purely arises from the change in ambient solar wind structure over a solar cycle. 
  • These results are true for both CME types.  

In other words, even identical CMEs can exhibit a range of transit times due to changes in the ambient solar wind structure. Moreover, the magnitude of this variability peaks during solar minimum. It implies that in the absence of accurate ambient solar wind conditions, CME arrivals are intrinsically less predictable during solar minimum than solar maximum. Additionally, the penalty for incorrectly modelling the ambient solar wind—for example, small errors in speed gradients or the position of high-speed streams—is greater during solar minimum. 

Main Takeaways

  • During solar minimum, the arrival time of coronal mass ejections at Earth is roughly twice as uncertain due to the influence of the ambient solar wind compared to solar maximum. 
  • Importance of ambient solar wind representation during solar minimum is emphasised.  

Chasing Rain in a Tropical Archipelago: When Do Storms Really Occur?

The Social MetworkLeave a comment

By Dony Christianto (d.christianto@pgr.reading.ac.uk)

“When do storms really happen?”

It sounds like a simple question—but in the tropics, there is rarely a simple answer.

We often learn this simple process: daytime heating drives peak afternoon rainfall. It is a useful idea—and in many cases, it works. But as we looked more closely at rainfall in Papua, it became clear that the atmosphere was telling a more complex story.

This work began in the field, in southern Papua near Timika. We worked with a network of Automatic Weather Stations (AWS) located across the extraordinary landscape of southern Papua (Figure 1). Across roughly 100 km, the terrain rises from sea level to mountain peaks exceeding 4,700 m. Along this steep transition, particularly in the foothill regions, rainfall reaches some of the highest values in the world, with annual totals of around 12,500 mm.

Figure 1: Automatic Weather Station network across Papua, spanning coast to high mountains, providing critical observations in a complex tropical environment.

This combination of coastline, lowland, and steep mountains creates a highly dynamic environment. Papua is not just another tropical region—it is a natural laboratory where local and large-scale atmospheric processes interact in complex ways.

The AWS data used in this study comes from a collaboration between PT Freeport Indonesia and BMKG (the Indonesian Agency for Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics). Maintaining these observations requires field visits, safety briefings, and working in remote areas where conditions can change rapidly. It is a reminder that every dataset has a story behind it—and that reliable ground observations remain essential, especially in regions as complex as Papua. This becomes particularly important when we consider how rainfall is commonly studied today.

Satellite products such as GPM-IMERG are widely used because they provide global coverage. In many studies, they are treated as a reference for understanding rainfall behaviour. But before relying on them, it is important to ask: how well do they represent what actually happens at the surface?

To address this, we compared satellite rainfall estimates with AWS observations in Papua (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Comparison of diurnal rainfall intensity between ground observations (AWS) and satellite estimates (GPM-IMERG), showing a consistent delay in satellite peak timing, with observed rainfall peaking around 16:00 local time and GPM-IMERG peaking later.

What we found was consistent across the dataset: satellite rainfall peaks tend to occur later than those observed at the ground, typically by around one to three hours. This delay reflects that satellites are more sensitive to mature convective systems and therefore detect rainfall after storms have already developed.

At first glance, a difference of a few hours may not seem significant. However, in meteorology, timing is critical.

Satellite datasets are often used to evaluate weather and climate models. If rainfall timing is systematically shifted, models that appear to perform well against satellite data may not accurately represent real surface processes. This also has implications for applications such as early warning systems, where even small timing differences can influence how rainfall events are detected.

Having established this, we then turned to a more fundamental question: when does rainfall actually occur?

While rainfall in Papua often peaks in the late afternoon (around 15:00–18:00 local time), our analysis revealed a second important rainfall regime in the early morning, typically between 03:00 and 09:00 (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Contrasting rainfall regimes in Papua: afternoon storms (15:00–18:00 LT) are associated with offshore propagation from inland regions, while morning storms (09:00–12:00 LT) are linked to onshore flow bringing precipitation inland. The lower panels show meridional wind anomalies, with blue indicating southward (offshore) flow and red indicating northward (onshore) flow.

These two rainfall peaks are not simply different in timing; they are produced by different atmospheric processes.

Afternoon rainfall is largely driven by local processes. Solar heating during the day warms the land surface, causing air to rise, consequently triggering convection. In Papua, this process is strongly enhanced by the presence of mountains, which help initiate and organise storm development. These systems typically form over land and propagate towards the coast.

Morning rainfall, in contrast, often originates over the ocean. During the night, convective systems develop offshore and are transported inland by low-level winds. In this case, rainfall is not initiated locally but carried from the sea.

This leads to a key insight: rainfall timing is closely linked to wind direction.

When winds are directed offshore (from land towards the sea), they favour afternoon and evening rainfall over land. Conversely, when winds are onshore (from sea towards land), they transport moisture inland and are associated with morning rainfall. These alternating wind regimes create distinct “windows” for storm development throughout the day.

The next question is: what controls these wind patterns? The answer lies in larger-scale atmospheric processes.

Phenomena such as the Madden–Julian Oscillation (MJO), equatorial Rossby waves, and seasonal monsoon circulations influence the background wind environment over Papua. For example, different phases of the MJO are associated with shifts in wind direction and moisture transport. Some phases favour onshore flow, increasing the likelihood of morning rainfall, while others favour conditions more conducive to afternoon convection.

This highlights an important point: rainfall in Papua is not controlled by a single mechanism, but by interactions across multiple scales.

This is where the role of local characteristics becomes critical.

Every region has its own unique combination of topography, coastline, and atmospheric conditions. These factors shape local circulation patterns, which determine how that region responds to larger-scale climate phenomena. This is particularly important in the tropical Maritime Continent, where thousands of islands differ in size, shape, elevation, and land–sea distribution. These differences influence surface properties such as albedo, heat capacity, and moisture availability, which in turn affect how energy is distributed within the atmosphere.

As a result, each island develops its own local circulation system. Even under the same large-scale forcing—such as the MJO or monsoon—different regions can exhibit very different rainfall behaviour. The interaction between local geography and atmospheric processes creates a wide range of responses across the region.

Papua, with its steep topography and strong land–sea contrasts, provides a clear example of this complexity.

From field observations to large-scale atmospheric dynamics, this study highlights a simple but important message: understanding rainfall in the tropics requires considering both the local environment and the broader climate system.

Because in regions like Papua, rainfall is determined not by a single process, but by the interaction of many.

Honest Reviews of NCAS Training Courses

The Social MetworkLeave a comment

By Maia Arama (m.arama@pgr.reading.ac.uk), Molly Macrae(molly.macrae@pgr.reading.ac.uk) and Giacomo Giuliani (g.giuliani@pgr.reading.ac.uk)

A big part of doing a PhD at Reading is the opportunity to complete training courses that expand our skillsets and knowledge. Below, we summarise and review our experiences of different courses offered by the National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) that we completed at the beginning of our PhDs.

Introduction to Scientific Computing (ISC), Maia Arama

In November 2025, I completed the ISC course run by NCAS. The course consisted of three modules designed to provide students with essential skills and tools for data analysis. Module 1 introduced Linux commands, Module 2 covered an introduction to Python programming, and Module 3 focused on data analysis tools in Python (e.g. numpy, x-array, cf-python). Modules 1 and 2 were aimed at beginners, while Module 3 was aimed at those with some prior experience. After completing a short quiz, I was able to skip Module 2 and complete only Modules 1 and 3. Module 1 was delivered online while Modules 2 and 3 were taught at NCAS headquarters in Leeds.

The most valuable things I learned from Module 1 was how to combine commands using pipes and filters, as well as writing loops and shell scripts. I now regularly use these skills to process data for my PhD project! I did find that more time was spent on easier sections, while more challenging sections felt rushed at times. However, all material was made available to us on Software Carpentry enabling us to practice with the resources after the module. In Module 3, I found it particularly useful to learn how to use cf-python and cf-plot. We also completed a challenge using weather API data where we created NetCDF files, combined our data and produced a plot. The module also introduced version control with Git and the use of remote GitHub repositories. All teaching was done using Jupyter Notebooks on Jasmin.

Overall, I had a fantastic experience attending the course in Leeds. The staff were readily available to answer questions and help with debugging code. It was also great to meet other friendly and motivated PhD students, which created an inspiring working environment. Those with more experience in Python may find some of the material quite basic. However, if you have limited coding experience or want to increase your confidence coding in Python, I would highly recommend this course!

Links to the relevant NCAS ISC GitHub pages can be found here:

Module 1: https://ncasuk.github.io/ncas-isc-shell/06a-environment-variables/index.html

Module 3: https://github.com/ncasuk/ncas-isc/

Introduction to the UK Chemistry-Aerosol (UKCA) Model, Molly Macrae

UKCA is a community atmospheric chemistry–aerosol model used to study how atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and climate interact within the Met Office Unified Model, supporting research on climate forcing, air quality, and ozone processes. The ‘Introduction to UK Chemistry Aerosol (UKCA) Model’ course aims to provide experience of running the model through a set of practical, self-paced tutorials. The course was free to attend and took place in-person in Leeds with accommodation, travel and food included.

Over the 3 days, you are provided with a login to Monsoon3 and work through online tutorials at your own pace with expert UKCA users on hand to answer any questions or help with technical issues. These tutorials covered how to use the main parts of the UKCA model, setting up and running experiments, and how to adapt the model to specific purposes. There were also pre-recorded walkthrough videos provided, which were incredibly useful if anything from the instructions was unclear. Additionally, the logins were made available for a couple of weeks beyond the course, and a Slack channel was set up for any queries that arose after the course.

Despite most of the training being individual, I really appreciated that the course was held in-person. It was a great opportunity to meet other people using UKCA and to get guidance and feedback from the experts about how I plan to use UKCA in my project.

Overall, I found the course very useful, and I still go back to the provided resources now as I run the model. As expected for a course introducing the running of a climate model, there is a lot of information to take in, and after a few months, the elements of the course that have stayed with me are the parts I am actually using the model for now. Furthermore, the resources provided are clear and available for returning to at a later date. The self-paced format also allows you to tailor the course by spending longer on tutorials most relevant to your research. I would strongly recommend this course to anyone considering using UKCA in their work.

Course webpage with tutorials: UKCA Chemistry and Aerosol Tutorials at UMvn13.9 – UKCA

Introduction to the Unified Model, Giacomo Giuliani

The ‘Introduction to the Unified Model (UM)’ course is a 3-day course organised by NCAS at its headquarters in Leeds. It consists of two complementary parts: a series of lectures on the UM components and their applications, and tutorial sessions focused on working with suites and model outputs.

The UM is the atmospheric model for numerical weather prediction and climate projections. It can be run using different configurations, also called suites. The “how to use it” part mainly focuses on becoming familiar with the (un)intuitive, and sometimes quixotic, architecture of the workflow, as well as how to run simulations. Much of the tutorials involved working on the terminal interface of Archer2 and the UM graphic user interface, in other words, a good refresher for Shell and Bash scripting.

At the end of the course, I proudly scrolled my notebook page of “Commands, Tips and Common Errors when running the UM” noticing how long – and hopefully comprehensive – it was. I think the main takeaway of the course was: to be able to troubleshoot any issues, to create your own model configurations, and to understand the overall process behind a simulation within the UM framework.

The practical part for the UM course can be found on GitHub. Thus, in principle, one could just “learn from home”. However, the lectures are not the only aspect that makes this course extremely valuable. I rapidly assessed in thirty days and several hours between yawns and desperation the amount of time it would take me to complete this course on my own. It was really valuable and helpful to be able to talk to people who develop and use this model every day.  On the other hand, this course may be too high-level for a person only interested in using the UM for numerical simulations. It provides a general overview of the architecture of the UM workflow, but it lacks the use of a testbed simulation to simulate a common research situation.

Overall, I would definitely recommend the course to anyone frequently working with the UM, as soon as they have a solid base in Linux.

Here is the link to the GitHub page: https://ncas-cms.github.io/um-training/index.html

The Secret “Glow” of Thirsty Plants: How Satellites are Learning to Spot Drought Before It Happens

The Social MetworkLeave a comment

By Khomkrit (Guy) Onkaew – k.onkaew@pgr.reading.ac.uk

If you look out at a cornfield or a dense forest, you see green. That’s chlorophyll, the pigment plants use to turn sunlight into energy. But there is something else happening in those leaves that the human eye completely misses. While they are basking in the sun, plants are also glowing.

During photosynthesis, plants absorb sunlight to create food. However, they don’t use 100% of the light they take in. A small fraction of that unused solar energy is re-emitted by the plant as a faint, reddish glow. This phenomenon is called Solar-Induced Chlorophyll Fluorescence, or SIF.

Left: Plant under daylight (535 nm). Right: Plant under UV light (365 nm), showing the reddish glow. (image source: https://www.exoticaesoterica.com/magazine/plantuvfluorescence)

Think of SIF as the “heartbeat” of a plant’s metabolism. When a plant is healthy and photosynthesising vigorously, this glow follows a regular pattern. But when a plant gets stressed — perhaps it’s too hot, or it hasn’t rained in weeks — that heartbeat changes.

For years, scientists have used special satellites to measure this glow from space to estimate how well vegetation is growing. Ideally, this glow would tell us exactly how productive the plants are. But there is a catch: a plant’s glow isn’t just determined by how much sun it gets; it is also determined by its “efficiency” in using that light.

This brings us to a question: What happens to that efficiency when the soil dries out?

Imagine you kink a garden hose: as you restrict the water, the flow changes. Similarly, when plants run out of water in the soil, they close their stomata — tiny pores on their leaves — to save moisture. This shuts down photosynthesis. The plant then has to deal with all that incoming sunlight that it can no longer use. To protect itself, the plant dissipates that excess energy as heat, which causes the fluorescence glow to dim or change in efficiency.

In other words, this means that long before a crop turns yellow and dies from drought, its glow changes. If we can understand the relationship between soil moisture and glow, we could potentially predict crop failures and droughts much earlier than we can by just looking at how green the plants are.

Decoding the Signal: A New Study on Africa’s Ecosystems

This is where our study steps in. We focused on the African continent to solve a specific puzzle: How does soil moisture stress change the fluorescence efficiency of plants?

Africa offers the perfect laboratory for this question because it holds almost every type of ecosystem imaginable, from the bone-dry Sahara and the semi-arid savannas to the lush Congo rainforest. We combined satellite data from The TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument TROPOMI, which measures the SIF glow, with a sophisticated land model, the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), which estimates soil moisture deep in the ground.

We tested two different models to see which one better predicted the actual glow observed by satellites:

1. The Baseline Model: Assumed the glow depends only on the light the plant absorbs.

2. The Soil Moisture Model: Assumed the glow is influenced by both the light absorbed and how wet the soil is.

African Plants’ Thirst Strategies

Our study produced some fascinating results regarding how different plants handle thirst. We found that fluorescence efficiency is not one-size-fits-all; it depends entirely on the plant’s “lifestyle”.

1. The “Panickers”: Croplands and Grasslands

We discovered that croplands and grasslands are the “drama queens” of the plant world; they easily panic as soon as the soil dries. These plants show the strongest reaction to soil moisture. When the topsoil dries out, their efficiency plummets; when the soil is wet, their efficiency spikes. This makes sense because crops like maize usually have shallow roots. They live and die by the moisture in the top layer of dirt, making them incredibly sensitive monitors for agricultural drought.

2. The “Resilient”: Evergreen Forests

On the other hand, evergreen forests (like those in the Congo basin) were surprisingly indifferent. Their fluorescence efficiency barely changed even when soil moisture levels changed. Why? These trees have deep, complex root systems that can tap into groundwater reserves far below the surface. They don’t panic when the topsoil gets dry because they have a backup water supply.

3. The “Balancers”: Savannas and Shrublands

Moreover, we found that plants in semi-arid regions like the Sahel have evolved to be adaptive. They ramp up their efficiency quickly at the first sign of rain, but don’t waste extra energy once they have “enough” water.

The Map of Improvement

We found that adding soil moisture data to these models significantly improved their ability to simulate the plant glow in semi-arid regions, such as the Sahel and Southern Africa (the blue area in Figure C). In these water-limited environments, you cannot understand the plant’s light signal without understanding the water in the soil.

However, the study also highlighted where the models fail. In wetlands such as the Okavango Delta and the Sudd Swamp (Locations 5 and 6 in Figure C, respectively), adding soil moisture data worsened the model or yielded no improvement. This is likely because satellite models struggle to understand complex water systems where water flows horizontally or sits just below the surface, keeping plants happy even when the model thinks they should be dry.

Spatial distribution maps of RMSE for two SIF simulation models across Africa. (a) RMSE between observed SIF and the Baseline Model (SIFa), which does not include soil moisture availability (β). (b) RMSE between observed SIF and the Soil Moisture Model (SIFb), which includes β. (c) RMSE difference (ΔRMSE = RMSEb − RMSEa). Blue regions (ΔRMSE < 0) indicate areas where including β improves model performance (Model 2 outperforms), while red areas (ΔRMSE > 0) show regions where including β worsens the fit. Grey areas indicate missing data.

The Takeaway

This research is a step toward “context-dependent” monitoring. We can’t just look at a satellite image and apply a single rule to the whole planet. To truly monitor the health of our food systems and forests from space, we have to treat a shallow-rooted cornfield in a semi-arid zone differently from a deep-rooted tree in a tropical forest. By linking the “glow” of the plants to the water in the soil, we are getting closer to a real-time health check for the Earth’s vegetation.

More details from the paper: https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2026.2618097

When the Lakes Remember: Unravelling the Sudd Floods of 2022

The Social MetworkLeave a comment

By Douglas Mulangwa – d.mulangwa@pgr.reading.ac.uk

Between 2019 and 2024, East Africa experienced one of the most persistent high-water periods in modern history: a flood that simply would not recede. Lakes Victoria, Kyoga, and Albert all rose to exceptional levels, and the Sudd Wetland in South Sudan expanded to an unprecedented 163,000 square kilometres in 2022. More than two million people were affected across Uganda and South Sudan as settlements, roads, and farmland remained inundated for months.

At first, 2022 puzzled stakeholders, observers and scientists alike. Rainfall across much of the region was below average that year, yet flooding in the Sudd intensified. This prompted a closer look at the wider hydrological system. Conventional explanations based on local rainfall failed to account for why the water would not recede. The answer, it turned out, lay far upstream and more than a year earlier, hidden within the White Nile’s connected lakes and wetlands.

Figure 1: Map of the White Nile Basin showing delineated sub-catchments, lakes, major  rivers, and the Sudd Wetland extent. Sub-catchments are labelled numerically (1–15) with names listed in the legend. Observation stations (A–F) mark key hydrological data collection  locations used in this study: Lake Victoria (A), Lake Kyoga (B), River Nile at Masindi Port (C), Lake Albert (D), River Nile at Juba (E), and the Sudd Wetland (F). Background river networks and sub-catchment boundaries are derived from the HydroSHED dataset, and wetland extent is based on MODIS flood mask composites. The map is projected in geographic coordinates (EPSG:4326) with a graduated scale bar for accurate distance representation using UTM Zone 36N.

The White Nile: A Basin with Memory

The White Nile forms one of the world’s most complex lake, river, and wetland systems, extending from Lake Victoria through Lakes Kyoga and Albert into the Sudd. Hydrologically, it is a system of connected reservoirs that store, delay, and gradually release floodwaters downstream.

For decades, operational planning assumed that floodwaters take roughly five months to travel from Lake Victoria to the Sudd. That estimate was never actually tested with data; it originated as a rule of thumb based on Lake Victoria annual maxima in May and peak flooding in South Sudan in September/October.

Our recent study challenged that assumption. By combining daily lake-level and discharge data (1950–2024) with CHIRPS rainfall and MODIS flood-extent records (2002–2024), we tracked how flood peaks propagated through the system, segment by segment. Using an automated peak-matching algorithm, we quantified the lag between successive annual maxima peaks in Lake Victoria, Lake Kyoga, Lake Albert, and the Sudd Wetland.

The unprecedented high-water regime of 2019-2024

Figure 2: Lake Victoria water levels (1950–2024) and Sudd Wetland extents (2002–2024), with the 2019–2024 anomalous period shown in dark blue and earlier observations in black. The orange dotted line marks the pre-2019 maximum, while the solid vermillion line denotes the highest peak observed during 2019–2024. The dashed magenta line represents the reconstructed 1878 Lake Victoria peak (1137.3 m a.s.l.) from Nicholson & Yin (2001). The shaded grey band highlights the 2022 flood year, when the Sudd reached its largest extent in the MODIS record.

Between 2019 and 2024, both Lake Victoria and the Sudd reached record levels. Lake Victoria exceeded its historic 1964 peak in 2020, 2021, and 2024, while the Sudd expanded to more than twice its previous maximum extent. Each year from 2019 to 2024 stayed above any pre-2019 record, revealing that this was not a single flood season but a sustained multi-year regime.

The persistence of the 2019–2024 high-water regime mirrors earlier basin-wide episodes, including the 1961–64 and 1870s floods, when elevated lake levels and wetland extents were sustained across multiple years rather than confined to a single rainy season.  However, the 2020s stand out as the most extensive amongst all the episodes since the start of the 20th century. These data confirm that both the headwaters and terminal floodplain remained at record levels for several consecutive years during 2019–2024, highlighting the unprecedented nature of this sustained high-water phase in the modern observational era.

2019–2024: How Multi-Year Rainfall Triggers Propagated a Basin-Wide Flood

The sequence of flood events began with the exceptionally strong positive Indian Ocean Dipole of 2019, which brought extreme rainfall across the Lake Victoria basin. This marked the first in a series of four consecutive anomalous rainfall seasons that sustained elevated inflows into the lake system. The October–December 2019 short rains were among the wettest on record, followed by above-normal rainfall in the March–May 2020 long rains, another wet short-rains season in late 2020, and continued high rainfall through early 2021. Together, these back-to-back wet seasons kept catchments saturated and prevented any significant drawdown of lake levels between seasons. Lake Victoria rose by more than 1.4 metres between September 2019 and May 2020, the highest increase since the 1960s, and remained near the 1960s historical maximum for consecutive years. As that excess water propagated downstream, Lakes Kyoga and Albert filled and stayed high through 2021. Even when regional rainfall weakened in 2022, these upstream lakes continued releasing stored water into the White Nile. The flood peak that reached the Sudd in 2022 corresponded closely to the 2021 Lake Victoria high-water phase.

This sequence shows that the 2022 disaster was not driven by a single rainfall event but by cumulative wetness over multiple seasons. Each lake acted as a slow reservoir that buffered and then released the 2019 to 2021 excess water, resulting in multi-year flooding that persisted long after rainfall had returned to near-normal levels.

Transit Time and Floodwave Propagation

Quantitative tracking showed that it takes an average of 16.8 months for a floodwave to travel from Lake Victoria to the Sudd. The fastest transmission occurs between Victoria and Kyoga (around 4 months), while the slowest and most attenuated segment lies between Albert and the Sudd (around 9 months).

This overturns the long-held assumption of a five-month travel time and reveals a system dominated by floodplain storage and delayed release. The 2019–2021 period showed relatively faster propagation because of high upstream storage, while 2022 exhibited the longest lag as the Sudd absorbed and held vast volumes of water. By establishing this timing empirically, the study offers a more realistic foundation for early-warning systems.

Figure 3: Lake Victoria, Lake Kyoga, and Lake Albert water levels, and Sudd Wetland inundated extent, from 2016 to 2024. Coloured spline curves indicate annual flood-wave trajectories traced from the timing of Lake Victoria annual maxima through the downstream of the White Nile system. Blue shading on the secondary (right) axis shows 180-day rolling rainfall totals over each basin. The panel sequence (Victoria–Kyoga, Kyoga–Albert, Albert–Sudd) highlights the progressive translation of flood waves through the connected lake–river–wetland network.

Wetland Activation and Flood Persistence

Satellite flood-extent maps reveal how the Sudd responded once the inflow arrived. The wetland expanded through multiple activation arms that progressively connected different sub-catchments:

  • 2019: rainfall-fed expansion on the east (Baro–Akobo–Sobat and White Nile sub-basins)
  • 2020–2021: a central-western arm from Bahr el Jebel extending into Bahr el Ghazal and a north-western connection from Bahr el Jebel to Bahr el Arab connected around Bentiu in Unity State.
  • 2022: The two activated arms persisted so the JJAS seasonal rainfall in South Sudan and the inflow from the upstream lakes just compounded the activation leading to the massive flooding in Bentiu, turning the town into an island surrounded by water.

This geometry confirms that the Sudd functions not as a single floodplain but as a network of hydraulically linked basins. Once activated, these wetlands store and recycle water through backwater effects, evaporation, and lateral flow between channels. That internal connectivity explains why flooding persisted long after rainfall declined.

The Bigger Picture

Understanding these long lags is vital for effective flood forecasting and anticipatory humanitarian action. Current early-warning systems in South Sudan and Uganda mainly rely on short-term rainfall forecasts, which cannot capture the multi-season cumulative storage and delayed release that drive multi-year flooding.

By the time floodwaters reach the Sudd Wetland, the hydrological signature of releases from Lake Victoria has been substantially transformed by storage, delay, and attenuation within the intermediate lakes and wetlands. This means that downstream flood conditions are not a direct reflection of upstream releases but the result of cumulative interactions across the basin’s interconnected reservoirs.

The results suggest that antecedent storage conditions in Lakes Victoria, Kyoga, and Albert should be incorporated into regional flood outlooks. When upstream lake levels are exceptionally high, downstream alerts should remain elevated even if rainfall forecasts appear moderate. This approach aligns with impact-based forecasting, where decisions are informed not only by rainfall predictions but also by hydrological memory, system connectivity and potential impact of the floods.

The 2019–2024 high-water regime joins earlier basin-wide flood episodes in the 1870s, 1910s, and 1960s, each linked to multi-year wet phases across the equatorial lakes. The 1961–64 event raised Lake Victoria by about 2.5 metres and reshaped the Nile’s flow for several years. The 1870s flood appears even more extensive, showing that compound, persistent flooding is part of the White Nile’s natural variability.

Climate-change attribution studies indicate that the 2019–2020 rainfall anomaly was intensified by anthropogenic warming, increasing both its magnitude and probability. If such events become more frequent, the basin’s long-memory behaviour could convert short bursts of rainfall into multi-year high-water regimes.

This work reframes how we view the White Nile. It is not a fast, responsive river system but a slow-moving memory corridor in which floodwaves propagate, store, and echo over many months. Recognising this behaviour opens practical opportunities: it enables longer forecast lead times based on upstream indicators, supports coordinated management of lake releases, and strengthens early-action planning for humanitarian agencies across the basin.

It also highlights the need for continued monitoring and data sharing across national borders. Sparse observations remain a major limitation: station gaps, satellite blind spots, and non-public lake-release data all reduce our ability to model the system in real time. Improving this observational backbone is essential if we are to translate scientific insight into effective flood preparedness.

By Douglas Mulangwa (PhD researcher, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading), with contributions from Evet Naturinda, Charles Koboji, Benon T. Zaake, Emily Black, Hannah Cloke, and Elisabeth M. Stephens.

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted under the INFLOW project, funded through the CLARE programme (FCDO and IDRC), with collaboration from the Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment, the South Sudan Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation, the World Food Programme(WFP), IGAD Climate Prediction and Application Centre  (ICPAC), Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, Uganda Red Cross Society (URCS), the South Sudan Red Cross Red Crescent Society (SSRCS) and the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre (RCCC).

Models and Memories: Our NCAS CMSS 2025 Experience

The Social MetworkLeave a comment

Piyali Goswami: p.goswami@pgr.reading.ac.uk

Mehzooz Nizar: m.nizar@pgr.reading.ac.uk

This September, we attended the NCAS Climate Modelling Summer School (CMSS), held at the University of Cambridge from 8th to 19th September. Five of us from the University of Reading joined this two-week residential programme. It was an intense and inspiring experience, full of lectures, coding sessions, discussions, and social events. In this blog, we would like to share our experiences.

 Picture 1: Group Picture of Students and teaching staff. One cohort, many time zones, zero dull moments…

About NCAS CMSS

The NCAS Climate Modelling Summer School (CMSS) is a visionary program, launched in 2007 with funding originating from grant proposals led by Prof. Pier Luigi Vidale. Run by leading researchers from the National Centre for Atmospheric Science and the University of Reading, it’s an immersive, practice-driven program that equips early-career researchers and PhD students with deeper expertise in climate modelling, Earth system science, and state-of-the-art computing. Held biennially in Cambridge, CMSS has trained 350 students from roughly 40 countries worldwide.

The CMSS 2025 brought together around 30 participants, including PhD students and professionals interested in the field of Climate Modelling. 

Long Days, Big Ideas: Inside Our Schedule

The school was full of activity from morning to evening. We started around 9:00 AM and usually wrapped up by 8:30 PM, with a good mix of lectures, practical sessions, and discussions that made the long days fly by.

Week 1 was led by Dr Hilary Weller, who ran an excellent series on Numerical Methods for Atmospheric Models. Mornings were devoted to lectures covering core schemes; afternoons shifted to hands-on Python sessions to implement and test the methods. Between blocks, invited talks from leading researchers across universities highlighted key themes in weather and climate modelling. After dinner, each day closed with a thought-provoking discussion on climate modelling, chaired by Prof. Pier Luigi Vidale, where participants shared ideas on improving models and their societal impact. 

The week concluded with group presentations summarising the key takeaways from Hilary’s sessions and our first collaborative activity that set the tone for the rest of the school. It was followed by a relaxed barbecue evening, where everyone finally had a chance to unwind, chat freely, and celebrate surviving our first week together. 

Picture 2 : Working on our group projects. Looks like NASA, feels like: ‘what’s our team name?’

Week 2 was all about getting hands-on with a climate model and learning how to analyse its output. We moved into group projects using SpeedyWeather.jl to design and run climate model experiments. It is a global atmospheric model with simplified physics, designed as a research playground. One of the developers of SpeedyWeather.jl, Milan Klöwer, was with us throughout the week to guide and support our work. Each team explored a different question, from sensitivity testing to analysing the model outputs, and spent the afternoons debugging, plotting, and comparing results. Evenings featured talks from leading scientists on topics such as the hydrological cycle, land and atmosphere interactions, and the carbon cycle. 

The week also included a formal dinner at Sidney Sussex, a welcomed pause before our final presentations. On Friday 19th of September, every group presented its findings before we all headed home. Some slides were finished only seconds before presenting, but the atmosphere was upbeat and supportive. It was a satisfying end to two weeks of hard work, shared learning, and plenty of laughter. A huge thank you to the teaching team for being there, from the “silly” questions to the stubborn bugs. Your patience, clarity, and genuine care made all the difference.

Picture 3: SpeedyWeather, as told by its favourite storyteller Milan, Picture 4: Pier Luigi probably preparing for the next summer school..

Coffee, Culture, and Climate Chat

The best part of the summer school was the people. The group was diverse: PhD students, and professionals from different countries and research areas. We spent nearly every moment together, from breakfast to evening socials, often ending the day with random games of “Would You Rather” or talking about pets. The summer school’s packed schedule brought us closer and sparked rich chats about science and life, everything from AI’s role in climate modelling to the policy levers behind climate action. We left with a lot to think about. Meeting people from around the world exposed us to rich cultural diversity and new perspectives on how science is practiced in different countries, insights that were both fresh and valuable. It went beyond training: we left with skills, new friends, and the seeds of future collaborations, arguably the most important part of research.

Picture 5: Barbecue evening after wrapping up the first week, Picture 6: Formal dinner at Sidney Sussex, one last evening together before the final presentations

Reflections and takeaways

We didn’t become expert modellers in two weeks, but we did get a glimpse of how complex and creative climate modelling can be. The group presentations were chaotic but fun. Different projects, different approaches, and a few slides that weren’t quite finished in time. Some of us improvised more than we planned, but the atmosphere was supportive and full of laughter. More than anything, we learned by doing and by doing it together. The long days, the discussions, and the teamwork made it all worthwhile.

If you ever get the chance to go, take it. You’ll come back with new ideas, good memories, and friends who make science feel a little more human.

For the future participants

The NCAS CMSS usually opens in early spring, with applications closing around June. With limited spots, selection is competitive and merit-based, evaluating both fit for the course and the expected benefit to the student.

Bring curiosity, enthusiasm, and a healthy dose of patience, you’ll need all three. But honestly, that’s what makes it fun. You learn quickly, laugh a lot, and somehow find time to celebrate when a script finally runs without error. By the end, you’ll be tired, happy, and probably a little proud of how much you managed to do (and probably a few new friends who helped you debug along the way).

Match report on the first Met Dept cricket match since 2019

The Social MetworkLeave a comment

Written by Elliot McKinnon-Gray

THERE HAD BEEN murmurings among the cricket lovers of the Meteorology department about resurrecting the Staff v Student cricket match each year when the darling buds of Spring give way to the lush green leaves of Summer and the drying out of the ground underfoot. It was time to get it going. It started with casual conversations over coffee about the logistics of resurrecting this beloved tradition, and then the feelers were sent out. Over 30 people signed up to be notified of developments, so I knew we would have enough players, and it was time to find a venue.

How foolish it was of me to assume that the University would have an on-campus cricket pitch – “a non-starter on campus” I was told by Sport@Reading: turns out they had turfed out their cricketers and exiled them to a far away land the other side of the M4. That would not do. Then came the excellent suggestion from one of the all-time cricketing greats of the department, Reg. Prof. Keith Shine who suggested we could ask over at Sol Joel Park about use of their facilities. A perfectly walkable distance away. But again I was met with an apologetic rebuttal – the facilities were fully booked out by regular-season teams. Looks like we were going to have to MacGyver this together ourselves. The plan was simple: plastic cones for a boundary and stumps on springs on a plain patch of grass near the SportsPark. But then came the revelation that PhD student Eme Dean-Lewis might be able to connect with the lovely folk over at Leighton Park School, just over the road at the Pepper Lane exit. It was all a little last minute, but it was done. The first Staff vs. Student match was to be held on the grounds of Leighton Park school on their beautifully kept ground in front of their adorable Victorian pavilion.

Students’ XI waiting their turn to bat in front the Leighton Park School pavilion. Image Credit: J. Williams

Gameday arrived. Tuesday 17th June 2025. Gloriously hot and dry: a perfect day for a game of cricket. We were to play a 22-over game so that everyone faced 12 balls but we had to be out of the ground by 20:45, so no hanging about! To speed things along, there were no re-bowls for wides or no balls, but a 2-run penalty. A 2 run penalty to the batting team for each wicket lost as well. The Students’ captain E. McKinnon-Gray and Staff captain K. M. R. Hunt went out to inspect the wicket and both had the same first impression. This looks like a subcontinental wicket – hard and dry with a few cracks. Not expecting a lot of bounce or seam movement but the spinners might have a field day…

At the toss, both captains were happy with Students’ XI batting first. The first over was N. Reddy to E. McKinnon-Gray and provided some of the highest quality cricket of the evening. Reddy was bowling fast and straight, but McKinnon-Gray was making use of that pace and managed to score 10 off the first over with a bye for the team taking the opening over score to 11-0. It was looking like a good day to bat. Following that was Shipley to Mammatt with a modest 3 including a wicket. Reddy to McKinnon-Gray was the story of the 3rd over, and two stories of the game as a whole. To make up for his expensive first over, Reddy elected to come over the wicket this time, and first ball pitched up viciously into McKinnon-Gray’s thumb resulting in a painful swelling. Great deal of help those expensive Gray-Nicolls gloves were! The following ball, wicket keeper S. Woolnough suffered the same fate to a searing yorker-length ball just outside off stump that went for a bye. Two fractured thumbs in two balls, Reddy took the pace off a bit and decided to bowl some medium-fast spin. The result was just 2 runs off the 3rd over. McKinnon-Gray and Woolnough continued to play through the pain.

McKinnon-Gray’s smashed thumb

Mammatt followed up with a well earned 3 runs off the bowling of W. Tsai. Up next was the batting pair of S. K. Panda and C. Miller. Like the other pairs, this represents one more and one less experienced player. All the inexperienced players made a great case for themselves and had a good time according to conversations I have had with them today. And that is the most important thing – that people enjoyed playing a team sport with their colleagues (and bosses!).

In the four overs that followed there were a flurry of runs and wickets. Panda crashed a delicious four on the offside which almost got lost in the bushes off Reddy’s fast spin. Miller, after scoring a run off the spin of C. O’Reilly, was caught and bowled by O’Reilly twice in consecutive balls. The eventual player of the match was giving us his first hint that he came here to win this match for team Staff. 5 runs off the Hunt to Panda over, followed by A. Charlton-Perez to Miller which resulted in another wicket, this time a catch by Woolnough off the tall spinner’s bowling.

In at 5 and 6 were the experienced D. Wood and the flying Dutchwoman with 0 games under her belt A. Te Winkel. Wood played a classy innings scoring 4 runs with a variety of classic strokes off the bowling of R. Kandala. Te Winkel scored a steady 3 off Williams’s and Shipley’s bowling. Up next were R. S. Nemani and G. Ching-Johnson. Nemani scored 3 and lost two wickets to the bowling of B. Senapati, while Ching-Johnson scored 1 and weathered the storm against a barrage of spin from Thompson and G. Hu. The best was yet to come for the student batters however – out walked L. Blunn and N. Inatimi with the Students foundering at 62-6 off 16. 4 overs later, they stood at 97-7 after Blunn crashed 21 off his two overs against the bowling of P. M. Inness and N. Reddy. Inatimi endured an eventful two overs, scoring 7 runs including a boundary – the only inexperienced player to do so – and was the 3rd victim of another O’Reilly caught and bowled. Up at 11 to give the Students a boost at the end was J. Charlton-Perez with a beautifully struck 12 from 12 balls (and making his dad run around a fair bit in the field!).

The final student net score of 107 must be caveated here by the fact that the Staff XI was in fact a Staff XIII – two extra players flew under the radar until near the end. With this taken into account, Staff only won by 9 runs, but in their batting innings they certainly made sure that there was no doubt over the winner.

Staff captain Hunt corralling his 13 fielders. Photo: J. Williams

The bowling started well for the Students, with EMG, JCP, Nemani, and Blunn conceding just 16 runs off the opening 4 overs of Hunt and Hu. It was during the staff batting that some creative nominations for player of the match began to be suggested. A very successful chase was about to start, possibly thanks to a seagull roaming around the perimeter. Another suggestion was in the form of umpire K. Shine who, if all the extras were credited to him was the top scorer by 400%! He did however play the full 44 overs – a valiant effort.

In at 3 and 4 were Thompson and Reddy whose mission was to “take off the scoreboard pressure”. And they did exactly that – 36 runs off their stand and Staff were already nearly halfway to Students’ total. No wickets fell in the next pairing of Senapati and Shipley – adding 25 more (mostly extras). The following pairing was what ultimately won the match for the Staff and cemented O’Reilly’s place as player of the match. O’Reilly hit a thunderous 24 off the bowling of Panda and McKinnon-Gray with Tsai contributing 4 more, and extras taking the staff score to within 2 of the Students’. The bowling of Blunn to Tsai also brought up arguably the highest quality piece of bowling and fielding of the match, a beautiful outswinger from Blunn nicked offside straight to the raised hands of Panda at first slip high above his head. A proper test dismissal. JCP’s wicket-keeping debut was off to a flyer with a stumping to end the final over of Tsai’s batting.

Kandala and Inness followed up, and although wickets fell to Panda and Blunn with a great performance from stand-in keeper JCP with a catch to add to his tally, the pair contributed 24 to the Staff score taking the game all but out of reach of the Students. Finally, it was the turn of Williams to bat and perhaps the most village moment of the whole game. While running for his first single off the bowling of Blunn, his box fell out onto the middle of the pitch! We then all politely looked away while he readjusted…! Blunn and J. Charlton-Perez got a wicket each with no extras, but despite their tight bowling, Williams’s 4 runs was enough to make sure of the result.

All in all, a great departmental social event, and hopefully a few more people can count themselves as enjoyers of cricket. See you all at the next one – students, we’ve got revenge to seek!