On Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:35:56 AM UTC, Freddie wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 02:51:44 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish

wrote:

I have never said that this wasn't the case.

Now Freddie, you only have to scroll back:

The high pressure, which was centred to our east before the

weekend

On the 11th yes - but not on the 13th and 14th which is what I

thought you meant by "before the weekend". Difference in

interpretation.



It's as clear as a pikestaff.

No it isn't.

pantomime mode Oh yes it is. /pantomime mode *))

Freddie; I feel you are trying to do this completely from memory.

Definitely not.

I feel you are. If not completely, there are clearly aspects of this that you have said that you remembered, which, in hindsight, you have not remembered correctly; e.g. that the high progressed to our east and was centred there for 24 hours.

Nowhere before have you mentioned upper air charts

That's a strange thing to say. The upper air drives the surface

features, so I shouldn't need to mention them.

That's self-evident, as you imply, but here, you are using it as a dodge, to cover for yourself, because you didn't say anything whatsoever about them to back your assertion and you have introduced them, in hindsight. That remains an assertion, which the surface charts do not support.

I don't think your

knowledge of dynamical meteorology is as complete as your knowledge

of comparing forecast charts.

Now you are trying to fall back on the "I know more than you do, so you can't possibly be correct" argument. I wondered when that might arrive. Now where have I heard that before? *))

You need an appreciation of the

dynamics of the whole troposphere and how they cause the developments

that you see in the model forecast charts. If you did have that

knowledge then you would be able to see that the troposphere wasn't

in the appropriate configuration to produce retrogressive surface

features.

However, retrogression clearly occurred between the 12th and 16th.

I do follow these charts on a daily basis

So why did you need me to link to them?

I would have thought that was obvious. I expected you to show that you were correct in your assertion that retrogression had not occurred. No-one should simply accept someone else's assertion when they don't feel they are correct, surely? The archive charts you linked to simply do not support that assertion and my memory of event, through following the charts carefully, was accurate. The high progressed to our east on the 11th, then retrogressed to our SW between the 12th and 16th.

I don't think this particular forecast of mine in the OP was

perfect at all

I think it was a reasonable forecast of colder conditions arriving -

We agree there.

but not via retrogressive surface features.

it clearly retrogressed, pulling back SW, to =

the 16th.

Nope - that was a whole new high forming in the west atlantic and

trundling east.

Again, the charts of 12-16 March show a clear retrogression. How can you deny that? In the end, what more can I say; as I've said, it's as clear as a pikestaff and you can bet your usenet life that if I wasn't correct in seeing this, there would be a host of uk.sci.weather contributors and lurkers (or sort of lurkers who are reading every word of this, itching to contribute and support you) pointing out exactly where I am wrong.

Freddie

PS Would you at least accept that you did say that the high did not progress to the east of the UK? I did lead you back to two times where this was your clear implication, in your criticism of me saying it - The high certainly progressed to our east on 11/03/2014, as I said it had.