On Monday, March 24, 2014 5:21:37 PM UTC, Freddie wrote:
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'm not dodging anything. I'm not covering myself.



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.

Do I know more than you? Probably about dynamical

met - but I'm not saying that you can't possibly be correct.

Just not on this occasion.

I'm afraid it is correct.

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

This is what I see by looking at the charts:



If we start at midnight on the 12th, there was a single high (let's call

it 'a') at 56N5E. During the 12th it moved SE to 52N15E, and a new high

(b) formed at 52N7W. By midnight on the 13th, another new high (c)

formed at 54N28W, but had disappeared 6 hours later. High (a) moved S

then SW during the 13th to 48N12E and (b) was slow moving at first

before moving east into the North sea before dispersing. New high (d)

formed around 48N33W but again decayed the same day. New high (e)

formed at 49N18W by midday. High (a) decayed into a ridge before the

end of the 14th. This left us with high (e) which persisted around

47-49N 15-20W until the 17th when it moved SW to around 41N19W before

dispersing by the 20th.



So no retrogression - just a single instance of a high moving into the

continent (a), with a new high (e) forming 1500 miles to the west. That

isn't retrogression. And, as I've said a few times before, the upper

pattern isn't conducive to retrogression.

Sorry Freddie, but that's not what those chats show.

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.

There were three last time I checked this thread.

None of them have done anything of the sort.

Freddie