On Monday, March 24, 2014 6:12:11 PM UTC, Freddie wrote:
On 24/03/14 17:43, Dawlish wrote:

On Monday, March 24, 2014 5:34:13 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:

On Monday, March 24, 2014 5:21:37 PM UTC, Freddie wrote:

Snip. I read what you said here more carefully..........

This left us with high (e) which persisted around

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

Hang on! You are now saying that the high moved SW -

exactly what I've been saying.

No - you said the high over and to the E of the UK retrogressed - which

it didn't.

That is movement

against the main pattern of flow, isn't it?

No - the westerly flow was north of 50N. The high most likely would've

moved in that direction due to upper ridging in that region creating a

north-easterly flow.

"The high would've moved in that direction" ?? But your own post says it didn't. It moved SW.

The definition of that is.....................?

Impossible.

Apart from the fact that it did.

dispersing by the 20th.

They are your words, Freddie.

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

The high *clearly* didn't move into the continent. Between 16 May and 19 may, it moved SW - as you nave said yourself and what I said originally. If anything, the charts on the 10th showed it moving SW earlier, allowing in the W-NW flow. As it happened, this colder flow took a day longer to be established than I expected.

pattern isn't conducive to retrogression.

Yes, that's your assertion. I could say the moon was made of green cheese,

but it wouldn't be true without me providing evidence.

As Will suggested, I would read up on Rossby waves to further your

There's the usual dismissive point and deliberately patronising comment you tried to make before Freddie. No reading will change that movement of the high from our East to our SW between 16-19 March - because that's exactly what happened, isn't it (you have pointed this out yourself).


knowledge of dynamical meteorology. Then you will gain understanding of

an upper pattern that is conducive to retrogression. I'm not going to

provide a link as it is easier for you to Google it yourself and look at

a number of sources.

If you could provide a link you would. You can't, I'm afraid and you've fallen back on simple assertion again. There must be a dissonance in your own mind here. You see the movement of the high from our east to our SW - retrogression - but you would have to admit your initial memory mistake which cause you to disagree with me about retrogression. Your argument now struggles, as you assert one thing has happened, but cannot provided and evidence to back your assertion that it did.

See your difficulty?

My evidence, which you have admitted, is shown on Bernard's charts between 16 and 19 March - a movement of that high from our East to our SW; i.e. retrogression. I have never changed that and the charts back that. You say this couldn't have happened, as the upper air pattern wasn't conducive, but you have produced no evidence for that and you only introduced this assertion after it became apparent from our discussion that this was the case. The charts from 16-19 March show that movement, as I've said, as clearly as a pikestaff.


Freddie