On Saturday, March 22, 2014 9:33:49 AM UTC, Freddie wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 02:24:57 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish

wrote:

1. On the 11th was the high was centred to our east? You have

maintained that this never happened but it clearly was. Surely you

can see that?

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
No it wasn't - it was directly over us.

and:

Yes it was. Look back over the charts and you'll see that the most easterly
point of its progressive journey left its centre to our east. Look
back at the charts.

I did look back over the charts - but only to double-check before I made my
assertions, as I follow them in real time too.

2. Between the 12th and the 16th, did the high pull back to sit to

our SW? Again, you've maintained that this never happened, but the

charts clearly show that it did.

I'm sorry but I don't see that in the charts.

What else can I say? That's exactly what the charts show between the 12th and the 16th. You linked to the charts and the charts show retrogression between those dates. It's as clear as a pikestaff.

Additionally the upper

level dynamics (i.e. the existence of a progressive pattern) do not

support regression of surface features.

high formed to the south west. If you look at upper air charts

for

the same period,

A link would be good. I'd like to see them.

Can anyone supply Paul a link, please?

Freddie

Freddie; I feel you are trying to do this completely from memory. Nowhere before have you mentioned upper air charts and may I suggest that your memory of what happened at the surface is not correct. My evidence for that is that your memory told you that the high did not progress to sit to our east - which it certainly did, for a full day on the 11th.

I do follow these charts on a daily basis, Freddie and I comment on them and forecast from them on a regular basis. Are you sure you are remembering this sequence of events correctly, as the archive charts simply don't back what you are saying?

I don't think this particular forecast of mine in the OP was perfect at all, as I've said; the cold air and snow showers on the hills didn't really get here until the 21st, as the pattern was not as progressive as I expected it to be, following the retrogression of the high, but the high did progress to our east on the 11th and it clearly retrogressed, pulling back SW, to the 16th. After that, I expected a fairly rapid incursion of colder air, which was delayed a day, or so.

I'd give up if I were you Freddy, you'll get nowhere.

When he issued the forecast I could foresee (he he, 100% accurate) a debate after the 20th.

Actually, I was surprised he used retrogression in the subject title, this was the bit I wondered about. So was it, or wasn't it retrogression? I don't think that in the truest sense of the forecasting world that it was. However, there is an argument that says it could be and one that disputes it and a definition of the word would support this. No that I'm agreeing he was correct, it was a silly word to use at the outset.

The problem of Dawlish is that his communication skills are so poor that he is unable to clearly state what he is forecasting, or for when, so when the analysis comes in, it is impossible to accurately assess.

If only he would spend time on thinking about what he is really trying to say and what message he really wants to present, it would be more helpful for all. (He wrote a reply to someone yesterday that I read about 6 times and still didn't understand and contradicted himself more than once in the same sentence.

Even though I had a very long and boring discussion with him about the clarity, which he ultimately agreed with (no, you can't deny it), he changed the subsequent forecast, a little, but (oh dear) retrogressed with the last one.

If only he would decide to say clearly which day, days or period it covers it would all make it so much easier to understand and for him to substantiate after the event. If he was brave enough to be clearer about his outcomes, he could easily have turned this forecast from a minor failure in to a successful one - but he won't get that.

Over and out, not getting into another discussion about this.

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:24:35 AM UTC, David Mitchell wrote:

I'd give up if I were you Freddy, you'll get nowhere.

rest of the inaccurate, snippy little rant snipped

Over and out, not getting into another discussion about this.

Then why post this stuff into a pretty civilised discussion? I have no beef with Freddie and I don't feel he has with me. We just have a disagreement, which is entirely normal in the context of a newsgroup.

Please go away unless you can post something useful to the discussion.

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.

Freddie; I feel you are trying to do this completely from memory.
Definitely not.

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. I don't think your
knowledge of dynamical meteorology is as complete as your knowledge
of comparing forecast charts. 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.

I do follow these charts on a daily basis
So why did you need me to link to them?



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 -
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.

--
Freddie
Castle Pulverbatch
Shropshire
221m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
http://twitter.com/PulverbatchWx for hourly reports

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 11:35:56 +0000
Freddie wrote:

it clearly retrogressed, pulling back SW, to =
the 16th.
Nope - that was a whole new high forming in the west atlantic and
trundling east.

Haven't looked at this set-up but that statement of yours describes how
highs often retrogress. The high itself does not move west but instead
gets eroded and replaced by one further west. That one progresses east,
though not as far as the previous one, and gets eroded in turn and
replaced by another still further to the west. Although the individual
highs all move eastwards, the average position of the main high
pressure area moves west.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'.
"Welcome to the year of the whores. People around the globe celebrate."
- BBC News subtitle

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:03:14 +0000, Graham P Davis
wrote:
Haven't looked at this set-up but that statement of yours describes
how
highs often retrogress. The high itself does not move west but
instead
gets eroded and replaced by one further west. That one progresses
east,
though not as far as the previous one, and gets eroded in turn and
replaced by another still further to the west. Although the
individual
highs all move eastwards, the average position of the main high
pressure area moves west.

Yes I know it's a bit of an optical illusion, the movement westwards
- but that didn't happen in this case. The old high was eroded from
the north, and a new one formed a long way (i.e. thousands of miles)
west. The upper pattern certainly wasn't one you would associate with
retrogression.

--
Freddie
Castle Pulverbatch
Shropshire
221m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
http://twitter.com/PulverbatchWx for hourly reports

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.

Please go away unless you can post something useful to the discussion.

You really are the most pathetic individual I have ever come across. I virtually agreed with your assessment, as it could be read either way. I suggested that with a little more thought you could have got the forecast right, not wrong. I have indicated that with also a little more thought that you could give much more clarity to your forecasts.
I was not sniping, but commenting and not getting into a debate with you as you once again show yourself up to be a spineless idiot not open to criticism whether constructive or not.

You know, you could be a really useful contributor on here if you realised that you are dealing with humans who have a degree of intelligence and not overtly concerned with you own reputation and that of others, which you seem to have an obsession with.

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 2:26:49 PM UTC, David Mitchell wrote:
Please go away unless you can post something useful to the discussion.



You really are the most pathetic individual I have ever come across. I virtually agreed with your assessment, as it could be read either way. I suggested that with a little more thought you could have got the forecast right, not wrong. I have indicated that with also a little more thought that you could give much more clarity to your forecasts.

I was not sniping, but commenting and not getting into a debate with you as you once again show yourself up to be a spineless idiot not open to criticism whether constructive or not.



You know, you could be a really useful contributor on here if you realised that you are dealing with humans who have a degree of intelligence and not overtly concerned with you own reputation and that of others, which you seem to have an obsession with.

"Over and out, not getting into another discussion about this."

Except that you've got yourself into another little pickle, as you couldn't resist having another little go and you are hardly covering yourself in glory, simply saying that you don't like me and throwing out insults, such as:

"You really are the most pathetic individual I have ever come across."

"spineless idiot"

All you ever do now, since you were shown to be clearly wrong in some of the most rambling and misplaced criticism I've perhaps ever seen, is try to have a go at me and you just end up making yourself look silly, really.

Then you speak of "obsession" shakes head

Again; please go away unless you can post something useful to the discussion.

On Saturday, 22 March 2014 15:36:07 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 2:26:49 PM UTC, David Mitchell wrote:

Please go away unless you can post something useful to the discussion..







You really are the most pathetic individual I have ever come across. I virtually agreed with your assessment, as it could be read either way. I suggested that with a little more thought you could have got the forecast right, not wrong. I have indicated that with also a little more thought that you could give much more clarity to your forecasts.



I was not sniping, but commenting and not getting into a debate with you as you once again show yourself up to be a spineless idiot not open to criticism whether constructive or not.







You know, you could be a really useful contributor on here if you realised that you are dealing with humans who have a degree of intelligence and not overtly concerned with you own reputation and that of others, which you seem to have an obsession with.



"Over and out, not getting into another discussion about this."



Except that you've got yourself into another little pickle, as you couldn't resist having another little go and you are hardly covering yourself in glory, simply saying that you don't like me and throwing out insults, such as:



"You really are the most pathetic individual I have ever come across."



"spineless idiot"



All you ever do now, since you were shown to be clearly wrong in some of the most rambling and misplaced criticism I've perhaps ever seen, is try to have a go at me and you just end up making yourself look silly, really.



Then you speak of "obsession" shakes head



Again; please go away unless you can post something useful to the discussion.

Post something useful eh? Apply to that to yourself and posts on this site would drop by half.

Do you ever actually read what people write? I have actually made some positive comments about how you can improve your forecasts and that you were actually close to success this time. I am not in a pickle but commenting on posts and not necessarily yours. Any pickle is yours created once again my your inability to make clear statements.

And I most certainly wasn't wrong in the previous discussion as others agreed and you actually changed your following forecast.

You are totally deluded and not worth communicating with as you attempt to turn everything into personal sniping as a means to attempt to cover up your own errors and insecurity.

I shouldn't have responded to this again and this will be my final comment, but I await your goading and final snipe, as you just can't fail to have the last word.