On Saturday, March 22, 2014 5:27:55 PM UTC, David Mitchell wrote:
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.

snipped

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

Post something useful eh?

more insults and ad homs snipped

That's what I asked. May I refer you to this?

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

That was three posts ago. Now leave the discussion to those who are actually taking part in it, please.

That was three posts ago. Now leave the discussion to those who are actually taking part in it, please.

You just think you're so clever don't you? It's my decision as to whether I take part in a public discussion, not yours, so if I want to continue to reply that's my prerogative.

I think that I must somehow get up your nose, if I didn't, you just wouldn't reply to a post that I have every right to and turn a discussion into some sort of personal vendetta.

And if you continue to publicly post forecasts, then you must expect people to reply to them and whether that reply is positive, negative, critical or praiseworthy, is entirely down to the opinion of that individual, whether they are right, or wrong, in your opinion.

Don't try to tell me how to manage my responses, which are valid and only include comments about you through your provocative actions.

If you actually read some of my comments above, you could actually improve the standard of what you attempt by providing clarity to your posts. But you have the perception that what you say is clear, when it isn't.

But your actions previously point towards your behaviour continuing its antagonistic slant, which is genuinely rather sad.

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


I suggest you read up on Rossby waves Paul as it is they that determine
whether something is retrogression or not. This case wasn't as the waves are
in a progressive mode. Dynamical meteorology is a specialised subject (which
I taught many years ago) but there is plenty of stuff on the Net about
Rossby waves.

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

Well,apart from the fact that retrogression certainly occurred between 12 Mach and 16 March you would be absolutely correct in your assertion Will .

On Saturday, 22 March 2014 23:02:07 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
Well,apart from the fact that retrogression certainly occurred between 12 Mach and 16 March you would be absolutely correct in your assertion Will .

12 Mach: is that the speed of your sound Paul?

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:48:41 PM UTC, wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:35:56 AM UTC, Freddie wrote:

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 02:51:44 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish





I suggest you read up on Rossby waves Paul as it is they that determine

whether something is retrogression or not. This case wasn't as the waves are

in a progressive mode. Dynamical meteorology is a specialised subject (which

I taught many years ago) but there is plenty of stuff on the Net about

Rossby waves.



Will

--

http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm

Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)

---------------------------------------------

Thank you Will and good to see you posting again. I knew you wouldn't be able to resist in the end.

So between 12th and 16th March, did the surface high retrogress?

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.......

Thank you for finally admitting this.

.............- but not on the 13th and 14th which is what I

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

interpretation.

That's a little weak, if I may say. The only "interpretation" was yours, Freddie. Yes; you "thought" you'd read something that I'd written and commented that the high never moved to our east, from memory. What actually happened was that you made a mistake with your remembrance of those charts and then spent several posts trying to say you'd tried to say you'd never said anything of the sort, until you, yourself, sourced Bernard's archive, which clearly showed you'd remembered wrongly.

Now that high moving to our east is settled (it did) we are left with whether it retrogressed from there. The archive charts between 12th and 16th March show that it did. If you don't feel that is the case, please produce some evidence to the contrary. My evidence for retrogression is he

http://www.woksat.info/wwp7.html

The high moved from our east to our SW between 12th March and 16th March. The charts clearly show that. I maintain there was no replacement of that high and it was not eroded from the north. It retrogressed - just as the models showed it would on the 10th when I made the forecast in the OP.

In article , pjgno1
@hotmail.com says...
Thank you Will and good to see you posting again. I knew you wouldn't be able to resist in the end.

So between 12th and 16th March, did the surface high retrogress?


From what I gather, reading between the lines, I would guess it depends
on whether thats an English retrogression or a Meteorological
retrogression.

I bit like how the 1987 Great Storm was most definitely an English
hurricane and was most definitely not a Meteorological one.

--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

You have not looked carefully enough and I look at them on every run that I can.

Aahh - we are talking about *analysed* charts - not model runs.

Nope, you've lost me.
Surely you've heard of synoptic analyses? That's what is under
discussion here, not model output. We're verifying your forecast at
this point - not creating it.

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

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.

snip

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.

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.

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