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
....and so is mine. See earlier answer.


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.
It didn't. See commentary on various high centre positions made in
earlier answer.

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

On Monday, March 24, 2014 5:03:42 PM UTC, Freddie wrote:
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

errrrrrr yes.

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

On Monday, March 24, 2014 5:26:02 PM UTC, Freddie wrote:
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

...and so is mine. See earlier answer.





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.

It didn't. See commentary on various high centre positions made in

earlier answer.



--

Freddie

Castle Pulverbatch

Shropshire

221m AMSL

http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/

http://twitter.com/PulverbatchWx for hourly reports

I'm afraid it did. See the evidence in those charts and look at it from the point of view of not trying to justify what you memory told you and then trying to impose a solution, but from what they actually show.

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. That is movement against the main pattern of flow, isn't it? The definition of that is.....................?

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.

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.


Freddie

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 definition of that is.....................?
Impossible.


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.

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
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.

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

On Monday, 24 March 2014 20:05:13 UTC, Dawlish wrote:


Looks like your ability to respond has retrogressed, at least something did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3TUWU_yg4s

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

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.
It was made in neither a dismissive nor a patronising way - that's just
your interpretation of it. You say you are open to learning, so I was
guiding you to that further learning.

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).
I have pointed out in my earlier commentary that there was one high
centre (e) in that time period (that formed around 49N18W around midday
on the 14th) and that wandered around a small area 47-49N 15-20W before
moving SW then S before decaying by the 20th. Nowhere in that
commentary did I suggest that the high over the UK (which actually had
moved east into the North sea and dispersed during the 13th) moved in a
southwesterly direction.


If you could provide a link you would.
I did provide a link - google "Rossby waves". You will be presented
with a plethora of resources that you can consume at your leisure.

Apologies for the slow reply to your post - I had spotted your earlier
reply (at 20:05 on Monday) and assumed you were lost for words. Hence I
didn't pick up on this post till this morning.

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