User talk:Cadae

GPS[edit]

Well, it depends on how long the monument has been there... and they might have it specified to mm, plus or minus a couple mm.... :) In any case, time's a wastin', you might as well make your edit. Awickert (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the discussion page and above.

There are many problems using GPS to get a reasonable altitude fix - even after years of data collection there are too many variables and inaccuracies to get reliable mm altitude measurements. The Pacific land measurements I refered to didn't have the years of measurements required to do mm fixes, nor the rigorously engineered pedestals required for such monuments. Yet the report based its conclusions on these dodgy readings ! Cadae (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - wow, then. I was imagining long-term readings with monuments corrected for everything from atmosphere to variations in satellite orbits; could you send a link to the article? Awickert (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a search for the original article, but the site where I left the original links has been wiped. I'll hunt for it further. In the meantime, check out this study which was performed around 2002, before the dodgy GPS-based report: http://staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/tuvalu.pdf . This will give you an idea just how unreliable the sea-level rise claims are, despite being dressed up with many graphs and convincing-looking datasets. The fact that Tuvalu is sinking (now well known, but not so well known back then), was largely ignored and some land 'subsidence' was attributed mainly to wind-damage ! . This is not science - it's a joke. Cadae (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Talk:Battle of Stalingrad/Comments has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPPC Article[edit]

Hi you recently showed interest in the following article [[1]] and the inclusion of new text, one of the editors has asked comments [[2]] and i was wondering if you had any further thoughts on this. Thank you.mark nutley (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

I collapsed our discussion: [3] because I don't think it is helpful for other evaluators to have to wade through our disagreement when looking at the page. I hope you understand. I do not mean to say we can't continue discussing this matter, so please do not take it as a provocative maneuver and feel free to continue discussing the matter, if you will. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand, and agree with you, it's not helpful wading through a longish discussion. I appreciate your attention to this matter. I'm very busy over the next day but will address your latest points as time permits - hopefully tomorrow. Cadae (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WUWT[edit]

You're here via WUWT, yes? I already know the answer, of course, I'm just curious if you're prepared to be open William M. Connolley (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the WUWT article brought the change to my attention. Cadae (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]