Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Hawaii's coastline shows no signs of rising, but every year is the hottest, and Iceland is melting,....the preacher is lying!

Hawaii, if anything, is sinking.  That would cause the water level to rise relative to the land.  But Hawaii is also a volcano.  It inflates and deflates over time.  Making sea-level height measurements would be very difficult, if not impossible.

You missed my post about not every year setting new records.  That is because natural variation exceeds the long-term trend.  This time READ the post.

Yes Iceland is melting.  That's not exactly news.  I suppose I could find the ice figures and post them for you, but you'd ignore them anyway.

And I've known more than one preacher to lie.  No surprise there.

Doug

 

[Guest]

I don't try to predict the future.  My research is of the past.  Oklahoma has been getting warmer and wetter - warmer since 1824 and wetter since 1960.  I don't see anything happening to change that.

Doug

[tmcom]

27 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Hawaii, if anything, is sinking.  That would cause the water level to rise relative to the land.  But Hawaii is also a volcano.  It inflates and deflates over time.  Making sea-level height measurements would be very difficult, if not impossible.

You missed my post about not every year setting new records.  That is because natural variation exceeds the long-term trend.  This time READ the post.

Yes Iceland is melting.  That's not exactly news.  I suppose I could find the ice figures and post them for you, but you'd ignore them anyway.

And I've known more than one preacher to lie.  No surprise there.

Doug

Yes some years are down but overall every year is the hottest, bl ah, blah.

I know that iceland melts in summer and gets it back in winter, not the crap that it keeps melting more and more each summer.

Can't get any data on if Hawaii landmass is sinking, but the retaining wall shows zero signs of rising sea levels, so no land mass sinking and no sea level rise.

If it was sinking then the sea level rise would be more obvious or no rise but still showing as a rise due to dropping land mass would show.

 

Gets back to what l said previously about AU sensors around Fiji islands showing nothing over 30 years, and being accurate.

 

Fine if you want to believe in this, but this thread is about uncovering the snake oil and anything else that has entertainment value.

[tmcom]

Yes!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

Yes!

Here are the ice cover amounts for the Arctic Ocean.  The units are million square kilometers.

Sea Ice Cover - Arctic Ocean			10^6 sq km
	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	June	July	Aug	Sept	Oct	Nov	Dec	Ave
1978	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	11.65	13.67	.
1979	15.41	16.18	16.34	15.45	13.86	12.53	10.31	8.04	7.05	8.75	10.94	13.34	12.35
1980	14.86	15.96	16.04	15.43	13.79	12.21	10.10	7.95	7.67	9.18	11.38	13.59	12.35
1981	14.91	15.61	15.63	15.01	13.80	12.43	10.27	7.84	7.14	8.86	10.93	13.34	12.15
1982	15.18	15.97	16.04	15.47	13.97	12.48	10.37	8.14	7.30	9.42	11.63	13.64	12.47
1983	14.94	16.01	16.09	15.17	13.49	12.30	10.57	8.19	7.40	9.33	11.46	13.30	12.35
1984	14.47	15.30	15.58	15.01	13.58	12.15	9.98	7.77	6.81	8.56	10.84	12.99	11.92
1985	14.73	15.47	15.89	15.36	14.07	12.22	9.75	7.40	6.70	8.55	11.03	13.05	12.02
1986	14.89	15.79	15.91	15.06	13.38	11.98	10.15	7.98	7.41	9.48	11.45	13.22	12.22
1987	14.97	16.05	15.82	15.21	13.74	12.49	10.33	7.50	7.28	9.05	11.22	13.28	12.24
1988	15.04	15.58	15.96	15.12	13.56	11.94	9.81	7.89	7.37	9.14	11.33	13.63	12.20
1989	14.96	15.50	15.42	14.33	13.04	12.25	10.13	7.68	7.01	8.83	11.12	13.39	11.97
1990	14.78	15.58	15.87	14.65	13.23	11.64	9.25	6.80	6.14	8.49	11.08	13.11	11.72
1991	14.36	15.25	15.42	14.86	13.47	12.11	9.51	7.42	6.47	8.54	10.89	12.95	11.77
1992	14.62	15.46	15.48	14.68	13.22	12.15	10.32	7.93	7.47	9.32	11.38	13.41	12.12
1993	14.90	15.69	15.81	15.08	13.37	11.87	9.48	7.34	6.40	8.79	11.32	13.32	11.95
1994	14.73	15.56	15.55	14.89	13.62	12.02	9.93	7.64	7.14	8.92	11.12	13.27	12.03
1995	14.59	15.23	15.26	14.45	12.97	11.44	8.99	6.74	6.08	7.83	10.76	12.92	11.44
1996	14.18	15.16	15.12	14.22	13.10	12.08	10.16	8.18	7.58	9.16	10.40	12.86	11.85
1997	14.42	15.44	15.47	14.56	13.18	11.74	9.41	7.29	6.69	8.34	10.68	13.08	11.69
1998	14.72	15.75	15.60	14.89	13.59	11.71	9.42	7.51	6.54	8.45	10.44	12.76	11.78
1999	14.36	15.31	15.40	15.08	13.75	11.78	9.46	7.23	6.12	8.60	10.80	12.64	11.71
2000	14.22	15.14	15.23	14.56	13.15	11.67	9.51	7.17	6.25	8.38	10.32	12.64	11.52
2001	14.20	15.21	15.52	14.86	13.51	11.46	9.07	7.46	6.73	8.30	10.66	12.49	11.62
2002	14.27	15.34	15.35	14.30	12.97	11.58	9.27	6.60	5.83	8.16	10.34	12.61	11.39
2003	14.39	15.19	15.49	14.51	13.06	11.60	9.22	6.94	6.12	7.85	10.13	12.59	11.42
2004	14.03	14.91	14.99	13.99	12.56	11.45	9.43	6.86	5.99	7.93	10.34	12.55	11.25
2005	13.66	14.37	14.69	14.09	12.91	11.16	8.65	6.30	5.50	7.35	10.22	12.23	10.93
2006	13.47	14.33	14.42	13.91	12.52	10.92	8.46	6.50	5.86	7.54	9.66	11.96	10.79
2007	13.70	14.51	14.54	13.85	12.78	11.22	7.94	5.34	4.27	6.04	9.76	12.03	10.50
2008	13.89	14.95	15.18	14.35	12.97	11.21	8.68	5.91	4.69	7.35	10.34	12.36	10.99
2009	13.91	14.81	14.98	14.50	13.19	11.32	8.47	6.14	5.26	6.92	9.77	12.20	10.96
2010	13.74	14.58	15.14	14.66	12.87	10.59	8.08	5.88	4.87	6.98	9.61	11.83	10.73
2011	13.46	14.36	14.55	14.11	12.68	10.75	7.72	5.47	4.56	6.47	9.77	12.15	10.50
2012	13.73	14.55	15.20	14.63	13.01	10.68	7.67	4.72	3.57	5.89	9.39	12.01	10.42
2013	13.70	14.43	15.03	14.23	13.00	11.36	8.13	6.01	5.21	7.46	9.94	12.18	10.89
2014	13.65	14.42	14.76	14.09	12.70	11.03	8.11	6.08	5.22	7.23	10.12	12.35	10.81
2015	13.60	14.40	14.37	13.89	12.47	10.88	8.38	5.60	4.62	6.97	9.85	12.05	10.59
2016	13.46	14.20	14.40	13.68	11.92	10.41	7.94	5.37	4.53	6.08	8.66	11.46	10.18
2017	13.19	14.12	14.29	13.75	12.63	10.76	7.94	5.48	4.82	6.77	9.49	11.74	10.42
2018	13.08	13.97	14.30	13.70	12.23	10.78	8.27	5.62	4.79	6.13	9.82	11.86	10.38
2019	13.56	14.40	14.55	13.46	12.16	10.53	7.59	.	.	.	.	.

[Guest]

Here is what that looks like when graphed over time:

Arctic ice cover has been shrinking at a rate of 7% +/- 1% per year since 1979.

That is my own dataset, compiled from satellite images.

Why don't you get a complete dataset instead of just cherry-picking parts of it?

Doug

Edited September 12, 2019 by Doug1o29

[tmcom]

Yes cracks are showing and large mainstream individuals are finally speaking out.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/in-unprecedented-move-head-of-key-meteorological-organization-slams-climate-extremists_3076409.html?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=52dacc6c8d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_09_11_10_38&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-52dacc6c8d-20137121

Quote

“I think people are utterly shocked by the language that he is using,” Peiser said. “He talks about a religious cult. He talks about people being extremists and doomsters. It’s quite staggering. The language that he uses and the signal that he’s sending out is ‘We are afraid of these extremists. They are destroying our society.’”

 

Quote

“The meteorologists are real scientists and probably fed up with Greta, Mann, Gore, & AOC catastrophists.

And even the IPCC is saying that models don't work.

Yes, the circus is coming to an end.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

Yes cracks are showing and large mainstream individuals are finally speaking out.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/in-unprecedented-move-head-of-key-meteorological-organization-slams-climate-extremists_3076409.html?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=52dacc6c8d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_09_11_10_38&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-52dacc6c8d-20137121

 

And even the IPCC is saying that models don't work.

Yes, the circus is coming to an end.

A lot of amateurs get involved in climate politics.  And that just makes it harder for the professionals.  I, too, am somewhat fed up with Greta and Gore.

Mann is an actual climate scientist.  He didn't choose to get involved in politics, but the deniers didn't like his findings and resorted to libel and character assassination.  He got involved because he didn't have a choice.

And AOC is well-intentioned, but naieve.  2030 is not a realistic deadline.  We don't have the capacity to build 180,000 windmills in 12 years.  And we don't have the technology needed to start reducing CO2 levels - that's years in the future.  But none of that is a reason to do nothing.  We could re-write her proposal into something doable - there's a bipartisan committee doing just that.  Then we implement it piecemeal.

 

Which model works/doesn't work depends on the model.  In my work, a "model" is just an equation that produces output similar to that produced by a natural system.  Some equations do the job better than others.

Doug

[tmcom]

Lets see what Greta is up to on her pilgrimage in the US?

This is live eventhough it isn't, and comments have been disabled, just in case some retiree's who still have enough electricity left take a stab?

But there is a feed.

But first, they all seem to leave on battery powered whatevers, which being in the uS is primary charged with coal/nuclear power plants, and their phones, and the camera's, lol.

And thankfully we couldn't really hear Greta and the one before her, which is a plus, but we can hear the "get rid of coal" chanting unfortunately.

No doubt Trump was telling staff to play, "Burn Baby Burn" on a Ghetti Blaster, so he couldn't hear any of this, that or launch a cruise missile attack?

 

But this is what a large concentration of brainwashed children look like, well unless you find a 1940's video?

But back to the feed...

Quote

One of those posters spelled climate with two aas. That's pretty impressive.

Lol, sure why learn my A,B, D's when l have the climate to worry about.

Quote

Greta hasn't had solid food for the last 5 years

Not sure about that remark, salads are food l think?

Quote

Volcanoes release about 98% of CO2. What are you gonna do? Plug them up?

This guy is making too much sense, evil disbeliever.

Quote

yes those poor kids with $1500 iPhones, $150 Nikes and $100 pairs of Levis on...

Yes, no pensioners on diesel generators there?

Quote

Schools teach this fake global warming crap.

Quote

i love hearing about climate change from people smoking huge joints

Well, they are children so small joints.

Quote

Eating people will help stop climate change - according to one 'scientist'.. kind of sums up the 'science' of climate change

I knew Soylent Green was a doc,.

Quote

hurry up u dont wana miss your CO2 generating bike ride home

 

Quote

all those expensive not environmentaly friendly name brand clothes... hypocrites

Yes, no heshon in sight?

 

And not even DeCaprio arriving on his half ton SUV, from his diesal gulping boat, showed up?

I will probably watch the lot as the feed is so funny, but mute the chanting.

Hopefully she will get back on her yaught and stock up on buckets, but if she does some other funny things l will post it here.

Explains why the comments have been disabled across this subject since it is so frickin funny, and adults are more so, although,....never mind.

Yes, water levels are rising, except Hawaii, apparently, that is exempt, lol.

[tmcom]

My paper today had articles about the drought in Victoria's, country areas, and no mention of Climate change. It also had another story about the cyclone, and no climate change remarks their either, but it did have a Greta article, with a caption garbeging this, and did mention those two, dragged through the muck words.

It also talked about our labor party still not getting the "we don't want to pay for this nonsense" idea, but it did put the Climate Emergency in the right context of a Left Wing Cult, run by fanatical extremists.

 

My paper used to use Climate Chance remarks quite a lot in such articles but not anymore,....l guess that the science is settled, lol.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

Its almost sweet how tmcom's greatest enemy seems to be a 16 year old teenage girl from Sweden. 

[tmcom]

5 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Its almost sweet how tmcom's greatest enemy seems to be a 16 year old teenage girl from Sweden. 

I go where the entertainment is!

PS l wish DesertRat66 would stop, we know, we can see the joke.

Edited September 15, 2019 by tmcom

[+Desertrat56]

9 minutes ago, tmcom said:

I go where the entertainment is!

PS l wish DesertRat66 would stop, we know, we can see the joke.

Stop what?  Laughing at your crazy posts?  They aren't supposed to be funny?

[tmcom]

31 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Stop what?  Laughing at your crazy posts?  They aren't supposed to be funny?

This one is hilarious, especially at the end when he shows someone who Rubbished Brian Cox, (remember that one) on a Q&A show on the ABC a while ago, (video online) showed his chart to be total crap, (and most of the audience was on Cox'es side).

I can see the joke when a prominent physicist doesn't research anything or goes to JunkScienseAreuS.com, and looks like a fool in public.

Edited September 15, 2019 by tmcom

[Guest]

On 9/15/2019 at 6:13 AM, tmcom said:

My paper today had articles about the drought in Victoria's, country areas, and no mention of Climate change. It also had another story about the cyclone, and no climate change remarks their either, but it did have a Greta article, with a caption garbeging this, and did mention those two, dragged through the muck words.

It also talked about our labor party still not getting the "we don't want to pay for this nonsense" idea, but it did put the Climate Emergency in the right context of a Left Wing Cult, run by fanatical extremists.

 

My paper used to use Climate Chance remarks quite a lot in such articles but not anymore,....l guess that the science is settled, lol.

Which paper are you talking about?  Local newspapers are worse than worthless as a source of climate change information.  They often contain as much wrong information as right.

 

BTW:  You're always crying about "What do we do at night when solar systems don't work?  Here's a still-experimental device that may one day solve your problem:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/device-harnesses-cold-night-sky-generate-electricity-dark?utm_source=Editors_Picks&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorspicks091519

We are going to solve the climate change problem more by research and innovation than by political  diatribes.  You may not see global warming as a problem, but in 2005 the Ninth Ward (New Orleans) went underwater.  Staten Island was severely damaged by Superstorm Sandy.  The Bahamas just got flattened by Dorian.  Building a coffer dam around Manhattan and a new storm barrier for New York Harbor, moving industry out of New Orleans and up river to Baton Rouge, building bigger, heavier bridges on your highways - all are responses to climate change.  So even though some citizens don't believe in climate change, they still see the need to take acion.

Doug

[tmcom]

I hate to do this, well not really!

Long Beach, California's coastline 2019.

And the same at similar times, (shadows of palm tree's on condo's) but this was in 2010, (or 9 years ago).

https://www.google.com.au/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNQTMQUJkmn6qfN2wMxWhQ4Es8kgTQ%3A1568633723983&source=hp&ei=e3N_XfynOYeo9QOfko6QBw&q=long+beach+california+tide&oq=long+beach+california+tide&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30l4.1400.11587..12106...2.0..0.294.5728.0j14j14......0....1..gws-wiz.......35i39j0i67j0i131j0i131i67j35i304i39j0i13j0i20i263j0i22i10i30.m7CNcQUuvCc&ved=0ahUKEwi80Zf_n9XkAhUHVH0KHR-JA3IQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

And the tides, which are not in affect at this time of the day, (tides are early morning).

http://scecinfo.usc.edu/eqcountry/roots/socal.html

And this which shows that the plates are moving inland, not rising or lowering, just moving inland and then compressing under a fault line.

2007 appears to be the earliest videos available on TY, (for this event) but no big sea level rises back then either, or 12 years.

Harder to see the shoreline in this one, but enough to see that no change has taken place.

 

So, Long Beach California, shows no sea level rise over 9 years, or even 12 years, (this goes out to the ocean by the way) with tides not being a factor and tetonic plates showing no rise or lowering of land mass near the coastline only movement. Or in other words Hottest year, and rising sea level hysteria is a load of crap.

 

I know the faithful don't want to hear it, as if this sinks in they will have to go back to no ego pampering beliefs, although Flat Earthers will still welcome new members.

 

I know they tore up the entire shoreline and raised it, nope, do a Google image search which shows no works of that kind for this area over the last 9 years. And what does the Mayer think, here you go...

https://la.curbed.com/maps/long-beach-development-downtown-project-map

And one of several beach front apartment projects.

https://la.curbed.com/2016/11/2/13501230/apartments-long-beach-ocean-center-building-new

 

If you do a Google search for some of the above links there are plenty of end is nigh, Long Beach will be under water, blah, blah, sites, with no evidence apparently.

 

Honestly this is pretty solid evidence, that there is no looming disaster, and l know the faithful will dig in more, and the faithful need to ask themselves why are they so determined to hang onto this?

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, tmcom said:

And the tides, which are not in affect at this time of the day, (tides are early morning).

Wrong!  Tides run 24 hours a day.  Sometimes in; sometimes out.  You always have to correct for tide.

Doug

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, tmcom said:

So, Long Beach California, shows no sea level rise over 9 years, or even 12 years, (this goes out to the ocean by the way) with tides not being a factor and tetonic plates showing no rise or lowering of land mass near the coastline only movement. Or in other words Hottest year, and rising sea level hysteria is a load of crap.

Sea levels have risen about three inches in the last 25 years.  That would be about 1.5 inches during the lifetime of this event.  So you can't see that in some racing photos?  So what?  Your resolution isn't anywhere near good enough.  Go take some actual measurements.

Doug

[+Desertrat56]

22 hours ago, tmcom said:

This one is hilarious, especially at the end when he shows someone who Rubbished Brian Cox, (remember that one) on a Q&A show on the ABC a while ago, (video online) showed his chart to be total crap, (and most of the audience was on Cox'es side).

I can see the joke when a prominent physicist doesn't research anything or goes to JunkScienseAreuS.com, and looks like a fool in public.

Some of your posts make me think you don't know as much science as you think you do.  And you have a skewed perception.  You need to step away from the media and actually take a walk outside.  Nothing on either side of any subject presented by the media is unbiased.  There is a middle ground where you can see some of each side has a point, but choosing a side keeps you polarized and controlled.  Instead of posting a plethora of interviews that supposedly prove your point, post some real research.  Maybe you have and I just skipped past it because all your posts seem to be the same, saying the same thing over and over.  I hope you find a way to be ok with the way the world really is around you.  You can't change anything globally, you can only change your personal environment and the people you interact with (not changing each person but rather change who you interact with to improve your personal environment).

[tmcom]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

Wrong!  Tides run 24 hours a day.  Sometimes in; sometimes out.  You always have to correct for tide.

Doug

Well, if this event took place at 6am to 7am in the morning then you would have a valid point, but since it isn't....

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

Sea levels have risen about three inches in the last 25 years.  That would be about 1.5 inches during the lifetime of this event.  So you can't see that in some racing photos?  So what?  Your resolution isn't anywhere near good enough.  Go take some actual measurements.

Doug

Doug, Doug, Doug, if you go to a junk science site then that is what you will get! And unfortunately junk is at least 80% of search results, (at least for this example).

This is seeing the coastline and noticing nothing. I guess what you are saying is Climate Change is real, but it really isn't?

Or if iceland, etc is melting since world temps are increasing so much, and ocean levels are rising at an increasing rate then we should be able to see it?

This is ironclad, but you still refuse to see it, l guess we will have to wait some more.

And don't look at Greta, for inspiration, l believe the reason she was so timid and despondent at the rally in Washington is she finally read something like this, and finally snapped out of the Cult she fell for? If l am right, Greta will probably disappear and go back to school. And at least she has a half decent excuse.

20 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Some of your posts make me think you don't know as much science as you think you do.  And you have a skewed perception.  You need to step away from the media and actually take a walk outside.  Nothing on either side of any subject presented by the media is unbiased.  There is a middle ground where you can see some of each side has a point, but choosing a side keeps you polarized and controlled.  Instead of posting a plethora of interviews that supposedly prove your point, post some real research.  Maybe you have and I just skipped past it because all your posts seem to be the same, saying the same thing over and over.  I hope you find a way to be ok with the way the world really is around you.  You can't change anything globally, you can only change your personal environment and the people you interact with (not changing each person but rather change who you interact with to improve your personal environment).

I have done NOAA, research on land/sea temps, showing only a negligible temp, rise in the last 50 years, and no noticeable rise before that, (probably dodgy now).

With the 1930's being the hottest decade the US has ever experience since 1880. Not the last few years are the hottest, crap.

 

How about you look at the previous example or the Hawaii one, and tell us why it is so funny?

 

The above example is water tight or ironclad, (pretty much covers real data) unless Doug is right then it is rising so slowly we can forget about it?

 

All l am seeing is individuals with serious problems that l am not qualified to answer, and if they keep believing in this, the bubble will burst, and since some cannot see any change over 12 years, l guess it will explode!

 

Or the faithful become angry and vicious when their faith keeps getting battered by examples like this.

 

I guess the faithful will become more scared and more frantic, eventhough coastlines around the world don't show it, (except the areas with sinking land mass) and Iceland ice keeps coming back each winter.

[+Desertrat56]

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

I guess the faithful will become more scared and more frantic, eventhough coastlines around the world don't show it, (except the areas with sinking land mass) and Iceland ice keeps coming back each winter.

  "The coastlines around the world don't show it" 

Edited September 16, 2019 by Desertrat56

[Guest]

2 hours ago, tmcom said:

Well, if this event took place at 6am to 7am in the morning then you would have a valid point, but since it isn't....

High and low tides precess.  That is, they change time by about an hour each day.  Besides that, the day-time tide is always higher than the night-time tide.  And then there are spring tides which occur when sun, moon and earth are aligned and neep tides that occur when they aren't.  So to know how high the tide is so you can correct for it, you have to know date and time-of-day.  Your pictures don't show time-of-day.

Getting the time wrong by an hour would more than offset sea level rise over a12-year period.

You must be a bigger lubber than I am not to know this.  Where were you when they talked about it in gradeschool?

Doug

[Guest]

7 hours ago, tmcom said:

And this which shows that the plates are moving inland, not rising or lowering, just moving inland and then compressing under a fault line.

The Pacific Plate is moving north-northwest relative to the North American Plate.  Not much change in elevation, though the Pacific Plate will sink below sea level in a few million years,  Nothing to lose any sleep over.  In the meantime, the danger is earthquakes caused when the two plates lock against each other, then slip suddenly.  An 8.6 is possible and someday will probably happen.  Odds are high enough that I'm not moving to southern California anytime soon, though I might still go there for a visit..  Results will probably look like the Loma Prieta or San Francisco earthquakes, only bigger.

Doug

Edited September 16, 2019 by Doug1o29

[Guest]

4 hours ago, tmcom said:

Doug, Doug, Doug, if you go to a junk science site then that is what you will get! And unfortunately junk is at least 80% of search results, (at least for this example).

I usually post information obtained from peer-reviewed journals.  I don't see you posting any scientific information at all.  Don't you believe in your cause enough to post some evidence?

Doug

[Guest]

4 hours ago, tmcom said:

This is seeing the coastline and noticing nothing. I guess what you are saying is Climate Change is real, but it really isn't?

Why would a casual observer note a sea level rise of 3 inches in 25 years?  You need to keep records if you're going to see this stuff.

Doug