Oh, dear. I'm the one who told everyone ages ago (when succulents first started getting popular) to simply use Dry Stall rather than trying to track down pumice. Tack and feed stores were an inexpensive source, but it took some explaining to get people to understand why they sell pumice (it absorbs excess moisture in horse stalls) and why it's good for succulents (it absorbs excess moisture in soil so roots don't rot, and it also helps to aerate the soil). For some unknown reason, Dry Stall has vanished and Stall Dry now is everywhere. It's basically kitty litter. Don't use it as a soil amendment for potted plants, succulents or otherwise. Instead go to Google (or Amazon) and search for "horticultural pumice." It's become widely available due to demand. Learn more on the "Succulent Soil and Amendments" page of my website.

SO, to keep this a little more on topic. According to new research (May 2, 2012) in Nature plants are leafing and blossming earlier and earlier and in leaf longer and longer. 1558 plants were monitored, on 4 continents. And these findings were compared to experiments and it showed that what happens in nature points to a stronger, not weaker signal than in those experiments. And the link is with higher temperatures. Oke, this is a proxy of course. We can easily find the trends. The lowest of all datasets is the one of the UAH (a satellite dataset). It is updated till april 2012. Their global longtermtrend is a rise of 0.13 K per/decade. Not what you would have thought when it would have not warmed. But it is less than it was till 2002 or so (Edit: I write this now in hindsight, as I was not aware of the 2003 date you mentioned in your message. I opened a second window to read it...So there is your answer: indeed since 2003 there is less additional warming). I guess it was 0.17 or 0.18 K back then. Look at the longterm behaviour of the trend: we see bumps here and there. It is not a straight line as human induced global warming does not cancel out natural variation. That remains and still has an influence by slowing down or speeding up the upward trend. The other satellite dataset, RSS (V3.3) now shows a warming of 0,15 K decade (as opposed to 0.162K/decade in the V3.2 dataset). Note: a ten year average. If it was warmer till 1998, we would have seen a cooling trend. It is still warming up though. What strikes me is that many sceptics always said this "satellite data is the best there is as we have global coverage" and also "it is the sun, it is all natural". Not familiar with how metstation datasets are compiled, checked and tested, they said these had to be wrong. It turns out that these datasets are virtually identical and in the past, satellite datasets were wrong and needed big corrections (yes, also by the sceptical scientists behind these measurements. They have agreed and adjusted accordingly). Landdatasets also go for about 0.15-0.16 K/decade rise. And now I ahve to look at buoys, that do not cover the whole world, that only started measuring in 2003 nd therefor cannot even be used for decadal trends. Like I said: since 2003 there was very little additional warming also in the other datasets. I have also explained how this is, that I expected little additional rise back in 2000 as you can read yourself and the reasons I gave for my forecast are precisely the reasons why there was little additional warming: - no big El Nino's - more La nina's - Less solar irradiation through a calmer sun Purely based on this, one would have expected a clear cooling. It did not happen. It is warmer than ever before on average. The sun will remain in a lull for the next few years, GHG warming pressure continues, El Nino (albeit a weak to moderate one) is coming. This decade will see a stronger rise than the last one, unless we get some major volcanic eruptions. Plants and animals are responding to warming by moving up north in the northern hemisphere and south in southern, by moving up in mountains. We see the permafrost melting in Alaska and Russia, givig way todrunken trees" (they weak ground no longer can support their weight). We see the northpolar icecap melting drastically. We see warmrecords eight times more than cold ones worldwide. The stratosphere is cooling. In part also due to CFC's and the destruction of the ozon layer. These are banned since 1987, so the stratosphere should get warmer over time, warmer than in the 1980s. However: it is not. The 1980s were 0.6-0.8 K warmer (not colder) on average than since 1995. The reason is redistribution of the same amount of energy. Greenhouse gasses trap the heath in the lower atmopshere so less is available more upwards. This wa predicted in the 1970s, when this was not happening yet. BTW: this also leads to a delayed recovery of the ozonlayer. Now, look at Venus with a runaway Greenhouse effect. The surface is at 500 centigrade. The upper atmosphere, inspite of being closer to the Sun, is much much colder than ours! Precisely because of the greenhouse effect. Virtually no solar energy escapes the surface. So the second remark (it is the sun) cannot explain this at all, nor can it explain a rise when the sun is cooler than ever since about 1900. All datasets and all proxies are clear: it is warming. And there is only one thing that can explain it and it was predicted decades before it was measurable.

well, it's been almost a year since I repurchased my old 96 Accord. Decided I'd give an update. The car is still going, but has had some issues. Not too surprising since the dern thing is on it's way to 400,000 miles. I'm sitting at a few clicks shy of 330,000 right now. I've really saved a lot of miles on the 06 and have driven the 96 on quite a few road trips this year. My biggest problem has been with leaks. I never realized just how many places there were for oil/fluids to escape from! Lol. I've had to replace my heater hoses, rear wheel bearings and a radiator fan. My driver's side power window is completely out of whack, the steering wheel is so worn and loose that I have to hold it at the 6 0'clock position, there is a hole in the carpet below the accelerator, interior door handles have broken off, numerous interior lights are burned out, interior rattles/creaks, ABS light stays on and the check engine light goes on/off randomly. The first time it was on, it was diagnosed as being a clogged throttle body/EGR ports. Now, I'm not real sure... probably a sensor, though my gas mileage is still what it should be and the car seems to be running properly. The engine continues to start every time and just keeps running on. The rest of the car is really starting to show it's wear and tear from the high mileage, but the engine still starts, runs and sounds the same it did when I first bought the car many years back with only 45,000 miles. I'm truly blown away by it. While I worry a little that something might break on me, I never worry that it's going to be the engine. I didn't think I'd ever put this car back on the highway for the long trips, but it is still able to handle them (well, the engine still can, anyway). The AC, cruise control and sunroof still work, though! The Honda reman. trans. has continued to disappoint... but it's still working, so I'm not going to complain too much. If it ever dies, I'll just have the engine yanked out and put into a better body. I'm really curious to know just how far this stupid thing will go. Also, update on the 06... just over 60k miles (I'd have closer to 90k if it weren't for the 96!) and it's held up exceptionally well. Still feels like a brand new car to me. It does have some rattles in the interior that have come back, but I haven't had to do squat to the car other than put gas in it, change the oil and drive it. It's still got a LOOONG way to go before it proves as good (hopefully better) than the 96.

Mongoct & jerzeegirl - thanks for your replies! Mongoct - I was hoping you would write!!! I'm sorry, I should have clarified that no one has ever confirmed for me what exactly is backing the tile. I just assumed it was greenboard based on my limited observation skills and because I thought the use of greenboard only was code compliant. (In my old apartment, the tile contractor used greenboard in the tub surround and swore it complied with code.) Despite my grievances, I actually do not think the current contractors would go so far as to violate code. Operating under this assumption, I would not expect the contractors to do more than to repair the water penetration issue. You all have given me food for thought, though. I will ask the GC on Monday what is backing the tile. If they are violating code, I certainly will make them replace our shower! Other than that, I'm guessing from your post the repair was already completed? Did they dig out the mud along the entire length of the shower (along the glass door and along the fixed glass panel) and repair the membrane to completely isolate the shower mud and thinset from the bathroom floor mud and thinset? Mongo - the work is not done. The mudbed was still damp today so we are running a fan all weekend and hopefully, the tile workers will be able to do the waterproof job on Monday. They have digged out the mud under the saddle the full length of the shower. Their plan is to paint the waterproof mastic vertically on the mud that is on either side of the saddle. I am going to ask them to use the mastic on the perpendicular sides (i.e., the walls) as well, although they may already be planning to do this. I really hope this works...