Hit the unlock button on the fob, nothing--got closer, still nothing. WTF? Well, never mind, get in, turn the key--
I mean, big nothing; the odometer didn't even light up. The clock on the stereo didn't come on. Total zilch.
Look, the Jeep cranked very slow on the coldest days of last winter, yes, and it got so cold once that--but look, it's freaking fifty-five degrees outside.
It turned out that yesterday evening, Mom got the bag of sunflower seeds out of the back. The tailgate was ajar; it was closed but not totally, and the light was on.
All night. And all day. The battery was totally flat. I hooked up the charger and the under-hood light came on immediately; when I unplugged it, the light sloooooowly faded out again. Battery: empty.
So: I ended up canceling my evening, removing the battery, and hooking it to the charger to let it soak up electrons overnight. When the battery is that dead, there really isn't much else you can do.
* * *
President Gaffe-o-matic has done it again: he bowed to a foreign leader.
Look: when you are President, that means you're the equal of the kings and presidents and prime ministers you meet. Gaffe-o-matic didn't bow to Queen Elizabeth, did he?
And speaking of the Queen Mother, WTF is up with the Obama gift selection process? An iPod? That is marginally better than the selection of Region 1 NTSC DVDs that he gave to Gordon Brown (who, by the way, is legally blind) but not by much since the Queen already has an iPod.
Jeffrey Jena on that nonsense: "...an iPod is something you get your son or daughter for their twelfth birthday." Yeah.
Amateur Hour continues at an Oval Office near you!
* * *
Heh. "President Gaffe-o-matic". Bet the liberals wish they had my wit on their side.
(Hey! At least it beats "America didn't vote for a Rush to failure".)
* * *
I wonder if this is moderate or extreme islamism? I really couldn't say.
* * *
There's a serious problem with the anthropogenic global warming model. Okay, okay, a lot more than one, I know--but this is good.
We're told that carbon dioxide from man-made sources is what's causing the worldwide increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and that this is driving global warming.
Problem: the emissions come primarily from latitudes north of north 30° latitude but increase at the same rate all over the globe, north and south alike.
Imagine dropping food coloring into water, without stirring. The food coloring gradually spreads out until it's evenly mixed with the water.
But for that to be analogous for what is happening with the atmosphere, the food coloring would have to somehow color all the water equally and simultaneously, the moment it hit the water. Which is, of course, impossible.
So the increase in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has to be coming from some other, global source, as there is insufficient mixing of the atmosphere to account for the homogenousness of it.
Meanwhile NASA finally acknowledges that we're in an extended solar minimum.
Check this out: "...the sun's brightness has dropped by 0.02% percent at visible wavelengths and a whopping 6 percent at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996."
I just want to point something out, here: Earth does not just absorb visible light. Ultraviolet light, too, can strike the soil of the planet and heat it. The UV which is absorbed in the upper atmosphere adds heat to the atmosphere.
Most of the protection that we have from solar radiation comes from our atmosphere. Without the magnetic field of the Earth we would see a slightly higher incidence of cancer and genetic disorders or mutations--but if the atmosphere didn't shield us from radiation life could not have evolved here. (Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that we need air to breathe, of course.)
But when the atmosphere absorbs solar radiation, it gets warmer--and if there has been a freaking six percent drop in total irradiance don't you think that might have a freaking effect on atmospheric temperature?
...granted, it's extreme UV. But you can't measure a star's energy output by its visible light alone; you have to take its infrared and UV output into account as well, because a star that is quite reasonable by visisble standards might have a bolometric output that changes the equation considerably.
If the sun is six percent weaker in extreme UV output, that could mean serious cooling. Irrespective of the 0.02% visible variability--which, we were told, was not enough to account for global warming or cooling--that six percent variability is huge. It's the higher frequencies, too, which pack more of a wallop per photon.
Besides all that, if you think about the "black body" issue, you realize that losing 6% at the top of the emissions spectrum also spells a cooler sun. Because of the way a black body's emissions change with temperature, this could denote some significant decrease in solar activity (and a concomitant decrease in the temperature of Earth's atmosphere).
Pardon my incredulousness, but SIX FREAKING PERCENT?