Comments on: Good News from All Over http://rhinocrisy.org/2007/02/sarcastically-headlined-post/ Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:45:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: ms_xeno http://rhinocrisy.org/2007/02/sarcastically-headlined-post/#comment-1554 ms_xeno Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:24:10 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/2007/02/sarcastically-headlined-post/#comment-1554 I just had this vision of opening a copy of <i>Paradise Lost</i> at the library and throwing a noisy fit when I couldn't find any passages about men's naughty bits in it. If Maplethorpe had lived, perhaps he could have remedied that situation with some appropriate photo essays. Thank You for my first snicker of the day. I just had this vision of opening a copy of Paradise Lost at the library and throwing a noisy fit when I couldn’t find any passages about men’s naughty bits in it. If Maplethorpe had lived, perhaps he could have remedied that situation with some appropriate photo essays.

Thank You for my first snicker of the day.

]]> By: hibiscus http://rhinocrisy.org/2007/02/sarcastically-headlined-post/#comment-1553 hibiscus Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:33:43 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/2007/02/sarcastically-headlined-post/#comment-1553 no forget that. maybe more like this: if we can't simulate the aerosols we make, we need to concentrate on tuning our emissions, not eliminating them, until we can figure out how to usefully scrub out the excess CO2 upstairs. i mean from this one angle. and even if we could simulate the aerosols, it'd take power to make that work. so either we could use that power, doing what another comment <i>somewhere</i> suggested of hooking cars to an expanded power grid so the CO2 is caught, or we could do something hilarious like build nuclear plants specifically for the purpose of manufacturing clouds. that's a pretty decent use for nukes -- steady work, with a clear finish line. then we could take a lot of eCO2-producing equipment offline. like maybe sticking a pipe in the ocean, separating the water, vaporizing it. or whatever would be good for making clouds. they'd probably need to be located at particularly turbulent spots so the vapor was carried high up. no forget that. maybe more like this: if we can’t simulate the aerosols we make, we need to concentrate on tuning our emissions, not eliminating them, until we can figure out how to usefully scrub out the excess CO2 upstairs. i mean from this one angle.

and even if we could simulate the aerosols, it’d take power to make that work. so either we could use that power, doing what another comment somewhere suggested of hooking cars to an expanded power grid so the CO2 is caught, or we could do something hilarious like build nuclear plants specifically for the purpose of manufacturing clouds. that’s a pretty decent use for nukes — steady work, with a clear finish line. then we could take a lot of eCO2-producing equipment offline.

like maybe sticking a pipe in the ocean, separating the water, vaporizing it. or whatever would be good for making clouds. they’d probably need to be located at particularly turbulent spots so the vapor was carried high up.

]]> By: Mist 1 http://rhinocrisy.org/2007/02/sarcastically-headlined-post/#comment-1552 Mist 1 Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:24:54 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/2007/02/sarcastically-headlined-post/#comment-1552 I wish that I had read more about the scrotum when I was a kid. Maybe I wouldn't have spent so many years looking for answers about them in my adulthood. I wish that I had read more about the scrotum when I was a kid. Maybe I wouldn’t have spent so many years looking for answers about them in my adulthood.

]]> By: hibiscus http://rhinocrisy.org/2007/02/sarcastically-headlined-post/#comment-1551 hibiscus Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:57:17 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/2007/02/sarcastically-headlined-post/#comment-1551 <i>if we instantaneously ceased using combustion engines, the (cooling) fossil fuel-related aerosols would be cleaned out of the atmosphere within weeks, while the (warming) CO2 would remain much longer, leaving a net positive forcing from the reduction in emissions for a century or more.</i> a <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/aerosols-the-last-frontier/#comment-26374" rel="nofollow">comment</a> implied that since the aerosol forcing isn't especially cumulative, losing it in an aggressive effort to reduce longer- and much longer-term positive force was a worthwhile one-time hit and the response indicated that that's the feeling of the editors, also. i think. if we instantaneously ceased using combustion engines, the (cooling) fossil fuel-related aerosols would be cleaned out of the atmosphere within weeks, while the (warming) CO2 would remain much longer, leaving a net positive forcing from the reduction in emissions for a century or more.

a comment implied that since the aerosol forcing isn’t especially cumulative, losing it in an aggressive effort to reduce longer- and much longer-term positive force was a worthwhile one-time hit and the response indicated that that’s the feeling of the editors, also. i think.

]]> By: BigSister http://rhinocrisy.org/2007/02/sarcastically-headlined-post/#comment-1550 BigSister Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:14:52 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/2007/02/sarcastically-headlined-post/#comment-1550 But you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature. Of course not. You find <i>women's</i> genitalia. Well... breasts, anyway. But you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature.

Of course not. You find women’s genitalia. Well… breasts, anyway.

]]>