Global warming ‘isn’t the great threat we were told’

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,519
Adjusting font size and/or type, whether with ctrl +/- or some widget is helpful for sure. People with visual impairments, however, often need far more than either can give them. When you need to have the letters on screen scale to 7 or 8 centimetres, you need a site that accommodates adaptive technology.
 

mysiteguy

Migration Expert
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
3,468
But if it is done using industry standards, it's not its own implementation. There are standard icons for it.
iu

It depends on who is saying it's an industry standard, and which country. The wheelchair symbol is considered the international symbol for accessibility (not just physical handicap) and has been since 1968. But that aside, doing it at an application level results differing menus and options once you click in - because that is not an industry standard.

I'm not saying an addon to change font size is a bad thing. I'm saying it's redundant, and that I believe the higher level at which accessibility can be implemented the better, because it makes it universal.
 

mysiteguy

Migration Expert
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
3,468
Adjusting font size and/or type, whether with ctrl +/- or some widget is helpful for sure. People with visual impairments, however, often need far more than either can give them. When you need to have the letters on screen scale to 7 or 8 centimetres, you need a site that accommodates adaptive technology.

You need a site that uses responsive design, and it works 100% fine without a special addon.

TAZ for example.

Image11.png

And if it's mobile, phones already have fantastic zoom and resize capabilities, usually with simple gestures.
 

Oldsmoboi

Fan
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
738
It depends on who is saying it's an industry standard, and which country. The wheelchair symbol is considered the international symbol for accessibility (not just physical handicap) and has been since 1968. But that aside, doing it at an application level results differing menus and options once you click in - because that is not an industry standard.

I'm not saying an addon to change font size is a bad thing. I'm saying it's redundant, and that I believe the higher level at which accessibility can be implemented the better, because it makes it universal.
The symbol standards are updating. The symbol I posted stands for universal access. The wheelchair logo, while still understood to mean disabled, is being refined to refer to people with mobility issues. I used the Universal Accessibility logo on my project because it is more inclusive. However, the addon I used allows you to select either logo in admin settings.
 

Paul M

Dr Pepper Addict
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
4,046
This is still the Global Warming thread, right ?

Please get back to the topic :)
 

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,519
I think we're done with Climate Change. If you look at post 239, Oldsmoboi asked if this could be split off into a new thread on accessibility.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FTL

zappaDPJ

Administrator
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
8,122
That seems to be a thing for any sort of rules, terms & conditions, etc. So is writing them all in unnecessary leagalize. It's almost like organizations don't really want customers to read that information to see what's going on. :cautious:
I had a line in one of my forum's terms offering a fairly substantial prize for the first member that asked for it. Nobody ever did so I can safely say no one ever reads small print.

Personally I think if a member needs to read rules before posting they should probably stay away from the Internet and in any case my forum rules are not for members, they are for staff to ensure they moderate fairly and consistently.
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Messages
661
Back on topic - Solar farms are thought to be a better way to generate lots of clean energy. I read an article the other day that states Frances solar farms are thought to be HEAT farms and not so good for climate change.
With people thinking about massive solar farms in desert areas this article discusses the pros and cons of solar farms.

This quote is of specific concern for global warming/climate change.
While the black surfaces of solar panels absorb most of the sunlight that reaches them, only a fraction (around 15 percent) of that incoming energy gets converted to electricity. The rest is returned to the environment as heat. The panels are usually much darker than the ground they cover, so a vast expanse of solar cells will absorb a lot of additional energy and emit it as heat, affecting the climate.
 
Last edited:

Oldsmoboi

Fan
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
738
Back on topic - Solar farms are thought to be a better way to generate lots of clean energy. I read an article the other day that states Frances solar farms at thought to be HEAT farms and not so good for climate change.
With people thinking about massive solar farms in desert areas this article discusses the pros and cons of solar farms.

This quote is of specific concern for global warming/climate change.
This article takes an unrealistic scenario and expands it out to unrealistic consequences.

We are NOT going to cover 20% of the Sahara with solar panels, the level that the article claims reaches an unacceptable level of climate change caused by those panels. Furthermore, we'd only need 1/4 of that to power the earth and that idea is simply an illustration of how little land is needed to meet the Earth's power needs. It doesn't take into account the distribution needs.

I will repeat what I said before; It is criminal that we are not installing solar panels on every roof available. We don't need to build solar farms when there is millions of acres of unused rooftops out there. Those rooftops are already (mostly) black, so the net reflection of heat would go down because when solar is installed instead of asphalt, 15% of the energy is converted to electricity.

Instead of spending money on these solar farms, we should be giving out grants and credits to entities and households to put solar on their roof.
 

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,519
This quote is of specific concern for global warming/climate change.
I believe most green energy proponents are aware of this problem with solar. The industry is constantly working on improving the panels to increase the amount of sunlight converted to usable electricity. Even so, they are still far better for the environment than burning fossil fuel. The greatest threat to the environment isn't in generating extra heat, it's generating the greenhouse gas that prevents heat from leaving the atmosphere.

As Oldiesmoboi has said, there's no need to cover the Sahara with solar farms. We already have thousands of square miles of city buildings available. The concrete and asphalt of all our cities already raise local temperatures and solar panels spread out over the area of a city would not contribute a great deal more. Additionally, the proximity to the electric grid makes city solar farms a much more practical concept.
 

Paul M

Dr Pepper Addict
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
4,046
I tried to get a grant once for solar panels - they refused, telling my roof is unsuitable, and the "wrong shape" ....
 

Oldsmoboi

Fan
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
738
I tried to get a grant once for solar panels - they refused, telling my roof is unsuitable, and the "wrong shape" ....
I have the same problem currently. The only suitable solar panels for me are the Tesla solar shingles which are substantially more costly.
I live in an area where I can choose my electric generation supplier and I've had 100% renewable energy contracts for years.
 

Paul M

Dr Pepper Addict
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
4,046
<two off topic posts removed>

You can choose your "supplier" in the UK, but its a myth that doing so means you get 100% renewable energy.

Thay have no control over where your actually electricity comes from, thats controlled by our National Grid - not who you actually pay.

(Same with Gas).
 

Oldsmoboi

Fan
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
738
<two off topic posts removed>

You can choose your "supplier" in the UK, but its a myth that doing so means you get 100% renewable energy.

Thay have no control over where your actually electricity comes from, thats controlled by our National Grid - not who you actually pay.

(Same with Gas).

I use to work in the energy industry for what was once the US arm/brand of Centrica UK. I'm not familiar with how the UK grid is set up, but in the US where Energy Choice is available it works like a potluck buffet. Everyone brings something and most of it gets eaten.

So if I bring healthy cut veggies and hummus dip, you bring fried chicken, another person brings turkey burgers, another brings a cake, and another brings a salad. Everyone eats their fill, no one is left hungry, and no food is left over. It's the stone soup parable.

Now, if I bought and paid for the veggies, does it really matter if all I ate was fried chicken and cake as long as all of the veggies got consumed?

That's how it works in the energy market here. I buy and pay for ~750KWh of wind generated power to be added to my grid each month. Every household and business buys and pays for electricity to be added to this big bucket, and we all have metered straws to sip with. Is the electricity running my house coming from the exact electrons generated from that wind farm? Impossible to know, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that 750KWh of green energy was purchased and "brought to the potluck". Whether those specific wind electrons charge my EV or power my neighbor's big screen TV is irrelevant. Even if the power used to charge my EV came from coal, I still bought green power that my neighbors ended up using.

People tend to get hung up on if the exact electrons are sourced from green energy, but we need to look at the entire grid and the percentages the grid uses. The only way to be 100% sure you are only using renewable green energy is by installing a lot of rooftop solar and having in-house battery storage AND being very diligent about when high demand appliances are used in the house. It's significantly easier to just keep greening the grid overall.
 

sactown

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 26, 2017
Messages
105
Tesla asking people to not charge their cars in TX because there’s not enough power. I gotta laugh as this is the type of problem so many including myself have warned about while being dismissed and ridiculed as a flat earther. It was so painfully obvious that we lack the capacity, and yet so many rushed in. Hey I’m glad it works when it does, but continually adding more and more EVs on the road while not addressing production to charge them all is a recipe for this kind of failure.

 

Oldsmoboi

Fan
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
738
Tesla asking people to not charge their cars in TX because there’s not enough power. I gotta laugh as this is the type of problem so many including myself have warned about while being dismissed and ridiculed as a flat earther. It was so painfully obvious that we lack the capacity, and yet so many rushed in. Hey I’m glad it works when it does, but continually adding more and more EVs on the road while not addressing production to charge them all is a recipe for this kind of failure.


This is a failure of Texas government and has little to do with Tesla. Texas is also asking people to keep their AC at 85.

Texas is a case study on why letting “The Market” handle essential utilities with minimal regulation is a bad thing.
 

Oldsmoboi

Fan
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
738
So here’s the LA Times (via MSN) talking about the photovoltaic e-waste nightmare hitting California, and soon the rest of the world. But what do I know, I’m just a conspiracy theorist spreading FUD. Denying the problem won’t make the e-waste pile in the landfill any smaller.

So what is your solution? Dig up more coal instead or find a way to either produce more recyclable panels or require the panels to be recycled as is?

The premise that solar panels are done after 25 years is flat wrong. That’s just their warranty period. They’ll continue to work for another decade or two, just at lower output. That’s 35-45 years of NOT putting additional carbon in the atmosphere.

Yes it is a bit of kicking the can down the road, but it buys us time to develop a solution.
 
Top