ᐅ Installation of a Gas Heating System in New Construction 2023/2024

WilderSueden schrieb:

And since the hydraulics play a minor role with radiators anyway, the thermostat takes care of that.

Off topic: There are now smart thermostats that connect with each other and automatically perform the hydraulic balancing. This could be interesting for those converting to heat pumps in older buildings with radiators.

I could imagine that it might make sense for farmers with an appropriate livestock operation to run a biogas heating system. But then ideally as a combined heat and power (CHP) biogas plant.

Some people have woodworking businesses or forests at home, so wood chips or pellets can also be interesting options. If you want to be self-sufficient as a prepper, because the government is increasingly failing in many areas, then a heat pump in winter can only be operated with a very large amount of photovoltaic power. Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) or pellets offer storage capabilities.

Personally, I would only install a heat pump from now on, although mine had many technical problems from the beginning and I had to optimize it myself, since heating specialists often have little knowledge and do a substandard installation. Then you need 50% more electricity, and the heating system breaks down after 5 to 10 years.

Snowy36 schrieb:

It's quite interesting that apparently many people here are professional climate scientists.

After all the incorrect models and figures over the past years, I have really taken to heart the saying: "never trust any statistic you haven't falsified yourself." I don’t claim to know what is really going on with the climate. But as always, only experts with studies that follow a certain narrative get heard and published. Others are no longer part of the discussion.

I am in favor of hearing all opinions on every topic and believe citizens are intelligent enough to form their own views. In reality, however, there is pre-filtering, and independent opinion formation is no longer possible.

Just be specific: Science says that human CO2 emissions are causing temperatures to rise at historically rapid rates. Correct? Incorrect?

The evidence comes from knowledge about the properties of the CO2 molecule, direct temperature measurements, and spectroscopy of the atmosphere from both ground-based sources and from above (weather balloons, satellites).

Up to this point, it’s purely measurements—no models yet.

And then simply the confidence that the first law of thermodynamics holds true...

Models serve a different purpose: to show IF-THEN scenarios for the future—with an uncertainty range.

Regarding dissenting opinions within the scientific community: they are not heard because they often repeat claims that were disproved decades ago, sometimes even 100 years ago.

It’s a misconception to think that scientific freedom of opinion is lost: NO. Well-refuted claims are discarded. That’s why these views carry no weight: they lack evidence and face significant counter-evidence.

What you’re saying is true, but only in an idealized world. And that’s not the world we live in. The IPCC report is an example that is often used as a reference. Such documents are frequently quoted selectively or manipulated.

In 2020, during the COVID pandemic, it was known that masks did not prevent infections in real-world settings, only in laboratory conditions. This was the consensus within the scientific community—even those spreading misinformation, like Drosten, agreed at that time. Due to political pressure, the "facts" changed in 2021. Studies were manipulated, failing to clearly distinguish between laboratory results and real-life data. Now, with the feedback data available, it is clear that masks were ineffective.

Bookstar87 schrieb:

Everything you write is true, but only in an idealized world. And we don’t live in such a world. The IPCC report is an example often used as a basis. Such documents are frequently cited selectively or manipulated.

In 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic, it was known that masks do not prevent infections in real life, only in laboratory settings. That was the consensus in the scientific community; even skeptics like Drosten agreed at that time. Due to political pressure, the "facts" changed in 2021. Studies were manipulated here because they did not distinguish between laboratory conditions and actual real-world feedback. Meanwhile, real-world data has become available, proving masks were pointless.

That is really nonsense. If that is your position, you are at the end of a game of telephone: alternative facts instead of just an alternative opinion about the same facts.

First, FFP2 masks have consistently reduced infection risk (not eliminated it).

Second, compared to media science communication, the IPCC report is very cautious and overall conservative.

How do I know this? I have read it myself. Not relying on what someone heard from someone else who once heard something about it.

And I firmly believe that principles like the laws of thermodynamics are not just valid for an idealized world.

This “it could be completely different” approach can be simply ruled out when it comes to global warming. There is no fumbling around in statistical fog here.