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

Snowy36 schrieb:

It’s good that you can measure that it’s getting warmer. But that still doesn’t explain why.

Recently, there was a report about the fall of the Roman Empire. In a side note, it was mentioned that it was 2 degrees warmer back then.

But that’s exactly the point: We know exactly why.

First, it is directly measurable. The energy retention caused by greenhouse gases can be measured with IR spectrometers. Since the 1970s, this has also been measured “from above” using satellites.
Second, there are fundamental laws of thermodynamics: If an additional amount of energy accumulates in a system like the Earth, it cannot not lead to warming. And this additional accumulation is measured.
Third, we know for sure that CO2 is radiatively active at specific frequencies (measured) and that it has been added by humans to the atmosphere above 280 ppm (measured and logically inevitable, since we have definitely burned hydrocarbons).

What does this have to do with the Roman Warm Period in Europe? Nothing.

(I’m making “measured” bold because, for some reason, many people believe the effect of CO2 is just the result of some models. No!)

Snowy36 schrieb:

It's good that you can measure that it's getting warmer. But that still doesn't explain why.

Recently, there was a report about the fall of the Romans. In a side note, it mentioned that it was 2°C (3.6°F) warmer back then.

There is so much discussion about this, claiming that it was warmer before and that temperatures have always changed over time.
The cartoonist xkcd made a comic about this, which is very insightful and puts everything into perspective. You can look at the temperature trends – and we actually know quite a lot about them – over thousands of years.
The graphic is grounding and speaks volumes about the effect of industrialization on global warming.
It can be found under "Earth Temperature Timeline" by xkcd.

Ultimately, it is always challenging when non-experts discuss very complex topics. Sometimes, physical laws do not follow what we consider "common" sense.

The best example of this is water, which expands again below 4°C (39°F) instead of properly contracting as it cools.

If someone refuses to accept this fact because their "common" sense tells them that water should continue to shrink like most other substances, what is there left to discuss?

Hopefully, you learn about water’s behavior in school. Climate, however, only becomes understandable after many years of study. That’s just how it is.

You and your water again...
We’ve now understood that you are familiar with water’s anomaly.

Do you actually read the posts you are "responding" to, or is it just about getting your voice heard again?

chand1986 schrieb:

Regarding your post, the following can be said:

a) There were no states with and without [measures]. The controlled environments with mask mandates—schools, hospitals, nursing homes—existed nationwide. Real and simultaneous.

b) You don’t know what a “fact” is. The studies clearly conclude that the question under investigation cannot be answered due to various factors. How do I know this? By reading studies instead of simply believing the digested (social) media version.

c) There are studies that clearly show masks slow the spread of infection under controlled conditions. Controlled conditions were attempted to be established in the facilities mentioned in a). Is the success methodologically proven here? No, because there is no control group; the measures were implemented everywhere.

-> From a) through c), it logically follows that your statement “fact is…” is factually incorrect. That fact is simply unknown. That it could be true is not impossible, but entirely implausible. You claim nothing other than that it doesn’t matter whether one wears a mask in a room with 30 people talking, laughing, etc., at roughly 0.5m (1.5 feet) distance, with regard to droplet infections.

If you suggest that and simultaneously call others “conspiracy theorists”… in my opinion, you already strongly limit your own thinking so it leads you nowhere.

Your post sounds a bit too highbrow. I can agree to the extent that masks can temporarily reduce infections if used properly. But the topic of "the usefulness of mask mandates" has definitely been disproven; the measure was useless, like nearly all the others. It only consumed hundreds of millions of euros when considering lockdowns and so on. All of this was sold as science, but it never was. It was autocracy and a test of how far they could go.

This now leaves a "distinctly bad taste," similar to climate change. I think politicians have shot themselves in the foot here because trust is lost—in the media, science, and politics alike.

Regarding scientific evidence for human-caused climate change and how Germany aims to stop it through carbon neutrality: even if we wanted to and emitted absolutely no CO² from human activities, it would not come close to succeeding and is completely pointless.

Plants also need CO² to survive and release it as well. Do we now want to destroy all plants too?

But let’s take a closer look at the actual facts.

78% of our air consists of nitrogen
21% consists of oxygen
1% are noble gases like argon
The actual CO² concentration in our air is 0.04%

So, we are talking about 0.04% CO². Of that amount, 4% is human-made. That means the share of human-induced CO² emissions is 0.0016%. Germany’s share of that is 1.76%.
Germany’s share of global human-made CO² emissions is therefore 0.000028%. I seriously wonder if that is even measurable.

Germany’s CO² emissions can influence the climate by one-thousandth of a degree. So if we eliminated all heating systems, all cars, all animals, all plants, and all other CO² emissions, in the best case we could prevent global warming by one-thousandth of a degree.

What is this trying to tell us? Factors contributing to global warming include, for example, so-called chemtrails or wind turbines. But these topics are kept silent. There is already plenty of research on the impacts of air traffic and wind turbines.



These issues are not considered politically correct, and discussions about them are not welcome. For me personally, however, this is more understandable. I live 5 km (3 miles) from a large wind farm. The 70 wind turbines near me have already caused my very own climate change.