The impact of thermal mass vs insulation.| Monday BS with Emu Mariana - Feb 28, 2022
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 май 2024
- A common misconception, especially in the world of sustainable or "green" building, is the impact of thermal mass vs thermal insulation. A lot of this confusion comes from well meaning design movements like "Passive Solar" and earthships. Often, in single-family design, there is an outsized expectation that the effect of thermal mass will be much greater than it is on the performance of the house. In other words, in residential buildings the impact of thermal mass is secondary compared to other elements of the building envelope (e.g. insulation, air sealing, windows, shading). On the other hand, in larger buildings with highly variable occupancy, thermal mass can start to be part of a strategy to optimize mechanical systems.
Join Mariana as she approaches this topic at a high level. Where would Emu put its money - thermal mass or thermal insulation?
Please see our blog for research sources: emu.systems/2022/02/28/the-im...
___
What is this series? We're trying a thing. Join Emu Co-Founder, Mariana Pickering, for a super casual and quick 5 -10 min video every Monday covering some commonly asked B.S. (Building Science) questions we get as Passive House educators. Requests for future topics highly encouraged in the comments! 
Наука
Thank you for this. I'm a carpenter and always trying to improve my builds. All of this goes a long way to our collective understanding of building science. Keep up the good work.
thank you!
Thermal mass has been used for years in residential buildings. Spend time in Europe. Homes are built with masonry walls with outside insulation sitting on insulated concrete slabs. This has been going on for hundreds of years. It works effectively and and is very cost effective. The problem is no one really knows how to calculate the effects of thermal mass.
We actually started off as a company in Europe - we were an architecture practice for 8 years in Italy (plenty of thermal mass there), before we moved to the US. The impact of thermal mass is greatly overrated for residential buildings (and underrated in commercial buildings). To further your knowledge on the matter, I recommend you read "Passive House in South West Europe", published by the Passive House Institute. Their findings show that thermal mass has an impact on residential buildings that is secondary to (ie less impactful than) 1) thermal insulation, 2) quality windows/exterior doors, 3) air tightness, 4) heat recovery ventilation, 5) thermal bridge avoidance, and 6) Shading.
Just to balance things a bit...I wrote a manual on Passive Solar in the early 80's. A large focus in the manual was sizing thermal mass to the glazing. So huh? Anyway I agree about metrics- some of our work then was a bit guess work with only limited real world backup, but we did indeed address the issue quite seriously. And I imagine some of our rules of thumb hold up fairly well today. There were different rules for different methods of passive gain (direct/indirect etc) and different material choices for thermal mass.
the more recent science shows that thermal mass is overrated in most residential projects, and underrated in non-residential projects. This is based on the research and monitoring executed by the Passive House Institute - See "Passive House in South West Europe" for residential buildings, and "Passivhaus Schulen" for non-residential buildings (ie schools)
It's good to remember that thermal mass be introduced in many areas as an aesthetic choice - both beautiful and functional. Tile or stone floors, interior recycled brick feature walls, lime plaster walls. All premium touches that increase value, and are more environmentally-friendly to source and live with than many of the default finishes.
Great point! You are so right... a lot of times there are other factors that go into the decision besides purely performance. It's all about making the right compromises and doing that with an understanding of the impact.
Recently I saw a video that you produced and it was about isotherms. I would like information on the performance of SIPS construction and ICF construction when isotherms are used for data analysis. How does each type of construction perform compared to double wall stick construction? Is the thermal mass of ICF construction advantageous to the overall performance? Is SIPs construction a better choice with less mass?
we do a little work with ICF, primarily at the foundations. the thermal mass of the concrete inside the ICF does not do much, as it is isolated from the inside of the building by the ICF itself. In my opinion, if you’re choosing between ICF and SIPs, SIPs may give you fewer problems
The explanations are good, I like those.
However, I disagree with the conclusion. In a power failure situation, I'd choose a large thermal mass with a weaker building envelope (insulation) over no thermal mass and higher R-value any day.
Depending on the type of insulation, the specified R-value will be greatly diminished based on moisture intrusion, settling, improper installation, improper use or location of vapor barriers/retarders, wind conditions, temperature swings, etc.
But why not have both with an ICF home? Base R-values at roughly R-24 plus an R-performance rating of roughly an R-45 when thermal mass is taken into consideration. Not to mention consistent R-values that do not vary with ambient conditions, settle, or require separate vapor barriers.
ICF homes also double as extreme weather shelters, provide reduced noise intrusion, increase overall indoor comfort due to the behavior of the thermal mass of the walls, and provide multiple hour fire ratings. Insulation simply does not do those things on its own or even when coupled with traditional building practices.
The usual kind of ICF structure partly decouples the mass from the air in the building. Perhaps better to move all the insulation to the outside and gain access to the surface of the concrete (in your example) - same R-value, better performance?
I agree with your preference for at least some significant thermal mass, although on reflection it's hard to imagine a substantial building without it!
@Wayfarer-Sailing I agree with your suggestion of insulating just the outside of the concrete in this case. In fact, I've been working on a design for my own future home that does just that.
When that entire building is used as a thermal battery, the comfort level would be significantly longer in the event of a power failure or loss of heating or cooling system failure. And, by simply relocating the inside insulation to the outside (on paper, not in reality), the cost of the building materials remains the same, though the benefits are exponentially higher.
To give you a quick analogy, think you want to keep your tea hot: option A) you put it in a fired clay cup (thermal mass), option B) you put in a thermos (insulation). Which one gets cold faster?
"Specified R-value will be greatly diminished based on moisture intrusion, settling, improper installation....." You just explained it yourself. We're discussing properly designed, professionally built structures, not those with serious construction issues. I used blow-in cellulose insulation at 3.5 psf for my home, giving me R-48 walls and R-68 ceilings. Cutting edge at the time, but now somewhat average. No moisture issues, no settling (verified by infrared camera examination). Wind conditions and temperature swings have nothing to do with anything. The fact remains: super-insulation coupled with attention to detail in air-sealing wins every time.
It is important to consider the source of energy for heating and cooling. If it is coming from an intermittent source, such as the sun, then having an appropriately sized battery (thermal mass) is very important! If it is coming from the fossil fuels (also a large chemical battery) the energy is available on demand and internal energy storage (of the thermal mass) is somewhat inconsequential. What is consequential is the carbon footprint that is externalized when only focusing on the envelope of the building. Hopeful Passive House design can incorporate the time of use of the energy and associated GHG emissions
I understand your point of view. Once we look at the actual numbers for energy performance, the impact of thermal mass is very limited on the energy performance of residential buildings. For non-residential buildings where the interior gains are much more variable over the course of a day, thermal mass has a greater impact
@@emupassive I can appreciate what you are saying on the value of thermal storage for variable thermal gains inside the building envelope. I can also understand your (and the Passive House) perspective that thermal mass is very limited on the 'energy performance' of residential buildings. If the goal is to reduce GHG emissions, thermal mass is an important factor in residential building design as it provides flexibility in how energy is consumed. Here is a link to some of the work going on at the federal level in the US: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/about-stor4build
I have a concept in mind that I haven’t seen before. Build a solar hot air collector on one side and on the other a Trombe wall meaning an architecturally pleasing wall with an airspace and sufficient mass for the hot air collector to circulate air through. The big advantage is that you can still have an R40+ wall between them eliminating the heat loss that normally occurs with a typical Trombe wall behind glazing and can be used in the summer to cool the mass down at night.
Can you describe the solar hot air collector with more detail?
Hello! What is the difference between passive housing and Earthships? Is there a combination of both or have their been studies on using both methods?
Passive House is a performance metric - kind of like a building code. Earthships are an architectural style. I don't think there are any Passive certified Earthships. Mainly because of some of the info shared here about thermal mass versus insulation. But also because of moisture management and ventilation. Passive House requires that the building hit what are called "Hygiene and Comfort Criteria" to ensure that mold and condensation will not form over time. This is a danger in more airtight buildings (including earthships) because we create most of the moisture inside the structure. If there is not continuous ventilation and an understanding of where potential condensation points could occur, you might have a big problem. The bottom line is that Passive House and Earthships are NOT mutually exclusive. But many who approach both end up forgoing the earthship part for the security of the performance metric. I hope that explanation helped a little.
What is an air ceiling?
"air sealing" - the act of making a structure air tight
I think I understand the purpose of this video. For builders building similar designed homes to meet passive (codified) standards. This makes sense. It is unfortunate that so much of our building in America forces waste, power consumption, waste of water resources forcing grid system solutions as opposed to true self sufficient zero to low carbon solutions. America continues to slip further behind other parts of the world via forced regulation of the myopic one size fits all high carbon footprint non-solution.
I think this ignores aspects of thermal balance between day and night cycles, having more thermal mass will maintain the average of the cycles with fewer inputs. Saying that money could better be used for insulation and sealing is true for high manufactured part buildings, but with better designs or natural materials it is much more competitive. The amount of soil and concrete removed for foundations and tossed away to building single and double family homes could potentially be used as core regulation for free is a huge missed opportunity. I also think that the term "thermal mass" should leave the phrases of building science for the more accepted term "heat capacity" which is used by all other areas of science.
we’ll publish a video on thermal capacity of insulation in hot climates in the near future. we stand by the statement that in residential buildings, the impact of thermal mass on the overall building energy demand is overrated - see the extensive research project published as “Passive House in South West Europe”
I agree on your point about language (ie capacity vs mass). we just use the language that is commonly used in the industry. With regards to the actual effect of thermal mass/capacity, the night and day cycles only matter (some, not a ton) in very hot and dry climates. The impact of thermal capaicty is by far secondary to other building envelope components when it comes to reducing heating and cooling demand
My crazy thermal mass idea is to stack two 330 gallon water totes and hide them with drywall in the middle of the home. I'd plumb them in series with a large radiator and a big, quiet fan.
Are the containers ugly? Seems like the water tanks could be a cool feature by themselves and save the cost and space of enclosing them. A local building(the rio grande nature center in new mexico) has them exposed and its absolutely beautiful.
that has been tried in the 70s and did not make a difference large enough to justify the cost of the tanks, and the room they take up
The more mass, the closer the building will stay to the average of day and night temperatures.
not true, thermal mass does not prevent heat losses nor overheating
Wow. I see you've attracted lots of easily offended commenters who prefer deeply ingrained belief over science. The fact remains, when sticking to a construction budget, ie not working with unlimited funds, money is best spent on insulation and better windows. Full stop. I know many folks with massively built but poorly insulated homes and they all have huge heating bills. Some keep their homes uncomfortably chilly just to reduce costs. Because of this, my wife and I instead built a super-insulated off-grid home which uses approximately one fifth the energy to heat. Of course, we're regularly told that's impossible, because we have 'insufficient thermal mass', but I have the logged data to prove it. Nothing stops a naysayer faster than data.
Keep up the good work, Mariana!
thank you!
I don't understand the purpose of this video. I had hoped it was to discuss how insulation could maximize the benefit of thermal mass. Instead, it is an argument to prioritize insulation over thermal mass when making cost decisions. Not very helpful in my opinion.
Sorry that it's not helpful. Hopefully it will be for someone else.
Having lived in concrete home, I completely disagree with you regarding thermal mass in residential homes. ICF type homes have very little temperature fluctuations, are very quiet, and structurally 4x stronger at least compared to a stick built home that relies solely on insulation.
in an ICF house, the thermal mass of the concrete is isolated from the interior of the house by the ICF itself, and does not significally impact the interior conditions inside the house. What you’re describing is likely caused by the actual insulation of the ICF walls (due to the R-value of the EPS)
My home is built from rock collected on my property. I have a house. End of story
good for you
I think your analogy is confusing. Insulation slows heat loss or gain while thermal mass is heat storage. The confusion is because both can be used to buffer a delta T. The old texts would say that the heat in a stick house is held in the air while the heat in a masonry home is primarily held in the structure. And so the masonry home can afford to be leaky while the stick home has to be air tight. The stick home requires more active systems to maintain the air while the masonry home can be more passive under varied conditions. Comfort is one consideration while cost is another. Cost to build is one consideration. Cost to maintain is another. Active systems will require maintenance and eventually break down.. Passive systems less so.
masonry cannot be leaky either. air leaks bring a lot of moisture into the wall, leading to permanent moisture damage and mold.
While all true, thermal mass is super nice for a living comfort, especially in well insulated house close to passive standard. You can eliminate air conditioning too. I have concrete slab between ground and first (US 2nd) floor and you can open windows at night to let cool air in while sleeping, it than keeps cool whole day including 2nd floor. Of course cooling is littlebit exaggerated term, the temperature fluctuations are tiny. This is a geat feature of otherwise low heat capacity house (aircrete walls).
it’s true that thermal capacity helps reducing temperature swings a little bit. To say that it allows to eliminate air conditioning is very misleading, and in most cases thats not true even in Passive House projects - that really depends on the target temperatures that users want inside the building
@@emupassive Sure you're right, that was not written correctly - it's not universal and does depend on the climate. In Germany and other countries around that latitude, it's very rare to have air conditioning in your house. It's becoming more common as a side effect of spreading heat pumps, but people don't really use it anyway, since it's easy to keep comfortable temperature (for me around 23-24°C in the summer) just with natural ventilation (yes we have the tilt windows with micro ventilation, ventilation and full open positions). I've turned my cooling on twice, basically just to test during tropical nights (which we get like 1 or 2 per season). It works vice versa too - if I turn heating off, the temperature will drop less than 1° C per day with outside temperatures falling below freezing in the morning. I have actually a project of earth covered house in a planning phase, which would be passive with huge heat capacity and being "underground", the earth is acting as extended battery (there's a mathematical model behind, I've created a software to model it myself, software that architects use can't do that). One common denominator is how are people satisfied with the constant and pleasant climate and in fact passive nature of underground/earth covered/earth sheltered houses. And back to climate, designing such house properly also depends on the climate, i.e. the terminal temperature of the soil is equal to annual average air temperature at the ground in that location.
Thermal breaks, thermal insulation, and thermal mass all go together. It's not just one part or the other but better when working together. In a cold climate the thermal break in floor and insulation helps. And if doing slab it makes a huge difference to get some passive solar to help heat them. Sunlight all over the world is not equal too. My environment it makes more sense to buy insulation than use a berm or thermal mass in the walls. 6 foot frost depths and 48*F ground temps. Some warm sunlight does feel good on a cold winters day. I just open windows if ever gets too warm.
when you start looking at the actual numbers, we can see that it’s not all the same. for residential buildings, the actual effect of thermal mass is very limited
If you had literally zero thermal mass then the level of insulation wouldn't matter, you would gain and lose heat (temperature) instantly and thus fluctuate wildly. More thermal mass provides a smoothing function. It also provides a reheating/recooling function after a door is left open and all air rapidly exchanged with outdoor air, which is again a smoothing function.
The only thermal mass consideration is really floor type, wall type, and thickness of concrete when concrete is the choice of floor.
that is just not true. if you’re interested in learning about building science, you can sign up for our online training
@@emupassive that is precisely true, however also impossible to achieve as you'd need a perfect vacuum and nothing at all in the room. Even then the surface of the insulator has thermal mass and would prevent instantaneous change, but regardless the rate of change of average temperature increases as thermal mass within the envelope decreases and vice versa. This is basic physics and just a fact.
ICF and cement floors next to the south windows (Northern Hemisphere) work quite well with Reisdential.
Stick builds and SIPs are susceptible to critters and water that compromise. ICF isnt perfect but its much more resilient and affords you a thermal battery over its lifetime.
Just ensure when you are using ICF that your outer shell design will be versatile, as it will stand for ~200 years while renovations can occur inside. The primary enemy of a home is water. ICF will ensure a good envelope, and prevent bugs and critters from penetrating which then brings in the damaging water. Then there is the mass that will keep those temperature swings and drafts at a minimum.
Don't dismiss cement since it has a high carbon footprint if you can take the responsibility to build something timeless. The carbon saved over the first few decades will make up for it.
if one is to actully look at how much thermall mass helps reduce the need for heating, that is actually negligible compared to e.g. thermal insulation, high performace windows, heat recovery ventilation, etc.
@@emupassive of course an era/hrv and high perforce windows are needed. That doesn’t have anything to do with what the walls are doing. The fact that you can shutoff the heat in the winter and only lose a few degrees per day is a testament to the thermal battery doing its job. SIPs, double studded walls with insulation, etc doesn’t radiate much stored heat at all to allow that coasting for days with no heating. Have you been in a thermal mass home and speak with the owners on their experience with the benefits?
I suspect this is more about reducing the use of cement (concrete). It;s soon going to change replacing up to 30% of the cement with calcium carbonate and upcycling concrete aggregate to dramatically reduce the carbon footprint. I don’t believe you are being deceptive but maybe misled.
So, I have to ask, what published science rebukes thermal mass in residential homes.
What I'm trying to say is that the effect you attribute to the thermal mass of an ICF house ("temperatures don't fluctuate") is actually due to the thermal insulation, not the thermal mass. Thermal mass needs to be directly exposed to a source of heat in order to accumulate and release heat. In an ICF wall, the thermal mass is buried behind insulation, so it does not absorb or release heat the same way an exposed slab does.
@@emupassive isn’t it about how quickly the heat moves through the wall from the inside out or vice versa? When heat is in the air isn’t it absorbed into objects with a cooler temp and those same objects release into the surrounding air?
Isn’t the insulation that is on the inside and the outside doing what you are saying insulation is doing? That the foam is not perfect so heat does penetrate the foam and then absorbed into the concrete through conduction and continuing to travel towards the cooler side and then conducting into insulation of the other side of the ICF. The foam on both side and the inside core of concrete acts as insulation while the concrete slows heat conduction creating a thermal battery. That slowness to absorb and radiate from concretes properties smooths out the curve of temperature fluctuations throughout a 24 hour period?
How do you account for the much slower loss of heat in winter in an ICF house with no functioning mechanicals during winter compared to other insulation? The rebound of heat in a home after a door is opened to a sub zero day outside. The thermal graphic cameras showing the temperature of slab next to a southern window in the northern hemisphere is radiating a higher temperature than the room air into the night for many hours?
We need links to scientific analysis to back up this belief that thermal mass doesn’t work in Residential. You could even interview top PHIUS Load Calculator experts to talk about thermal mass of slabs in front of windows, ICF, etc.
I do agree that windows and air tightness are more important since those are the weakest links. If you have infiltration if air then that will rob the thermal mass of heat inside the home. That’s not in dispute. You shouldn’t swap a gas furnace with a heat pump before insulating a walls and replacing windows with double/triple pane for the same reasons.
@@crcurranThis *is* scientific analysis but you're so fixated on emotions that you're ignoring it. Thermal mass does help but nowhere near as much as you think it does. The important thing is the insulation value, hard stop. It determines the rate at which your BTUs or joules enter and leave the house. The thermal mass can reduce min and max temperature loads by spreading them out across a longer period of time or timeshifting them but it does not affect the actual rate at which that heat enters of leaves the house to any appreciable amount. Yes, an ICF house with the heater off cools slowly but when the heater comes back on, you have to pay back all those BTUs to bring that thermal mass back up to normal temperature again. Thermal mass might help bank up more solar heat during the day but I would bet that even a regular house has enough mass to largely max out the absorbed solar heat in a winter afternoon.
ICF does have a nice advantage because it essentially free of thermal breaks (if designed properly) and has very little air leakage even if it's constructed by amateurs. A properly designed stud wall can do the same but only if the builders are very skilled. Most people are used to drafty, poorly insulated 2x4 stud homes that cool and heat extremely quickly. However, modern wooden construction can definitely rival ICF in those properties and even beat it if the wood house is constructed with care. There is absolutely nothing magical about ICF in terms of thermal performance. It has good inherent values due to the way it is designed but any other house with the same real R-value and infiltration numbers will perform nearly identically.
ICF companies will try to tell you that an R-22 ICF wall is equivalent to R-50 which is utter bullshit. It's R-22. To be fair to ICF, it is a real R22 wall. A typical 2x6 stud wall house that's "R22" might be closer to R15 when you factor in the thermal bridging and air leaks. But that's due to low quality construction and/or design. It doesn't magically make the ICF wall break the laws of physics. Likewise, ICF companies will try to convince you that ICF is a magic noise blocking solution and it's not. ICF gets you an STC in the mid 50 range. A double 2x4 stud wall with a total of 4 layers of 5/8" drywall is about the same thickness, cheaper and gives you an STC rating of roughly 70. Yes, the ICF wall is better at blocking sound than a shitty 2x4 stud wall with 1/2" drywall but ICF is strictly mediocre in terms of noise reduction. (this is from conversations with multiple audio engineers) Take the advertising talk from ICF companies with a huge grain of salt. It's a good technology but it's not magic.
I say this as someone who is in the final design stages for an ICF house self-build with about 1.4 million pounds of concrete in it. I chose ICF because of its durability, fire resistance and air-tightness. The thermal mass is a nice bonus but in all of the thermal calculations I've done, the effect of over a millions pounds of concrete is fairly small in terms of reducing HVAC energy costs - maybe 10% at the most, usually closer to 5%. It's not zero - there is benefit when there are short thermal load peaks. As a result, I've made design changes to optimize the effectiveness of the thermal mass. I have a large cast concrete wall in the center of the house and concrete floors that short-circuit the inner foam layer of the ICF (with extra foam on the exterior) and all of the concrete is in one continuous body, allowing rapid transfer of heat to the interior while keeping the concrete walls and ICF cores as isolated from the outside as possible. I'm doing this because it was already called for by the house design and the details I did to optimize the thermal mass add essentially no cost or labor to the construction process. If that were not the case, it would probably not be worth doing.
If you can incorporate thermal mass at low cost or because other architectural or engineering requirements separately call for that mass, there is no reason not to do it. It will help a little. But don't go out of your way to add thermal mass for its own sake.
it depends on your Location! and Climate. its a shame/unethical/dumb to chase people away from mass everywhere and ignore the original Passive Solar Design points! if your in a sunny but cold climate and you have a site that has good south exposure you Want to design in thermal mass! it also can be beneficial in hot climates if you can bring in coll air in the evening. but for heating that mass needs to be located well to see the sun in winter and not see the sun in summer- via location, and overhangs! and of course you always want to insulate 3-4 times what code is and make the space airtight! and the triple pain windows are good BUT not for the glass used as a solar collector- there you want double pain max. and of course All glass needs to have a Moveable Window Insulation System on it! and your roof slop should face south if at all possible! the people who lay out the roads and building sites need to consider this or else we will be stuck with the conventional poorly designed buildings- which is still almost all of the new houses built!!!! shit we can't even get builders/designers to place the long side of the house south!!!
the data shows that - for residential projects - thermal mass has an effect that is greatly secondary compared to 1) insulation, 2) window performance, 3) shading, 4) heat recovery ventilation. Please read “Passive House in South West Europe”, just to quote one. The science has come a long way since the days of Passive Solar in the 70s.
"Thermal mass has minimal impact on residential buildings" is probably the _most_ uneducated take I would expect from a person who is supposed to teach passive house design. Without thermal mass, you cannot fully utilise solar heat gains for heating or night ambient temperatures for cooling. You cannot use natural ventilation - or indeed avoid having expensive smart HVAC systems at all, because the air around us carries moisture and without constant temperature you will have humidity swings outside the 40-60% RH recommended by doctors for human health. Passive houses without thermal mass are one-generation toy for the rich.
you may want to check out the research done by the Passive House Institute - please look up “Passive House In South West Europe” - that’s were our data comes from
@@emupassive I'll kindly reject an offer to spend 76 dollars to read it and win an internet argument, but thank you for confirming my suspicions. Passiv haus institut solutions are a hidden jobs program for the german HVAC industry. I don't think it's intentional on their part, just that energy is expensive in Germany and they have to sell those HVAC units somewhere, a classic "nail from a hammerman's perspective". The point still remains - thermal mass is crucial for a durable passive house design that doesn't use mechanical HVAC and does not follow a "crucial life supports as a subscription service" philosophy. Take it from someone who made custom software to calculate thermodynamics and moisture regimes for a continental climate with more frost days than Sweden's capital.
"Passiv Haus Institut solutions are a hidden jobs program for the German HVAC industry" is definitely a first. Yes $76 is expensive, as it is research and knowledge. I don't expect to change your opinion, and I encourage you to continue your research.
fully agree with Warpreacher1. And obviously it also depends on the climate you are working in and making sure the mass is best located for the climate, thermal mass is the ultimate passive energy storage medium. It has its complexities and thought it would be explored here, but completely ignored. Shockingly really.
Was interesting until you switched from science to propaganda with the global warming. By the way, it’s called a parking lot in America.
If you think global warming is propoganda we may have troubles in discussing this. Not sure what the parking lot reference is.
@@emupassive if you believe
Man-made global warming science and not propaganda, I would love to know the very basics like how much the globe is warming due to humans for a start and how you measured the effect of humans on the atmosphere. Can you answer those simple questions?
@@21trips They are not simple questions, but there is plenty of scientific evidence. Here’s a good place to start - www.ucsusa.org/resources/are-humans-major-cause-global-warming
@@emupassive I’m open to hearing about how you can explain why you believe there is global warming but I’d like to know how much global warming you think there is and specifically how much of it is caused by humans otherwise it’s obvious you have no clue and are just repeating propaganda talking points. I’m open to science.
K. Well. You might want to start with reading the link I sent - from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Not talking points. Not propaganda. Scientists in consensus
I’m not listening to enrico Untill he learns to speak clear English… this is about as non- informative bunch of talk as I ever heard… my goodness… get a real job…
sounds great, move on!
Can I contact you via your email?
Here's the form where you can reach us: emupassive.com/about/contact/