Europeans don’t get scolded enough for their resistance to air conditioning. In terms of accounting for preventable deaths, Greece has 2x more heat-related deaths per capita annually than Mississippi has gun deaths.
By comparison, the worst US state for heat related deaths, Nevada - a literal desert - has >10x fewer deaths per capita than Greece.
You know what is worse than sweltering under a heatwave?
To hear Americans jump at the chance to comment about Europeans and their AC usage. Jesus it’s like they have found their little pet peeve to vent all their frustration towards. Perhaps because we grumble every week there’s a school shooting and you feel you have to take petty revenge somehow. Every thread on social media is Americans whining about ACs in Europe, or lack thereof.
Don’t you guys have anything better to do than feel superior because most of us simply cannot have AC, for one reason or another? Meanwhile you have voted for a president that says climate change is a hoax and is investing in coal, for Heaven’s sake, and still here you are, gloating.
If I could have installed an AC unit where I live, I bloody would have.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I haven’t had a good nights sleep in a week, and won’t for another week.
Man, for a bunch of snobs you are pretty whiny when someone points out that your shit stinks too. You've made such a sport of crapping on America at every available opportunity but can't take even a hint of criticism yourself.
Sorry what? There's no reason that you can't install AC in your home/office in Europe, and many are doing so. It just hasn't been needed very much til recently.
> To hear Americans jump at the chance to comment about Europeans and their AC usage
A lot of Americans would be indifferent if it wasn't for Europeans (mostly Germans ime - Southern, Central, and Eastern Europeans are indifferent to supportive) who often try to act all superior about not using ACs or heat pumps because they supposedly "cause colds" or are somehow "unnatural" or try to make it a moral action despite a large portion of Americans using GreenTech to subsidize AC spend.
TBH, a lot of distaste Americans have for "Europeans" is basically a distaste for DACH residents weird sense of superiority (especially racial - you guys don't realize it but you tend to treat Black, Asian, and Hispanic Americans negatively until we wave our passport and Amex Gold/Plat). Most other Europeans are much more pleasant to be around with.
Well yeah, because it requires re-engineering the entire built environment!
Heat waves only became a serious problem in Europe in the last decade. The vast majority of buildings predate the need for air conditioning by several decades - and in plenty of cases by several centuries. The buildings are designed around being livable in a pre-climate-catastrophe climate without needing air conditioning - which is perfectly achievable if you aren't stupid enough to build a city in the middle of a desert.
Adapting all those buildings and streets will take time. Blindly putting AC everywhere and forcing everyone to drive from building to building in an ACed car isn't going to work, that kind of wasteful behavior is how we got into this situation in the first place. You need to redesign the heat management, and you need to start with things like mandating shades to prevent heat from entering buildings in the first place, and planting trees to avoid the heat island effect.
AC will indeed be needed to deal with the final heat peak when outside night temperature is in excess of 30C, but it isn't the one-size-fits-all solution for every heat-related problem it might seem at first glance. If your AC needs to run for more than a few days per year, you've seriously screwed up.
This is completely ridiculous you just need to let people use AC properly and it will solve most of the problem with people dying. That doesn’t mean you need to go from place to place in AC or never be out of AC, but every person in southern Europe should have an AC unit in their bedroom and deaths will go down substantially.
Another thing that would help is if Europe stopped being so averse to new construction so that people could build new buildings with central AC that matches the current reality of its climate and demographics, rather than the climate and demographics of last millennium.
An AC unit essentially requires just a small hole in the wall and a bracket to hold the compressor unit. Europeans have walls don't they? I'm European and I have a wall that could host an AC unit. The barrier is regulatory not engineering.
... actually works just fine. How do you think mass AC adoption in the US happened? Window units work just fine. Fancy splits and central ducting can come later.
Living in London and Dublin, what I've observed is that we get the following contradictory statements:
- "We don't need AC, It's only hot a few times during the year."
- "Oh what a terrible heat, global warming is getting worse every year."
Pair to that the fact that in many places windows don't open all the way due to bureocratic regulations and many interior designs are very questionable in terms of air flow and you get some unpleasant scenarios.
Northern Europe will actually get colder with global warming... Well, only on average, the heat waves in the summer will stay.
But it's always funny how many people don't really realize how soon the AMOC will likely collapse (probably within the next 30 years - definitely within the next 70 years) and just unlivable most houses will consequently become, as what we currently consider an extreme winter would consequently become a mild one... The infrastructure just hasn't been built for -20°C
It seems like a bidirectional heat pump would be a good solution, since the same device can be used to heat the building when it's cold. And a lot of europe (including the mentioned UK and Greece) don't often get cold enough that a heat pump is inefficient.
TIL there will be 35 degrees Celsius in London today. I thought that basically never happens. I remember people telling me a few years ago that they are lucky to ever get 30 degrees.
For the wind out ones with the chain at the bottom, you can open up the box and remove the limiter that stops it opening all the way. They make the same opener for ground level and highrises with just a limiter keeping it mostly closed when installed high up.
I live in Las Vegas and one year at the start of summer my AC went out. It took a week to order the part needed and make the fix. I lived out of casinos for that week (using HotelTonight to get a different place each night) and it was pretty fun. I gained 10lbs. That said, AC's are a necessity out here.
I live a few hours outside Las Vegas and it's a lot more survivable than you would think given primitive technology and some knowledge.
I have one of those portable evaporative coolers and they don't need much power (50-100W). I have one and measured ~110F input and 78F on the output side using nothing more than water and a fan, pretty remarkable. The trick is staying out of direct sunlight, and the body can cool itself well with the same mechanism. Sweating is extremely effective due to the low humidity.
Absolutely. In the northeast US we have triple redundancy on heat, because it’s potentially life-threatening to have the heat go out in a blizzard with subzero temps. I’d treat cooling redundancy as similarly important in Nevada, especially if not very mobile.
No it doesn't. Seriously, where does this meme even come from? It should be pretty obvious just from a solar insolation map that AC is just noise vs the sun. The energy usage is tiny vs vehicles or non-heat pump heating and only electric. What changes temperature overall is the balance of thermal retention by the atmosphere vs radiation into space, hence why net increases in GHG are so dangerous. And at the ground level similarly how heat is dumped to atmosphere. Greenery, whites, shade etc is good, asphalt, mass standard glass is bad (hence many cities being heat islands). Old, leaky units sure, we absolutely should work to reduce that. But it's astonishing how people claim AC makes the outdoors hotter so consistently.
This simulation claims otherwise (though I agree it's hard to believe):
> A significant degradation of external thermal comfort can also be seen in the simulations, as heat released by AC systems warms the outside air (see figure 3). The temperature increases due to AC depend on the time of day and on the characteristics of the heat wave, mainly its intensity. On average, the duration spent under high heat stress conditions in the streets is increased by about 20 min per day because of AC.
The way AC works is by transferring heat from one place (inside) to somewhere else (outside), and it takes energy to do this which produces even more heat, which is generally in the outside part of the AC system. This isn't something you can engineer away either, it's a result of the second law of thermodynamics.
Is that increase small compared to other things, like surfaces that absorb more solar radiation? Maybe. It depends on a lot of factors, but the amount it increases the heat of the outside is certainly non-zero.
The difference in ambient temperature due to air conditioning pumping heat outside is unmeasurably low. If all the power a city uses went to AC, it'd still be negligible compared with the sun irradiation on its surface.
This effect is temporary. Otherwise one could run their AC once for a few minutes and then it'd be cold inside your home for the rest of the year until you turn up heating.
In reality equilibrium is restored quickly (and the thermal mass we're cooling/heating here is insignificant anyhow).
The process of moving heat from your house outside also creates excess heat, because no AC system is completely efficient (and it can't be because of the second law of thermodynamics).
The house being cooled by aircon is within the same world as everything else is.
This doesn't mean that there's zero heat added locally (as many seem fond of suggesting): The compressors and circulation blowers and fans don't run for free, and every Joule of electricity they consume is ultimately converted to a Joule of heat in a process that wouldn't occur in the absence of aircon. That's not zero.
But in very broad strokes, it's not very significant. It's somewhat akin to running a refrigerator inside of a kitchen.
With aircon, the refrigerator is the size a whole house. That certainly sounds huge, and it is huge. But that refrigerated building is inside of a room that is the size of the Earth's atmosphere, which is very obviously vast in ways that kitchens simply are not.
It doesn't really matter. Millions of homes with aircon don't mean much when the atmosphere is millions of times bigger than they are.
Give a chart with actual numbers on the increase in temperature versus the sun. Not a diagram from an elementary science textbook on how air conditioners work.
I’m not debating that the sun is stronger heating source. I’m just saying air-conditioning increases climate change because it uses fossil fuels and also the law of thermodynamics dictates that he will be created in this instance.
Air conditioners don't need to use fossil fuels. Solar power and AC work really well together because peak solar energy is exactly when you need AC the most.
No heat is created either, that would explicitly violate the first law of thermodynamics. An air conditioner powered by solar energy (or anything solar powered) ends up releasing the exact same amount of "excess" heat as the sunlight would have if it hadn't been absorbed by the panels.
> An air conditioner powered by solar energy (or anything solar powered) ends up releasing the exact same amount of "excess" heat as the sunlight would have if it hadn't been absorbed by the panels.
Sure. But solar panels are intentionally designed to absorb a lot of energy. So if you are putting the panels over a dark surface, like asphalt, you'll probably have a net zero effect on heat. If you put them over something light colored, you are now converting more visible light that would have been reflected into space into heat. To be clear, that is still a lot better than burning fossil fuels, but it isn't completely free either.
They don't always overlap well -- certainly, not exactly. Thermal lag is a thing, and it is promoted by increases in both insulation and mass.
As an example of thermal lag: My present home doesn't have aircon upstairs. I've got a room with a west-facing window up there, and I just happen to chart temperatures in that room.
The daily temperature peaks in that room during the warmer months tend to happen at night -- sometimes, as late as midnight. The daily temperature minimums tend to happen around noon.
This suggests that solar power is least-useful for that particular room when solar availability is greatest. It doesn't overlap very well at all.
(I'm still looking into installing fairly modest solar rig, though, just to help offset my own baseload when I can and maybe make extended power outages more survivable.)
> I’m just saying air-conditioning increases climate change because it uses fossil fuels
It would actually be a much better global warming mitigation strategy to install bidirectional heat pumps (A/C in the summer, heat in the winter) that runs on electricity (which is increasingly produced using renewables) and then get rid of fossil-fuel burning furnaces.
It does on my balcony where the fan pumps to, which has made doing any gardening difficult, but to the overall outside temperature it's just a drop in the ocean.
It is worth noting that if the Air Conditioner is powered by electricity that came from solar panels, the net heat produced compared to letting the sun heat solar panel colored ground is exactly 0.
Air Conditioners do not produce a net heating effect unless you power them by burning fossil fuels.
Not net zero exactly, since it’s a flows and rates problem, not static equilibrium. So it could even be strongly positive effect or negative effect based on how quickly the heat gets radiated back into space depending on how the wavelengths interact with the surroundings and the atmosphere.
Our current cities and infrastructure are designed to be black heat sinks to soak up heat and hold onto it and ground level. But there is research into what would happen if we flipped that design around.
8 billion people running a 2000 watt AC continuously for 8 hours a day = 5 trillion watts of heat. (Only the electricity consumed by the AC is turned into new heat. The heat from inside the house would have moved outside anyway, at the same rate, since it's an equilibrium)
The sun = 175 quadrillion watts of heat.
So I would say, the heat from running ACs is not significant. It's also additive with all the other existing forms of energy use we have. Unlike greenhouse gases, which are multiplicative.
> "just turn on the AC and keep burning the world down" isn't really the answer.
This is an outdated attitude. PV solar panel output correlates really well with air conditioning demand, no need for storage. Overcool your thick-walled masonry buildings during the day as a form of energy storage.
Yes heat pumps move heat that already existed from the cold side to the hot side, but they also consume some energy to fight entropy, meaning they pump more heat to the hot side than they remove from the cold side. This is a net heat gain, equivalent to the energy consumed in running the AC. The value may be considered negligible compared to other sources, but it can still be on the order of 500w per room, which adds up quickly if everyone is doing it.
Of course air conditioning is reasonably well suited to be a solar load during peak hours, but in most parts of the world if everyone just installed AC units like are common in many parts of the US it would mean a huge amount of extra fossil fuels burnt.
Is this an argument to do nothing and let people die because there exist awful people in the world that want to profit from climate change? You can do walk and chew bubble gum in this fight.
Absolutely this. Arrogance isn't going to hold against the sun. It's very stupid of EU to ignore the fact this is how hot it will be from now on, and 1000 year old dwellings using only windows to cool are no longer acceptable living standards.
The thing about rich people is their life is only possible by paying enough people to fight entropy. Robotics isn't advanced, and nobody rich is even close to being smart enough to be able to maintain equipment on their own.
It's certainly legitimate to question the role of solar variability in climate change, and it's absolutely something that has been looked at seriously.
The consensus, with increasing solidarity, from the 1990s through until now is that the sun is much the same as it has ever been for the majority of modern human civilised life and has contributed minor amounts to the observed changes of the past century; those changes primarily driven by human caused change to the insulation properties of the atmosphere.
\1 Jack Eddy overcame this with a 1976 study that demonstrated that irregular variations in solar surface activity, a few centuries long, were connected with major climate shifts. The mechanism was uncertain, but plausible candidates emerged. The next crucial question was whether a rise in the Sun's activity could explain the global warming seen in the 20th century?
By the 1990s, there was a tentative answer: minor solar variations could indeed have been partly responsible for some past fluctuations... but future warming from the rise in greenhouse gases far outweighed any solar effects.
\2 Couldn't the Sun be the cause of global warming?
If the Sun were to intensify its energy output then, yes, it would warm our world. Indeed, sunspot data indicate there was a small increase in the amount of incoming sunlight between the late 1800s and the mid-1900s that experts estimate contributed to at most up to 0.1°C of the 1.0°C (1.8°F) of warming observed since the pre-industrial era.
However, there has been no significant net change in the Sun’s energy output from the late 1970s to the present, which is when we have observed the most rapid global warming.
But are you really going to tell me that you me that tho evidence that temperatures are getting warmer is bunk? For starters check out the top diagram here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#
The sun is the source of global warming and has been since the Precambrian. No, I would not argue against the science of the greenhouse effect and I'm older than you are. What are you even trying to state?
> But are you really going to tell me that you me that tho evidence that temperatures are getting warmer is bunk?
It's not bunk but there is a lot of lying by omission and lying with statistics. In the worst cases politicians use Climate Change to make very specific and incorrect predictions that aren't substantiated by the science (i.e. the ridiculous prediction that the polar ice cap would melt by 2014).
You can just pick up a book or an old newspaper to realize that hot weather has happened before. I live right outside the hottest place on the planet Earth and nearby Death Valley recorded 134F (57C) in 1913.
Obviously, which is why it is called climate change. It doesn't mean "there were no hot day ever before", it means "there will be way more hotter days, and on average they will be significantly hotter".
Pick up any recent newspaper and look at the number of "hottest month X in recorded history" articles, or "once-a-decade heat waves happening 4 years in a row" ones. That's climate change.
> the ridiculous prediction that the polar ice cap would melt by 2014
Have you tried going skiing recently? Where did the glaciers go?
In the UK my understanding is there are large subsidies for installing heat pumps in new builds - but you lose the subsidy if you include the cooling part.
NB: a friend in construction explained this to me so I could be wrong but it would explain why even pretty fancy new apartments with heat pumps have no cooling.
I think it's more that air conditioning is (currently) prohibitively expensive. The few people I know that have it spent several thousands of euros on their installations. That's not something most people have lying around.
You'd think the government could subsidize aircon like they did solar for years, and both of those things combined would translate to very pleasant summers spent in energy neutral air conditioned homes.
It's strange what people think is expensive. Double glazing is very expensive but no one in Europe would go without it. Aircon is not expensive within the context of a house's construction costs.
>> Double glazing is very expensive but no one in Europe would go without it.
This isn’t true. I’ve lived in 3 places in London with single glazing. They’re surprisingly common. All new properties come with it but the majority of our housing stock is old.
There’s also little comparison between air con and double glazing. One will be helpful for 4-6 months of the year and reduce my energy bills. The other will be necessary at most 1-2 weeks a year and will cost me thousands of pounds up front. Most people simply can’t afford that.
Unless the aircon is a heat pump, in which case it’s also useful in the winter, it’s more efficient and carbon neutral if your electricity grid is decarbonised.
If most people can’t afford a heat pump, why do we entertain the idea of making them pay an order of magnitude more to better insulate their home, which doesn’t even work in the end?
You’ve been misinformed by European media. Please do your research, it’s all online.
I don't think you have any conception of how little money most people have. Why would I spend £15-20k I don't have on a heat pump so I can get 'free' air con when my house is already heated via another method? Most people don't have £500 spare for a portable air con unit.
On top of that, until a few months ago, government subsidies for heat pumps didn't apply to the versions that include air con so anyone who did get a heat pump didn't get that version.
>> why do we entertain the idea of making them pay an order of magnitude more to better insulate their home
We don't. There have been various schemes over the last couple of decades where people could have this done for free or at very low cost.
>> You’ve been misinformed by European media. Please do your research, it’s all online.
Something needs to be done with the heat. The common euro talking point: aircon doesn’t solve the problem, let’s insulate instead (an order of magnitude more expensive). Apparently you entertain an even more absurd idea: let’s just do nothing, because everyone is too poor. That’s just wrong, plenty of home owners or real estate owners have the means to foot the bills, especially if regulation mandates or subsidises heat pumps.
Besides that, just know you’re participating in a system of belief that needlessly kills thousands each year (and many more to come, if you believe as I hope that climate change is real). Just dwell on it a little. Thousands dead because of ideological comfort and resistance to change, which in and of itself is a weird form of climate skepticism.
If you answer this, please address each of my points from both comments. You have adressed none so far.
You don't need to get central A/C or mini splits. You can use an efficient Window unit (not those single ducted portable units that are just barely better than nothing. if portable do dual ducted for efficiency) Those window units are available at Walmart in the US for a couple hundred apiece. Presumably hypermarts like Carrefour would carry them or some places that serve home improvement.
For some reason it's very hard to find window units for sale in the UK, single-duct portables are the only thing available for cheap (although it's a fairly easy mod to convert one to dual-duct).
Probably because the UK - similar to most of Europe - does not use the US vertically sliding sash window type, does it? The typical "walmart window AC" does just not really exist in (most of) Europe, because the windows for it don't exist, afaik.
Edit: Turns out, sash windows are more commonly found in the UK (compared to other European countries), but still not as common as in the US. So, UK = not as hot (so far), thus still probably not worth it (yet) as a market.
Why are the windows different, actually? They don't seem to be smaller overall, just skinnier and taller?
But you should still be able to get two tubes fitted into any kind of window with the right seals. If you were really up for renovations you could get closeable exhaust holes punched through your brick or something maybe.
Sash windows are just not as common. Seems like they are in the UK somewhat, though numbers I found vary, but overall in Europe they're pretty uncommon.
And yes, there are options for tubes/ducts for the more common window types. Like tilt-and-turn windows, horizontally sliding or all the other kinds of inward or outward opening windows - but most of them are the ducted portable units the original comment was speaking of, which aren't great.
There are also some better portable split units, but those are pricier and the install is not as easy. (They're great though.)
one issue with tilt and turn is getting window screens for them. It's possible but mostly they get installed on the inside if you have the proper wall spacing that allows window to function without interfering with the screen. mini splits are great but it's much more money than a simple window unit or portable unit.
If I don't have $30K to $50K to invest in an HVAC for the home, the next best is a relatively efficient Window unit that costs low hundreds and will help me stay alive in the heat. However enticing the price of a single duct portable unit is, do not buy it. It's a complete waste. If you go portable, go with the dual ducted one --but it's still not as good as a Window unit (which I would hope is obviously less efficient than a properly specced HVAC unit.
That's completely false. They work just fine despite not being terribly efficient at least provided you install them correctly (but that caveat naturally applies to any window unit).
In fact despite the low efficiency using only one in a single room is likely far cheaper than cooling the entire house. It's the same principle as an electric space heater versus a whole home heat pump.
Of course running a minisplit only in the one room would be substantially better but for a 1 kW unit the difference is less than $1 per day (unless you're subject to the California electric grid I guess).
You can do a perfectly good, very efficient mini split for USD $5k. Avoids the leaks of window of portable units. And if you're feeling fancy you can get it as a cold climate heat pump. They're great options for retrofitting - can do multiple indoor air handlers, etc., for far less than $50k
You don't even need an expensive AC. If you can't afford one, you can just get an evaporative cooler[1] for $100 or lesser[2]. Possibly even cheaper if you don't mind buying a second-hand unit.
The main reason high heat causes issues in Europe is due to the high humidity, so you can't get rid of body heat as your sweat won't evaporate. It's why 35C in the shade might be perfectly fine in Nevada but absolute hell in the UK.
For exactly the same reason an evaporative cooler isn't going to work: there's no "space" in the air for the water to evaporate into.
Went to Germany during the recent heat wave and few of the public buildings and none of the private ones had AC. I found the whole endeavor much more very stressful because of the heat.
As a European I agree, at least for Western Europe.
It's not just the resistance but the price. There is tremendous price gouging in the AC industry. The real cost of a mini split system is the low hundreds of dollars but good luck finding one for that price in Europe. If it were regulated as a life critical technology and not as a luxury then it could be substantially cheaper.
Are you echoing rants from Levels? He has a point but the death rate stats he posts comparing US to EU are bogus, incomparable measures. These places record heat related deaths differently which accounts for a large part of the difference. If you have better sources on this than he does, please share.
I don't mean to pick on an irrelevant detail, but I genuinely don't know how to parse ">10x fewer deaths per capita." Does it mean "fewer than 1/10 as many deaths per capita," i.e., the ratio (heat related deaths in Nevada per capita)/(heat related deaths in Greece per capita) is less than 1/10?
There are practical reasons why it isn’t widespread:
1. Energy is very expensive relative to the U.S.
2. Houses are old old and retrofitting air conditioning is very difficult
3. Houses are more than 1 story with many small rooms making portable and window mounted units unsuitable for a whole house
All modern apartment buildings in London are built with air conditioning because a central air system and district power make it cost efficient.
If you visit a hot place like Dubai or Bangkok, there are endless indoor malls with air conditioning that serve as a place to shop and a third space. Much of Europe doesn’t have that.
The U.S. specifically is also very car-centric. You walk out of your air conditioned house into your air conditioned car and drive to your air conditioned mall. Much of Europe… isn’t. People walk, you can’t avoid the heat.
Yes, certainly, there is a cultural resistance to air conditioning but adding air conditioning to homes isn’t going to stop people dying, homes are the least consequential part of heat in day to day life. Health advice in a heatwave is pretty much: don't go outside.
Some buildings in Southern Europe have thick as hell walls which isolate from both heat and cold (the North can be really chilly near the Atlantic, and freezing away from the Mediterranean).
That's a misconception. They are poor insulators, but they moderate temperature well. If the temperature outside is cold but sunny, the walls absorb heat from the sun during the day and retain it during the night. However, when you require heat input (cloudy days, average temperature less than desired interior temperature), the stone conducts it very well to the outside and you need much more power input than even crappy US stick-built houses with R-15 insulation. It's just that Southern Europe's climate is usually so mild it doesn't seem like it's more comfortable, but this situation demonstrates its inferiority well.
I think there's a bit of a definitional skew happening here. The data isn't that good around this stuff.
Heat as the primary factor, vs heat related deaths is significant.
Heat is a system stressor. There's plenty of people having heart attacks and dying from weight related issues that probably got pushed over the edge by a hot day in Nevada that are missed in official stats.
There was a good More Or Less (uk radio programme) episode about this last week. Essentially, the European statistics on this tend to be based on excess mortality during hot periods, while US stats currently are much more about what words are used on death certificates. Very different measures and hard to compare.
I think they’re arguing we’d be doing something about global warming instead of rage baiting each other from the comfort of our cool houses on social media while ignoring it, like we’re doing.
Well, not really ignoring it, more like making it worse while setting giant piles of bills on fire.
I completely agree. Historically AC has not been necessary for the one to two days a year it was needed, but that world is gone now and the situation has changed and the widespread adoption of AC is now necessary.
Its going to be a huge challenge because the buildings are not designed with that in mind, many buildings are hundreds of years old making these sorts of renovations notoriously difficult and expensive, but it has to start because climate change is only going to get worse and worse.
Most of Europe has a "registered building" system, where buildings above a certain age are considered historic. Renovating those buildings is an extremely difficult, expensive, and bureaucratic process. You generally need to preserve the period-appropriate look and materials. An AC unit sticking out of a wall won't pass muster.
Even newer buildings are problematic. an acquaintance of mine lives in an upper-middle-class apartment complex that was finished two or three years ago, and their architect has some claim in the contract that prevents residents from installing AC units to "preserve the building's unique look."
The US is build around privately-owned housing (and hence creature comforts) a lot more than we are, so AC is a lot easier to implement there.
If you rent the place and your landlord doesn’t want it you’re out of luck. If you own the place and your neighbors don’t like the noise of your AC you’re out of luck too. If your building is one of the many buildings protected for historic reasons only God can help you.
That's not the only thing required to properly install an ac unit. Do you genuinely believe people die rather that drill a hole? Lile that's the blocker? What a weird take
So you are saying temperature has risen enough to warrant an AC now? Due to climate change? I thought climate change was on aggregate ~1C difference but my data is a decade old the last time i looked into it
Pretty easy to look this stuff up rather than depend on decade old memory. Temperature in Europe is rising much faster than the worldwide average. Here it says +2.3C by 2022 - that is significant.
Aicon is reasonable for areas where it's required, but "solving" things in areas where for millenia it wasnt required simply removes the pressure to act. This would be the opposite of what's required right now, which is decisive and heavy action on something we've been inactive on for way too long.
We don’t need to make that choice, since collectively people inflict these things on themselves anyway. It’ll be interesting to see whether it leads to any sensible action. The cynical narrator in me says “it won’t.”
Americans don’t get scolded enough for their abuse of AC. In terms of accounting for preventable waste of energy, US guzzles more electricity on cooling than most countries do on everything else.
When you refuse to build climate-appropriate homes with things like isolation and instead guzzle giant amounts of fossil-powered energy to compensate for it? Yes. That's not adapting, that's brute-forcing.
AC is sorely lacking in the EU, e.g. right now I have one in my office but not in my bedroom and nights are horrible, but I do read a lot about people overdoing it quite a bit with AC, aiming at 18-20°C during 30s outside which is a huge energy expenditure when a healthy human should be perfectly fine at higher temperatures
And they had 101 people die of heat-related issues last month. [1] 3,832 Spaniards died in 2025 alone from heat. In 2022, 4,789 died, the all-time high.
The entire United States had 2,325 heat-related deaths in 2023, which is the all-time high.
Do the math (US pop 340M vs Spain 49M) and it gets really ugly.
I wonder what the global temperature rise would be right now if everyone in Europe had air conditioning since it was invented. Probably about half a degree hotter - so about two degrees total warming?
"Extreme Heat" seems to be 37-40 degrees Celsius which is bafflingly mundane to me as an Australian who grew up in rural New South Wales. We'd pack 30 kids and a teacher into an un-airconditioned classroom with just a ceiling fan and the windows open in that temperature.
I imagine the buildings there just aren't built to support that heat plus the body height of hundreds or thousands of attendees?
People tend to rely on air temperatures when in reality the lethality of heat is probably more linked to the wet-bulb temperature.
The human body has a natural resting temperature of about 37°C, and metabolism of course generates more heat constantly, so we constantly have to shed that heat. When the temperature is low, we can rely purely on conducting the heat into the atmosphere to shed the heat (which is probably why internal body temperature is higher than the atmosphere!). At higher temperatures, conduction is less efficient, or sometimes even adds heat load into the system (at above 37°C, obviously), so we start relying on evaporative cooling (i.e., sweat) to cool us down.
The wet-bulb temperature is the minimum temperature that can be reached by evaporative cooling. So when the wet-bulb temperature is in the mid-30s °C… people start to become literally unable to regulate their core body temperature, and the heat is lethal. Wet-bulb is largely a combination of the temperature and humidity, but unfortunately, it's not typically reported in most weather reports, so people go off of the air temperature (and the humidity) that is reported.
Which is a long-winded way of saying "the humidity matters a lot for how much a given temperature is bearable." I don't know what environment you come from purely by rural New South Wales, but my first guess is the semi-arid and thus low-humidity bush regions of the state, which means the apparent wet-bulb temperature of 37-40°C would be a lot lower than the equivalent 37-40°C for most of the humid continental climates of Europe.
Dew point is a much better measure of the oppressive, muggy, sweltering feeling than humidity. The dew point in Australia ranges in the 5ºc - 15ºc range at which 30ºc after sunset feels vastly different, way cooler than South East Asia where the dew point is constantly above 24ºc.
Humidity makes a big difference in how stressful the temperature is (wet bulb temperature accounts for this somewhat). The age of the attendees and the tendency of the building to heat would also be factors.
Still doesn’t solve the cost factor. If you don’t have the money you don’t have the money. And if you barely have the money you’re probably going to take the risk because the risk is still very low.
No worries as they'd had their vegemite for brekkie providing all the salt they need to offset the constant sweat. None of this soft modern electrolyte bullshit, just beer dregs on toast.
A lot of it is acclimatization. In Taipei this morning, at 9:30 it’s already 31C and 73% humidity, forecasted to hit 37C by noon. My first year living here this was unbearable, but now it’s tolerable. It’s just summer, not a spurious heat wave.
Depends, In northern NSW, the heat it humid, in the south / west it's usually dry. It gets hot, like opening a oven door, but it's not a wet humid heat that kills you.
I tolerate heat well, I feel very comfortable at 28C but I get cold easily. My sister is happy at 18C and starts overheating at 25C. Not everyone is the same.
I've always assumed there is some sort of "acclimation" period, maybe even related to the conditions you grew up in. I much would rather spend a time outside in -40c (with proper outerwear) than 40c. I'm relatively healthy but I feel like my body shuts down at anything above 36c
My understanding is that full heat acclimatization requires elevated core body temperature for 30-60 minutes a day for several weeks to really kick in and it’s easily lost during winter. Someone going largely from air conditioned to air conditioned building during the summer months may not even build up much of a passive acclimatization.
I don’t do as well in heat so for the summer hiking months in California I have to do a two week sauna or hot bath protocol, otherwise I struggle really badly during the season. YMMV of course.
Same. There definitely seem to be strong genetic factors (just based on my personal experience TBF). I also notice I adapt substantially after two to three weeks of consistent exposure. But it does have to be consistent - hiding out with AC 24/7 prevents it.
That’s because you pay attention to your body and you’re not in denial. Above 37 degrees, your body cannot regulate itself, and it starts being seriously uncomfortable before that. Going outside for a run when it’s 40 is unbelievably stupid.
I had 40 Celsius today at around 9pm. Middle of the night now and it’s 34. It’s as cool as it’s going to get before it starts heating up again tomorrow. Where I live there are no laws on max temperature in residential housing so the owner (I’m renting) doesn’t have to do anything about it. Never mind the poorly insulated, black slate roof (I’m on the last floor) or lack of AC (I’d have to foot the bill anyway).
Everyone should provide a safe and comfortable planet for everyone. Instead we said this is fine, as we literally set ourselves on fire, and then literally melted our faces off
By comparison, the worst US state for heat related deaths, Nevada - a literal desert - has >10x fewer deaths per capita than Greece.
To hear Americans jump at the chance to comment about Europeans and their AC usage. Jesus it’s like they have found their little pet peeve to vent all their frustration towards. Perhaps because we grumble every week there’s a school shooting and you feel you have to take petty revenge somehow. Every thread on social media is Americans whining about ACs in Europe, or lack thereof.
Don’t you guys have anything better to do than feel superior because most of us simply cannot have AC, for one reason or another? Meanwhile you have voted for a president that says climate change is a hoax and is investing in coal, for Heaven’s sake, and still here you are, gloating.
If I could have installed an AC unit where I live, I bloody would have.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I haven’t had a good nights sleep in a week, and won’t for another week.
Im really curious how this works. Do standalone units not exist?
You can install an AC if you get the right politicians in that will change the laws. If you don’t have AC it’s your own fault.
Also at a certain point if you ban or heavily restrict energy production to the point that no one can afford to run AC, it is a de facto ban.
A lot of Americans would be indifferent if it wasn't for Europeans (mostly Germans ime - Southern, Central, and Eastern Europeans are indifferent to supportive) who often try to act all superior about not using ACs or heat pumps because they supposedly "cause colds" or are somehow "unnatural" or try to make it a moral action despite a large portion of Americans using GreenTech to subsidize AC spend.
TBH, a lot of distaste Americans have for "Europeans" is basically a distaste for DACH residents weird sense of superiority (especially racial - you guys don't realize it but you tend to treat Black, Asian, and Hispanic Americans negatively until we wave our passport and Amex Gold/Plat). Most other Europeans are much more pleasant to be around with.
Heat waves only became a serious problem in Europe in the last decade. The vast majority of buildings predate the need for air conditioning by several decades - and in plenty of cases by several centuries. The buildings are designed around being livable in a pre-climate-catastrophe climate without needing air conditioning - which is perfectly achievable if you aren't stupid enough to build a city in the middle of a desert.
Adapting all those buildings and streets will take time. Blindly putting AC everywhere and forcing everyone to drive from building to building in an ACed car isn't going to work, that kind of wasteful behavior is how we got into this situation in the first place. You need to redesign the heat management, and you need to start with things like mandating shades to prevent heat from entering buildings in the first place, and planting trees to avoid the heat island effect.
AC will indeed be needed to deal with the final heat peak when outside night temperature is in excess of 30C, but it isn't the one-size-fits-all solution for every heat-related problem it might seem at first glance. If your AC needs to run for more than a few days per year, you've seriously screwed up.
Another thing that would help is if Europe stopped being so averse to new construction so that people could build new buildings with central AC that matches the current reality of its climate and demographics, rather than the climate and demographics of last millennium.
... actually works just fine. How do you think mass AC adoption in the US happened? Window units work just fine. Fancy splits and central ducting can come later.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.
https://vividmaps.com/comparing-latitude-of-europe-and-ameri...
US states like Texas and Florida have no latitude equivalent in Europe. Los Angeles is farther south than all of Spain.
At the same time, the UK, much of Germany, and Poland are farther north than any state in the US lower 48.
- "We don't need AC, It's only hot a few times during the year." - "Oh what a terrible heat, global warming is getting worse every year."
Pair to that the fact that in many places windows don't open all the way due to bureocratic regulations and many interior designs are very questionable in terms of air flow and you get some unpleasant scenarios.
But it's always funny how many people don't really realize how soon the AMOC will likely collapse (probably within the next 30 years - definitely within the next 70 years) and just unlivable most houses will consequently become, as what we currently consider an extreme winter would consequently become a mild one... The infrastructure just hasn't been built for -20°C
I have one of those portable evaporative coolers and they don't need much power (50-100W). I have one and measured ~110F input and 78F on the output side using nothing more than water and a fan, pretty remarkable. The trick is staying out of direct sunlight, and the body can cool itself well with the same mechanism. Sweating is extremely effective due to the low humidity.
And it raises the heat outside of buildings. Not so good for people who have to be outside, think first responders etc.
"just turn on the AC and keep burning the world down" isn't really the answer.
No it doesn't. Seriously, where does this meme even come from? It should be pretty obvious just from a solar insolation map that AC is just noise vs the sun. The energy usage is tiny vs vehicles or non-heat pump heating and only electric. What changes temperature overall is the balance of thermal retention by the atmosphere vs radiation into space, hence why net increases in GHG are so dangerous. And at the ground level similarly how heat is dumped to atmosphere. Greenery, whites, shade etc is good, asphalt, mass standard glass is bad (hence many cities being heat islands). Old, leaky units sure, we absolutely should work to reduce that. But it's astonishing how people claim AC makes the outdoors hotter so consistently.
> A significant degradation of external thermal comfort can also be seen in the simulations, as heat released by AC systems warms the outside air (see figure 3). The temperature increases due to AC depend on the time of day and on the characteristics of the heat wave, mainly its intensity. On average, the duration spent under high heat stress conditions in the streets is increased by about 20 min per day because of AC.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6a24#...
Is that increase small compared to other things, like surfaces that absorb more solar radiation? Maybe. It depends on a lot of factors, but the amount it increases the heat of the outside is certainly non-zero.
Yes, it does. It may be small temperature increase but AC use increases outside temperatures. It is just physics.
Here is a simple diagram: https://www.lozierheatingcooling.com/filesimages/heatPump.jp...
In reality equilibrium is restored quickly (and the thermal mass we're cooling/heating here is insignificant anyhow).
This doesn't mean that there's zero heat added locally (as many seem fond of suggesting): The compressors and circulation blowers and fans don't run for free, and every Joule of electricity they consume is ultimately converted to a Joule of heat in a process that wouldn't occur in the absence of aircon. That's not zero.
But in very broad strokes, it's not very significant. It's somewhat akin to running a refrigerator inside of a kitchen.
With aircon, the refrigerator is the size a whole house. That certainly sounds huge, and it is huge. But that refrigerated building is inside of a room that is the size of the Earth's atmosphere, which is very obviously vast in ways that kitchens simply are not.
It doesn't really matter. Millions of homes with aircon don't mean much when the atmosphere is millions of times bigger than they are.
No heat is created either, that would explicitly violate the first law of thermodynamics. An air conditioner powered by solar energy (or anything solar powered) ends up releasing the exact same amount of "excess" heat as the sunlight would have if it hadn't been absorbed by the panels.
Sure. But solar panels are intentionally designed to absorb a lot of energy. So if you are putting the panels over a dark surface, like asphalt, you'll probably have a net zero effect on heat. If you put them over something light colored, you are now converting more visible light that would have been reflected into space into heat. To be clear, that is still a lot better than burning fossil fuels, but it isn't completely free either.
As an example of thermal lag: My present home doesn't have aircon upstairs. I've got a room with a west-facing window up there, and I just happen to chart temperatures in that room.
The daily temperature peaks in that room during the warmer months tend to happen at night -- sometimes, as late as midnight. The daily temperature minimums tend to happen around noon.
This suggests that solar power is least-useful for that particular room when solar availability is greatest. It doesn't overlap very well at all.
(I'm still looking into installing fairly modest solar rig, though, just to help offset my own baseload when I can and maybe make extended power outages more survivable.)
It would actually be a much better global warming mitigation strategy to install bidirectional heat pumps (A/C in the summer, heat in the winter) that runs on electricity (which is increasingly produced using renewables) and then get rid of fossil-fuel burning furnaces.
> provides diagram with zero evidence that AC meaningfully influences temperature
Clap, clap.
Humans have a really hard time understanding compounding risk. But there are billions of us. How many billions of drops can you handwave away?
Air Conditioners do not produce a net heating effect unless you power them by burning fossil fuels.
Our current cities and infrastructure are designed to be black heat sinks to soak up heat and hold onto it and ground level. But there is research into what would happen if we flipped that design around.
The sun = 175 quadrillion watts of heat.
So I would say, the heat from running ACs is not significant. It's also additive with all the other existing forms of energy use we have. Unlike greenhouse gases, which are multiplicative.
This is an outdated attitude. PV solar panel output correlates really well with air conditioning demand, no need for storage. Overcool your thick-walled masonry buildings during the day as a form of energy storage.
They don't create heat. It was there in the first place, just a different location.
Of course air conditioning is reasonably well suited to be a solar load during peak hours, but in most parts of the world if everyone just installed AC units like are common in many parts of the US it would mean a huge amount of extra fossil fuels burnt.
Maybe Europe should sell guns to the states - ideally in those cheap €
You mean against human-induced global warming.
The consensus, with increasing solidarity, from the 1990s through until now is that the sun is much the same as it has ever been for the majority of modern human civilised life and has contributed minor amounts to the observed changes of the past century; those changes primarily driven by human caused change to the insulation properties of the atmosphere.
~ https://history.aip.org/climate/solar.htm ~ https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun...But are you really going to tell me that you me that tho evidence that temperatures are getting warmer is bunk? For starters check out the top diagram here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#
Would you argue against the physics of greenhouse gases? https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-pinpoint-the-quant...
Are you too young to have noticed climate changes over time in your life?
Edit: And the accumulation of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphe...
> the fact this is how hot it will be from now on
That sounds to me like an acknowledgement that, in fact, the climate has changed.
It's not bunk but there is a lot of lying by omission and lying with statistics. In the worst cases politicians use Climate Change to make very specific and incorrect predictions that aren't substantiated by the science (i.e. the ridiculous prediction that the polar ice cap would melt by 2014).
You can just pick up a book or an old newspaper to realize that hot weather has happened before. I live right outside the hottest place on the planet Earth and nearby Death Valley recorded 134F (57C) in 1913.
Obviously, which is why it is called climate change. It doesn't mean "there were no hot day ever before", it means "there will be way more hotter days, and on average they will be significantly hotter".
Pick up any recent newspaper and look at the number of "hottest month X in recorded history" articles, or "once-a-decade heat waves happening 4 years in a row" ones. That's climate change.
> the ridiculous prediction that the polar ice cap would melt by 2014
Have you tried going skiing recently? Where did the glaciers go?
Especially as air conditioning are heat pumps.
Would have helped solve the large dependency on natural gas heating for free as a byproduct!
NB: a friend in construction explained this to me so I could be wrong but it would explain why even pretty fancy new apartments with heat pumps have no cooling.
You'd think the government could subsidize aircon like they did solar for years, and both of those things combined would translate to very pleasant summers spent in energy neutral air conditioned homes.
This isn’t true. I’ve lived in 3 places in London with single glazing. They’re surprisingly common. All new properties come with it but the majority of our housing stock is old.
There’s also little comparison between air con and double glazing. One will be helpful for 4-6 months of the year and reduce my energy bills. The other will be necessary at most 1-2 weeks a year and will cost me thousands of pounds up front. Most people simply can’t afford that.
If most people can’t afford a heat pump, why do we entertain the idea of making them pay an order of magnitude more to better insulate their home, which doesn’t even work in the end?
You’ve been misinformed by European media. Please do your research, it’s all online.
On top of that, until a few months ago, government subsidies for heat pumps didn't apply to the versions that include air con so anyone who did get a heat pump didn't get that version.
>> why do we entertain the idea of making them pay an order of magnitude more to better insulate their home
We don't. There have been various schemes over the last couple of decades where people could have this done for free or at very low cost.
>> You’ve been misinformed by European media. Please do your research, it’s all online.
I suggest you do the same.
Besides that, just know you’re participating in a system of belief that needlessly kills thousands each year (and many more to come, if you believe as I hope that climate change is real). Just dwell on it a little. Thousands dead because of ideological comfort and resistance to change, which in and of itself is a weird form of climate skepticism.
If you answer this, please address each of my points from both comments. You have adressed none so far.
Edit: Turns out, sash windows are more commonly found in the UK (compared to other European countries), but still not as common as in the US. So, UK = not as hot (so far), thus still probably not worth it (yet) as a market.
But you should still be able to get two tubes fitted into any kind of window with the right seals. If you were really up for renovations you could get closeable exhaust holes punched through your brick or something maybe.
And yes, there are options for tubes/ducts for the more common window types. Like tilt-and-turn windows, horizontally sliding or all the other kinds of inward or outward opening windows - but most of them are the ducted portable units the original comment was speaking of, which aren't great. There are also some better portable split units, but those are pricier and the install is not as easy. (They're great though.)
The reason would most likely be low demand.
Best of the best is about 15-16 SEER
That's entry level central HVAC efficiency
Minisplits are far higher, 20+
That's completely false. They work just fine despite not being terribly efficient at least provided you install them correctly (but that caveat naturally applies to any window unit).
In fact despite the low efficiency using only one in a single room is likely far cheaper than cooling the entire house. It's the same principle as an electric space heater versus a whole home heat pump.
Of course running a minisplit only in the one room would be substantially better but for a 1 kW unit the difference is less than $1 per day (unless you're subject to the California electric grid I guess).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooler
[2] https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Evaporative+cooler
For exactly the same reason an evaporative cooler isn't going to work: there's no "space" in the air for the water to evaporate into.
It's not just the resistance but the price. There is tremendous price gouging in the AC industry. The real cost of a mini split system is the low hundreds of dollars but good luck finding one for that price in Europe. If it were regulated as a life critical technology and not as a luxury then it could be substantially cheaper.
1. Energy is very expensive relative to the U.S. 2. Houses are old old and retrofitting air conditioning is very difficult 3. Houses are more than 1 story with many small rooms making portable and window mounted units unsuitable for a whole house
All modern apartment buildings in London are built with air conditioning because a central air system and district power make it cost efficient.
If you visit a hot place like Dubai or Bangkok, there are endless indoor malls with air conditioning that serve as a place to shop and a third space. Much of Europe doesn’t have that.
The U.S. specifically is also very car-centric. You walk out of your air conditioned house into your air conditioned car and drive to your air conditioned mall. Much of Europe… isn’t. People walk, you can’t avoid the heat.
Yes, certainly, there is a cultural resistance to air conditioning but adding air conditioning to homes isn’t going to stop people dying, homes are the least consequential part of heat in day to day life. Health advice in a heatwave is pretty much: don't go outside.
Heat as the primary factor, vs heat related deaths is significant.
Heat is a system stressor. There's plenty of people having heart attacks and dying from weight related issues that probably got pushed over the edge by a hot day in Nevada that are missed in official stats.
It doesn't affect life expectancy much, because most deaths are among the elderly (70% over 80 IIRC).
In France, the same exact situation would be reported as a heat casualty leading to heart attack.
Oh but what's the problem, just add more air conditioning! :facepalm:
Sure we would, since AC has nothing to do with it.
Well, not really ignoring it, more like making it worse while setting giant piles of bills on fire.
By creating and artificial climate in all or our homes we are so disconnected from the world that we think technology will fix it.
Just wait fro the wildfires to blow up this week in the western US. AC will not help.
But climate change is bullshit, right?
Its going to be a huge challenge because the buildings are not designed with that in mind, many buildings are hundreds of years old making these sorts of renovations notoriously difficult and expensive, but it has to start because climate change is only going to get worse and worse.
Most of Europe has a "registered building" system, where buildings above a certain age are considered historic. Renovating those buildings is an extremely difficult, expensive, and bureaucratic process. You generally need to preserve the period-appropriate look and materials. An AC unit sticking out of a wall won't pass muster.
Even newer buildings are problematic. an acquaintance of mine lives in an upper-middle-class apartment complex that was finished two or three years ago, and their architect has some claim in the contract that prevents residents from installing AC units to "preserve the building's unique look."
The US is build around privately-owned housing (and hence creature comforts) a lot more than we are, so AC is a lot easier to implement there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Europe
Global warming intensifies differences in weather patterns. Hotter hots, colder colds, more intense storms, etc.
Most people have an intuitive understanding of what an average is, but "distance from the average" is mystifying to them.
"This number is small but it means BAD THINGS" isn't a very good message
Our continent has more extreme weather than Europe... we've adapted accordingly because we value human lives. Have you?
The entire United States had 2,325 heat-related deaths in 2023, which is the all-time high.
Do the math (US pop 340M vs Spain 49M) and it gets really ugly.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/spain-records-h...
We do a lot of things wrong but AC isn’t one of them.
(Unless you’re in the PNW where they never needed it before recently, and somehow continue to build units without it)
I imagine the buildings there just aren't built to support that heat plus the body height of hundreds or thousands of attendees?
The human body has a natural resting temperature of about 37°C, and metabolism of course generates more heat constantly, so we constantly have to shed that heat. When the temperature is low, we can rely purely on conducting the heat into the atmosphere to shed the heat (which is probably why internal body temperature is higher than the atmosphere!). At higher temperatures, conduction is less efficient, or sometimes even adds heat load into the system (at above 37°C, obviously), so we start relying on evaporative cooling (i.e., sweat) to cool us down.
The wet-bulb temperature is the minimum temperature that can be reached by evaporative cooling. So when the wet-bulb temperature is in the mid-30s °C… people start to become literally unable to regulate their core body temperature, and the heat is lethal. Wet-bulb is largely a combination of the temperature and humidity, but unfortunately, it's not typically reported in most weather reports, so people go off of the air temperature (and the humidity) that is reported.
Which is a long-winded way of saying "the humidity matters a lot for how much a given temperature is bearable." I don't know what environment you come from purely by rural New South Wales, but my first guess is the semi-arid and thus low-humidity bush regions of the state, which means the apparent wet-bulb temperature of 37-40°C would be a lot lower than the equivalent 37-40°C for most of the humid continental climates of Europe.
I grew up in a humid city and summers were unbearable. Now I live in a dry climate and 30°C is pretty comfortable.
The humidity here it's hell. You feel 35C like ~42C in dry climates.
https://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/fulltext/S0168-9525(20)...
I don’t do as well in heat so for the summer hiking months in California I have to do a two week sauna or hot bath protocol, otherwise I struggle really badly during the season. YMMV of course.
Last summer my house got to 39, and I didn't have AC (it was broken). I think I'm still recovering.
There’s something about 85F/30C and 80%+ humidity that prevents the temp from going much higher for a longer period of time.
Their climate resilience seems low.
> The event will finish with a fire side chat
Is this a prank?
It's corpo speak for "a more casual discussion"
Glauber's salt is a PCM phase-change material that melts at 90F / 32.4C and starts absorbing thermal energy.
>Venue: LSE Shaw Library, Houghton St, Old Building, London
https://halls.lse.ac.uk/story/25006031/deal-with-the-uk-weat...
> LSE halls (like most houses in the country) don't have air conditioning, it can be quite suffocating.
I blame LSE. Uni should provide safe and comfortable environment for students.
Maybe examine the reflex to dismiss out of hand without evidence?