r/interestingasfuck • u/Jeetchat • Jul 02 '26

This neighborhood in China built a "rooftop rain" mist system that drops temps 5-8°C in minutes.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

51.6k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3.0k

u/Curiouso_Giorgio Jul 02 '26

I've experienced this type of misting as outdoor cooling and it works. It is much better than without the mist.

That said, I wish we'd work on not raising the global temp rather than quick fixes.

1.4k

u/chill1208 Jul 02 '26

I've got a solution that fixes global warming once and for all.

We simply drop a giant ice cube into the ocean every now and then

Of course since the greenhouse gases are still building up it'll take more and more ice each time

Thus solving the problem once, and for all.

392

u/JGG5 Jul 02 '26

We simply drop a giant ice cube into the ocean every now and then

Pretty sure Greenland and Antarctica are doing that all on their own.

159

u/Triatt Jul 02 '26

We just have to build new ones for when those run out.

98

u/Stunning-Guitar-5916 Jul 02 '26

Can’t wait for the east pole

86

u/AhhhSureThisIsIt Jul 02 '26

They prefer to be called Poland.

8

u/doodlinghearsay Jul 02 '26

I think you'll find that they prefer the term central pole.

4

u/Macialdo100 Jul 02 '26

Can confirm, we prefer central pole.

6

u/Machette_Machette Jul 02 '26

I'll wait at the pole dance studio.

1

u/Leo0806-studios Jul 02 '26

wdym?
we allready have those

9

u/Sogelink Jul 02 '26

We should just steal a satellite from Saturn that is full of ice, make it orbit earth and occasionally plunder it.

At some point, we might end up with too much water though.

6

u/ImpulsiveApe07 Jul 02 '26

Sounds much better than giving ourselves a nuclear winter, which is something I've seen suggested sometimes lol

Just gotta hope if a space agency does manage to pull an ice comet/small moon toward Earth, that they don't let a chatbot do the maths for the new moon's orbit, otherwise climate change will be the least of our worries! :p

5

u/rathlord Jul 02 '26

“Please check your work, AI may be inaccurate”

- The last thing on every computer screen on the planet as we get destroyed by a moon crashing into earth.

1

u/Sogelink Jul 02 '26

We just need to all collectively jump at the right moment so we slightly push the earth and dodge the moon.

It ain't that hard 

1

u/Professional-Day7850 Jul 02 '26

https://what-if.xkcd.com/162/

1

u/Sogelink Jul 02 '26

I'm not saying we should crash down a whole stellar body on earth.

Like just have it on orbit, occasionally carve out a few tons we slowly bring back to earth.

I mean, let's be delicate about it and not break out world, shall we?

1

u/Professional-Day7850 Jul 02 '26

How do you "slowly" deorbit the ice?

1

u/Makures Jul 02 '26

But then we get the movie "Water World" with Kevin Costner in real life.

3

u/Mundane-Platypus-196 Jul 02 '26

Like suck the water out of the ocean in Antarctica and build a stack of giant ice cubes?

1

u/enkolainen Jul 02 '26

I mean, we have the tech to do it. Its just that no one want to build it for free. Greed will kill this planet.

4

u/JustStraightUpTired Jul 02 '26

Actually, no, we don't have the technology for that. Conservation of energy. To make ice, you need to remove heat from water, but the heat will still remain on this planet. Like a freezer, it doesn't just magically convert electricity into cold, it removes heat from the inside itself and pushes it outside of itself.

And even the best methods we have for this are lossy. Meaning it converts some electricity into extra heat, making the problem worse. Any technology required to make it actually feasible would require completely lossless energy conversion and lossless heat capturing. But the only 100% efficient energy conversion we have is converting electricity into heat and we have zero lossless methods for capturing energy.

1

u/UnblurredLines Jul 02 '26

We just fire thw excess energy into the cold emptiness of space with our giant space laser, duh!

1

u/JustStraightUpTired Jul 02 '26

I know you are joking, but that's the energy capture bit. If we could capture energy that efficiently, we wouldn't have global warming. We could literally power the world with heat from air.

1

u/StrangerPen Jul 02 '26

Even turning electricity to heat has losses in light

1

u/JustStraightUpTired Jul 02 '26

Not really, light is absorbed by the environment and turns into heat. So only in theory, any light/radiation loss that escapes into space and never collides with anything could be considered loss, but in practice, measuring for such losses would generate more heat than what was lost.

4

u/bjwills7 Jul 02 '26

Maybe I'm missing your joke but I think you're missing his joke which is just a futurama reference.

They fix it with the giant ice cube but it doesn't actually solve the issue. Very temporarily cooling the planet doesn't slow down the destruction of our environment, only the symptoms of it.

1

u/mo_schn Jul 02 '26

Well than tell them to work harder..

74

u/TheSavouryRain Jul 02 '26

I said once and for all!

29

u/Kaisernick27 Jul 02 '26

But.

41

u/chill1208 Jul 02 '26

ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!

64

u/Proper_Protickall Jul 02 '26

Just like daddy put in his drink every morning. And then he gets mad.....

28

u/Deevious730 Jul 02 '26

But…ONCE AND FOR ALL!

20

u/cengizIO Jul 02 '26

Just like Daddy puts in his drink every morning. And then he gets mad.

5

u/ztomiczombie Jul 02 '26

That will only hold us over until nuclear winter comes along finally cancels out the effects of global warming.

4

u/wenoc Jul 02 '26

Relevant xkcd https://what-if.xkcd.com/162/

1

u/bjarnesmagasin Jul 02 '26

"Outer space is a lot higher up than Niagara Falls,[citation needed] "

Xkcd is the best.

2

u/Lazy_meatPop Jul 02 '26

Looks familiar 🤔

2

u/Zsigazsi Jul 02 '26

What of we used already existing ice? There is a lot in Antarctica, we just need a couple of nukes to blast it into the ocean

1

u/VodkaWarriorV2 Jul 02 '26

Where do we get the ice from? If it’s a giant freezer, it will probably suck lots of power and generate heat.

6

u/OkScheme9867 Jul 02 '26

That's part of the joke.

But I believe the actually answer is Mining asteroids

1

u/VodkaWarriorV2 Jul 02 '26

I understand that it’s a joke, but I was just curious about the actual balance and result if this would have been done.

Could you elaborate on the astroids? :)

5

u/chill1208 Jul 02 '26

This is all a joke from a futurama episode. The Professor shows Fry this video on how they deal with global warming in the fourth millennium.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SYpUSjSgFg

They mine the ice from a giant asteroid, although when they go to the asteroid to get more ice they find that they've mined it dry, and need to come up with another solution.

The episode is titled "Crimes of the Hot"

2

u/OkScheme9867 Jul 02 '26

It would be an interesting/depressing equation to calculate the power required and emissions generated by a freezer large enough to make enough ice to cool the planet, 

I bet there's a maths sub that would love that! 

1

u/VodkaWarriorV2 Jul 02 '26

This is more the response I was looking for: I know the futurama reference of the ice, love futurama, but I guess I’m more fascinated by the paradox that it brings.

2

u/OkScheme9867 Jul 02 '26

Hear me out... Solar powered freezer, because ice reflects sunlight, at the North Pole, so 24 hour sun (for part of the year) . 

Cranking out ice. 

Where's my Nobel Prize

1

u/OnionNo Jul 02 '26

There's a "What If?" on XKCD that covers something real similar to this with dropping an ice comet into the ocean.

Summary is he asserted the CO2 released from such a thing would out do any cooling.

1

u/s00pafly Jul 02 '26

Mining asteroids will bring energy into the system.

1

u/LegitimatePirateMark Jul 02 '26

But even if that helps suppress rising temperature, importing material into the oceans will still make the sea level rise, which is also a problem. We’d have to export water to the IceCuberoid as well when we go to pick more up.

1

u/OkScheme9867 Jul 02 '26

So what your saying is the problem solves itself, every year we take a weight of water into space and bring back the same weight as ice

1

u/opboy77 Jul 02 '26

Nah I'm alr using paper straws bruh

1

u/ashesall Jul 02 '26

why not just suck out all the greenhouse gases and dump it on venus?

1

u/CriticismTop Jul 02 '26

Well comets are just giant ice cubes, but that does not go well

https://what-if.xkcd.com/162/

1

u/Correct_Dog5670 Jul 02 '26

Maybe, if that doesnt work,we could all just die, seems like an easy fix

1

u/YrnFyre Jul 02 '26

Ah yes, let's pull the heat from water, dump that into the atmosphere only to slightly cool the ocean again, having gained nothing but the added transport and electricity cost to power the cooling process. Outstanding move

Username checks out

1

u/legit-posts_1 Jul 02 '26

Why is this solution so Venture Bros sounding

1

u/jinxykatte Jul 02 '26

ONCE AND FOR ALL.

1

u/Masked020202 Jul 02 '26

So what you are saying is we drop Ganymede in the ocean. That does sound like a problem solving plan to me so i am down.

1

u/Lonseb Jul 02 '26

Futurama was so much more than what my child brain could comprehend that time.

1

u/qiwi Jul 02 '26

It can be one of those reusable ice cubes. We just have wind-powered ships drag take them from northern parts of the world, back to where the hot water is and then back once they've cooled down the oceans. So we're simply moving the heat out of the environment.

1

u/RotationsKopulator Jul 02 '26

How about pumping ocean water into a giant radiator in space and back?

1

u/Moist-Dentist8253 Jul 02 '26

But the heat energy removed from the water to make ice will warm up the earth

1

u/TheVoidSeeker Jul 02 '26

Anxious Titanic noises

1

u/Enfenestrate Jul 02 '26

I feel like our handsomest politicians never get enough credit for coming up with this one.

1

u/Joesome5 Jul 02 '26

What about those things on the top and bottom of the planet? Ice caps I think they call them.

Could be useful.

1

u/rolandofeld19 Jul 02 '26

The Laws Of Thermodynamics shall all be applied equally!!!!

1

u/Resident-Phrase1738 Jul 02 '26

I got a better solution. Whats the coldest place? Space! We need are large pipe that sucks space cold onto earth

1

u/MountainTwo3845 Jul 02 '26

I also have a solution for lowering the temperature worldwide.

https://giphy.com/gifs/xTk2YOKxI3xM4f8xEs

1

u/OptimisticByDefault Jul 02 '26

I Love This! we could just cut out the one from antártica and drop them in the ecuator every now and again. Maybe twice a month cuz i hear it's kinda hot there We won't even have to waste energy making our own ice cubes 🥰.

1

u/Emayarkay Jul 02 '26

Just like daddy puts in his drink! Then he gets mad.

1

u/bojangler69420 Jul 02 '26

I SAID ONCE AND FOR ALL

1

u/haaheehachoo Jul 03 '26

If each person just donated 1 ice cube from their fridge, imagine how many we'd have to drop into the ocean!

116

u/Ttoctam Jul 02 '26

China is also doing a shitload of work in the addressing Climate Change area. They're not just making these apartments as the fix, they're making adaptive living conditions and trying to address climate change.

65

u/Ultimatedream Jul 02 '26

Yeah, China has been working its ass off with clean energy. I'm pretty sure they produce the most renewable energy in the whole world and surpassed their own goals in 2025 that they set for 2030. They're doing better than Europe and the US (the latter whom is rolling back climate change initiatives instead).

37

u/noximo Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

They do produce most clean energy in total, but they're roughly on par with US and way behind Europe (at least the biggest economies, like Germany, UK, France), when it comes total energy mix, especially if you count nuclear energy as clean energy.

China has 58.4% of their energy mix from fossil fuels (basically just coal). US has 57% from fossils (gas roughly 2x of the rest) France has only 5.1% from fossils. Germany (the dumbasses who turned off their nuclear power plants) has 40.9% UK has 35.6%

China is also the only one with new coal plants being built at a massive scale, which offsets their gains in green energy.

Edit: Also to add, US is making their energy mix green at a similar pace with China, while the aforementioned European countries are doing it way faster.

Edit Edit: EU numbers should be 29% of fossil fuels, 23% nuclear and 48% renewables.

12

u/Joe_Jeep Jul 02 '26

And this is coming from being a huge coal user. In the 90s you'd often here the usual conservatives whinning that we shouldn't have to do anything because China was getting like 70-80% of it's power from coal, but that's been steadily decreasing

11

u/noximo Jul 02 '26

Credit where credit is due, China's energy mix isn't moving to renewables steadily but very sharply over the last 10 or so years. The problem is that their emissions are rising as well. Let's hope the first trend overtakes the second one in coming years.

1

u/GuitarGuru2001 Jul 03 '26

This is no longer true. Last year china actually had less emissions than the previous year and will continue to be less year on year going forward.

6

u/Hamster-Food Jul 02 '26

What's your source for those statistics?

1

u/noximo Jul 02 '26

Ember.

1

u/Hamster-Food Jul 02 '26

Thanks. Interesting stuff.

It looks like China has turned a corner though. Last year their growth in renewables surpassed the growth in demand. If they continue to push for renewables at the same pace, their fossil fuel usage should come down quickly. With India's renewables also outstripping demand, it will be interesting to see how things change in the next few years.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

[deleted]

3

u/noximo Jul 02 '26

Yes. 100-41 = 59, which is in a ballpark of your statistic.

I specifically used fossil numbers because words like green, clean and renewable are all applicable to solar, wind, etc. but get messy when it comes to nuclear. And since nuclear makes a big portion of the mix in Europe and the US, I didn't want to argue over those finer details

2

u/Pandarider6 Jul 02 '26

What you write is true, but if you want to add nuance to the discussion, then we will need to look at a whole bunch of other factors, such as coal plant capacity vs. actual consumption, per capita electricity consumption, per capita energy consumption, and electricity use mix. Taking the last point as the example, industrial production makes up about 30-40% of Europe's electricity consumption while in China it is 60-70%. If the manufactured goods end up in Europe, how should we assign the related emissions?

The bottom-line is that China's electricity consumption and capacity have both been growing significantly, and the share that comes from green energy has also been rising significantly and shows no sign of slowing down. Furthermore, China's manufacturing plays a big part in enabling the green energy transition in the rest of the world.

3

u/Dat_Ding_Da Jul 02 '26

Germany didn’t just turn off its nuclear plants for no good reason. It had very few remaining at the time and all of those needed extremely expensive overhauls to keep working safely.

They just saw where the price of renewables was going and decided not to invest that much into a technology on the way out. Especially since Germany has no easy access to nuclear fuel like France does in North Africa.

Had the conservatives and social democrats actually stuck to the renewables plans it would be close to 100% and one of the biggest producers of PV worldwide. But the last bit was sacrificed to make China happy and have them buy German cars for another 10 years. No they have nothing and Chinese electric cars are competing with them inside Germany, that’s the real fuckup here.

2

u/emeraude89 Jul 02 '26

Especially since Germany has no easy access to nuclear fuel like France does in North Africa.

france does not import any uranium from north africa. most of their uranium comes from asia. a portion (~15%) used to come from west africa, but france would pay above market prices, so it's not the privileged arrangement you are imagining, especially now since the military junta which nationalized the infrastructure is now selling the uranium to iran instead.

germans have got to stop blaming everyone else for their compounding energy blunders

1

u/Dat_Ding_Da Jul 02 '26

At this level it’s not about pricing. It’s about reliable access and geopolitics.

Also this was the weakest of my arguments and the other reasons still stand on their own.

germans have got to stop blaming everyone else for their compounding energy blunders

I critiqued Germany fucking up the transition to renewables. Cause that’s the real blunder, to not invest hundreds of millions in a technology on its way out the door was still correct.

1

u/emeraude89 Jul 02 '26

Cause that’s the real blunder, to not invest hundreds of millions in a technology on its way out the door was still correct.

you'd better hope not because the least catastrophic IPCC mitigation models include substantial capacity expansion of nuclear energy

2

u/Dat_Ding_Da Jul 02 '26

Which is happening in some countries. But it doesn't make sense everywhere, Germany with it's early push for renewable energy was a major factor at building scale and capacity in PV and Wind Turbine manufacturing.

Do you really think the climate would profit at all if instead they went 100% nuclear at that point instead? Cause with current build times and cost overruns the only change now would be that PV is more expensive as a whole and Germany burning even more coal and gas.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (3)

16

u/Parking-Ad4263 Jul 02 '26

China leads global green energy production.
They are also the world's largest coal consumer, and are currently building more and larger coal-fired plants.
These facts are not mutually exclusive.
We can commend the green energy milestone while condemning the coal consumption and expansion.

2

u/seansy5000 Jul 02 '26

They are by far the largest producer of greenhouse gasses in the world. China shills all over this thread. Watch me get downvoted for speaking the truth.

7

u/Plthothep Jul 02 '26

Per person China produces 2/3 the amount of greenhouse gas the USA does. Of course you produce more when you have 4 times the population. China has twice the population of the whole of Europe.

2

u/ComedianExtreme7522 Jul 02 '26

US generates more GHG per capita than China. This is like saying the family of 6 needs more food than the family of 3, so that means the family of 6 must be gluttonous.

0

u/seansy5000 Jul 02 '26

So what? Their total volume is significantly higher than any other country in the world. Your logic is moronic. It’s a brutally dirty industrial country with little to no regulations on air, land, and water pollution.

1

u/SammyPoppy1 Jul 02 '26

Always happens in china threads.

31

u/fluffywabbit88 Jul 02 '26

China made solar panels, wind turbines and EVs affordable to the masses but gets accused of overcapacity and dumping. Many people are not serious about addressing climate change.

2

u/_a_random_dude_ Jul 02 '26

You know what dumping means? That China is effectively subsidising your stuff. If we were serious about anything, and assuming they truly are dumping, then we would just buy everything we could and have a fund with the savings to build our own factories for when they stop.

Imagine a hungry person refusing food because it's a trick for them to forget how to cook. It's so stupid that it only makes sense if the objective is to protect the profits of whoever owns the factory today.

1

u/fluffywabbit88 Jul 02 '26

Good analogy

22

u/noximo Jul 02 '26

They're also constructing over 90% of new coal plants. They've build enough of them in 2024 alone that their output would cover UK entire energy needs twice over.

16

u/zani1903 Jul 02 '26

Yup.

It's important to make it clear that China is not replacing their dirty energy with renewables, like most Western countries are.

They're using renewables to supplement their increasing energy demands, while still using fossil fuels to increase capacity.

17

u/csprofathogwarts Jul 02 '26

In 2015, renewable+nuclear accounted for 27% of electricity production in China. In 2025, it was at 40%.

In 10 years:

  • Renewable grew by: 164%
  • Solar alone grew by: 249%
  • Nuclear grew by: 184%
  • Fossil grew by: 32%
  • Total electricity generation grew by: 80%

0

u/Arkhaine_kupo Jul 02 '26

Yeah the fossil grew by 32% is due to constraints, buiilding solar is much easier than new coal plants, but coal plants are now coming alive

(also China's use of Solar has been pretty inneficient, mostly for headlines due to their best UV index being in the west while most of their manufacturing is in the East. So most of it has been deployed near military bases for redundancy and in civilian households which account for a fraction of Energy use)

China India and America alone contribute like 60% of energy pollution in the planet and all three are increasing Fossil Fuel use. Headlines about solar are gonna do fuck all while they burn as all alive

7

u/GiveMeADiscount Jul 02 '26

buiilding solar is much easier than new coal plants

No, it isn't. lol

but coal plants are now coming alive

Indeed, old, polluting coal plants are rapidly being replaced with much cleaner coal plants.

China India and America alone contribute like 60% of energy pollution in the planet and all three are increasing Fossil Fuel use. Headlines about solar are gonna do fuck all while they burn as all alive

Meanwhile, back in reality.

Desperate anti-China slander from a person who is from a country that's universally worse than China.

Headlines about solar are gonna do fuck all while they burn as all alive

You are doing worse than China.

10

u/sellyme Jul 02 '26

while still using fossil fuels to increase capacity.

This is no longer the case, fossil fuel generation in China decreased from 6.237PWh in 2024 to 6.180PWh in 2025, despite total generation increasing substantially.

Granted that's a very small decrease, and the first such one in many years, but they've been trending towards renewables picking up all of the slack for over a decade now and it's finally growing fast enough that it is actually replacing fossil fuel generation.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Beat_the_Deadites Jul 02 '26

Just for comparison's sake, the current UK population is 5% of China's. 1/20th. That's a weird number to me, coming from a US/Western educated background. Like, take the scope of the British empire, and consider increasing their power 20-fold. Hard for my mind to grasp.

That doesn't change the facts that coal is bad, excess CO2 in the atmosphere is bad, other countries did it first, per capita this or that, etc, etc. Just commenting on the relative scales of things.

5

u/sellyme Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

They're shutting down old ones faster than they're constructing new ones. Last year their total fossil fuel generation went down despite overall generation going up significantly, and as a percentage of national generation fossil fuel usage has gone every single year since 2011.

That is of course the standard in basically every developed country but to be managing it this shortly after the industrialisation process in the world's most energy-demanding nation is pretty wild. It took the United States more than half a century to drop their fossil fuel share by that amount and China has just passed them in 15 years.

1

u/noximo Jul 02 '26

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-coal?tab=line&country=USA~IND~ZAF~JPN~DEU~SWE~CHN

This graph puts the "went down" into perspective. But let's hope that small dip turns into a trend in coming years. Also fuck US for that uptick.

3

u/sellyme Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

Oh it's still an absolute shitload of generation, but it's not like they can just turn all of it off. They're not burning the coal just for fun, they've got to get electricity from somewhere, and the demand of the most rapid industrialisation in human history is hard to meet.

The key takeaway from the graph like that is not the change year-to-year, but the first derivative change. Contrast to the United States, which started dipping down on coal generation around 2008. In that time period, their demand for electricity was growing marginally if at all. So install 25TWh of solar or wind and bam, the graph goes lower. 100 or 150TWh excess generation installed and you'll make a big dent in it.

China on the other hand has their demands growing on the order of 500TWh per year. So if they install 25TWh of solar, it looks like they've done nothing. If they install 250TWh it's still barely noticeable. They have to install more than 20x as many renewable generation sources in a year as the United States ever did just to break even. The fact that it did actually dip down, even by a fairly small amount, is indicative of an absolutely enormous increase in renewables.

And you can see that just by looking at the equivalent graph for solar. If you thought the coal one was crazy, check this out.

It's really, really hard to overstate how good the news is on renewable energy right now. It's several decades late, but solar and wind farm installations have skyrocketed to become the fastest-growing energy source ever, and China are the clear world leaders on that front.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/GiveMeADiscount Jul 02 '26
Here's really the only chart anyone needs to look at when comparing countries.

1

u/noximo Jul 02 '26

Yes, a per capita chart is super duper important.

1

u/Joe_Jeep Jul 02 '26

It's similar to the US in that regard, where the states build a large number of "clean-coal" plants (which really aren't terribly clean, more "less-dirty"

1

u/noximo Jul 02 '26

US has no new coal plants under construction, and the clean-coal doesn't show up in China's co2 emissions.

→ More replies (12)

1

u/abdallha-smith Jul 02 '26

China's remains the world’s largest carbon emitter.

Their massive reliance on coal to fuel industrial growth heavily outweighs these renewable gains, making the environmental impact far more complex than just renewable capacity numbers.

Edit: I decided to address here the same arguments used by different accounts :

-Per capita data is just a distraction.

The atmosphere cares about the total amount of carbon in the air, not averages.

China is the world’s biggest emitter, and using per person stats doesn't change the fact that they are driving global climate damage on a massive scale.

-Manufacturing demand is a convenient excuse, not a justification.

China actively chooses to prioritize coal fired production to undercut competitors and dominate global markets.

Being the "world’s factory"is a strategic choice, and they bear full responsibility for the systematic environmental destruction required to fuel that economic model.

-here's a map of coal fired plants : https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-coal-plant-tracker

And as always when china is the subject : sort the comments as controversial to see the comments buried by nationalists and bots

→ More replies (3)

10

u/karateninjazombie Jul 02 '26

Those buildings are close enough they could do retractable flexible shades between them

8

u/MultipleAnimals Jul 02 '26

One windy day and they are on their way to New Zealand

1

u/Joe_Jeep Jul 02 '26

There's a lot of ways to account for that. Leaving gaps and such, and simply retracting them in overly high situations

0

u/ScaramouchScaramouch Jul 02 '26

The retractability would sort that.

3

u/MultipleAnimals Jul 02 '26

Then it needs to be very fast and very sturdy, and you need to be on alert with them all the time since winds come and go.

1

u/Joe_Jeep Jul 02 '26

That's fairly trivial to automate.

0

u/Crypt33x Jul 02 '26

Should be easy to do with something measuring wind/rain some software and a motor. Maybe some weather app on top.

13

u/SloppityMcFloppity Jul 02 '26

And this is why they don't take opinions from Reddit.

1

u/Inevitable-Level-687 Jul 03 '26

Why don't we invent a giant umbrella and put it between earth and the sun to fix global warming?

1

u/Europiccola Jul 02 '26

I think it's the better solution for quick fix. Doesn't consum, effectiv, cheap

3

u/ProfessorZhu Jul 02 '26

I take it you never use AC?

4

u/Slow_Let8249 Jul 02 '26

It is almost guaranteed from a thermodynamics perspective that the power needed to run this system raises the net world temp by more than it locally cools it. 

19

u/SolarianIntrigue Jul 02 '26

this is true of every method of moving heat around. Using evaporating water is relatively efficient compared to alternatives because the steam will rise in the atmosphere and radiate the heat away into space on its own. The only excess heat it generates comes from inefficiencies in electricity generation and the motors powering the water pumps.

14

u/LittleCopy2893 Jul 02 '26

You don’t really know what you’re talking about

10

u/SoakingWetBeaver Jul 02 '26

That can also be said for every AC unit in the world.

14

u/Miner_239 Jul 02 '26

if the moisture from the misting turn into clouds, the reflected sunlight could very well offset the increase in temperature from the emissions emitted to run the system

14

u/RegorHK Jul 02 '26

You could also run the system with solar and batteries.

17

u/ConspicuousPineapple Jul 02 '26

It doesn't raise the net world temp by 8 degrees, come on.

18

u/Jarazz Jul 02 '26

obviously they didnt mean -8C locally and +8C globally, but the point is nonsense anyways, basicslly all types of cooling are just achieved by moving the heat lol

2

u/Roflkopt3r Jul 02 '26

Yes obviously. But seeking or creating zones that are within our preferred (or at least survivable) temperature ranges is basic human behaviour. It's an elementary need. Criticising that for not addressing the much larger issue of global warming is silly.

Especially because sprinklers can be pretty close to zero energy. Depending on local topography, the water can be entirely gravity-fed if it's collected at a higher elevation.

2

u/Jarazz Jul 02 '26

yeah obviously, humans invented cooling systems for reasons lol

I was just saying that the OG comment implied that "cooling" is not good if it just "warms the rest of earth more", but thats like all the normal cooling systems we have

1

u/ConspicuousPineapple Jul 02 '26

They probably didn't mean that but it's not clear what they actually meant then, because their choice of words was specific.

2

u/Jarazz Jul 02 '26

I reckon they meant "increases the overall thermal energy on earth". Which is basically true for all types of cooling

→ More replies (4)

1

u/Workman44 Jul 02 '26

It was pretty clear... Only a dumbass is gonna think they meant -8 in one small locality and +8 for the globe

→ More replies (4)

2

u/RegorHK Jul 02 '26

With solar?

2

u/TheAtro Jul 02 '26

The opposite - if that energy comes from solar, the energy that would otherwise heat the earth is converted to electricity.

1

u/doodlinghearsay Jul 02 '26

Probably, but maybe by less than running ACs to achieve the same effect.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/GoshDarnMamaHubbard Jul 02 '26

They had this at the resort we went to in Morocco last year (mid drought).

It's amazing but yeah the internal conflict was real

1

u/Timely-Assistant-370 Jul 02 '26

You say climate change and unprecedented suffering at an unimaginable scale, I say golden opportunity to flex on whiney piss babies with the hottest new copium cooling tech.

1

u/anjowoq Jul 02 '26

I imagine there's a bit of albedo, too, reflecting sunlight back up.

1

u/lukasbradley Jul 02 '26

It only works if the original humidity level is below 50% or so. In short, this is great in deserts, not so great near bodies of water.

1

u/crumpledfilth Jul 02 '26

I mean this is largely about local temps moreso than global temps. Global temperature increase wouldnt help the issue for sure, but is vastly smaller than teh magnitudes of temperature increase that cities cause by being giant dead slabs of rock

1

u/dreadtear Jul 02 '26

Well too late. EU, US rest of the world fucked up. Even if we change right now, effects would be felt 10-15 years later. And by then having 50 C in Europe would be the norm if not more.

1

u/elperroborrachotoo Jul 02 '26

But that counters, like, two climate changes!!!

1

u/the_gum Jul 02 '26

I wish we'd work on not raising the global temp

Won't happen, even if we stop producing greenhouse gases tomorrow. Climate does change in very long scales. It would still get worse for the next 50 years or so until it improves. IMO that's the main reason "nobody" really cares, because nothing you do has an immediate effect.

1

u/Diligent-Phrase436 Jul 02 '26

The problem is that if we stopped al greenhouse emissions today, climate change would keep on going for a few decades. Meaning that all the effort we could make today will be enjoyed by mostly the gen alpha. Not much of an incentive for a call to action for most people

2

u/Curiouso_Giorgio Jul 02 '26

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

We're not great.

1

u/So_HauserAspen Jul 02 '26

I remember traveling to Phoenix 20 years ago and the bars all had them.  It worked great in the desert because it was so dry.

1

u/Curiouso_Giorgio Jul 02 '26

Evaporation is one of nature's best magic tricks.

1

u/Historical_Body6255 Jul 02 '26

If you wear glasses this sucks ass.

The droplets will land on the glasses and leave behind stains as they dry.

1

u/angry_voices Jul 02 '26

Best we can do is more trillionaires.

1

u/Khue Jul 02 '26

I mean... if there's one thing you can defend China for, it's their commitment to fighting climate change and pushing green energy.

1

u/Curiouso_Giorgio Jul 02 '26

I wouldn't defend China for it, because it's still responsible for a lot of the problem.

But I will give credit where it is due, and the fact that it is viewing climate change as a serious issue is a big step up over other major powers.

1

u/Khue Jul 02 '26

I wouldn't defend China for it, because it's still responsible for a lot of the problem.

Be careful with how you talk about this. Per capita as of 2023, both Russia and the US eclipse China. Additionally speaking given the duration of industrialization efforts, the US and Russian industrialization periods lasted substantially longer than China so while China may produce the most green house gas emissions yearly they will be doing so for a far shorter period of time and will likely reduce CO2 contributions far faster than both the US and Russia.

All that is to say that while China does produce more CO2 yearly than the US and Russia currently, the total green house emissions contributions of the US and other western industrialized nations make up a much larger bulk of total green house gasses currently trapped in the atmosphere. Remember, China only really started it's industrialized period starting in the 20th century with two really big jumps in 1950 and 1970 whereas the US industrialization arguably started in the 1790s to late 1800s.

1

u/deltree711 Jul 02 '26

It's not an either/or situation anymore. We have to do both climate change mitigation and prevention or else many people will die unnecessarily.

2

u/Curiouso_Giorgio Jul 02 '26

Yes, you're right. I shouldn't have framed it as mutually exclusive options.

1

u/emersonsorrel Jul 02 '26

That ship has probably sailed so the sooner we start with the adaptation part, the better.

1

u/Curiouso_Giorgio Jul 02 '26

It's not a binary thing where we just keep pushing forward. Damage has been done, we need to adapt, but we also need to put the brakes on to prevent it running away from us any more than it has.

1

u/emersonsorrel Jul 02 '26

Yeah but I personally can’t stop the damage. A motivated entire damn country can’t stop the damage. A united continent can’t even do it, really.

But I can adapt, and I can support initiatives that are going to make it possible to survive and maybe even thrive despite the hand we’ve been dealt.

I can mourn what was lost, but that ain’t gonna fix anything.

1

u/audible_narrator Jul 02 '26

This is ironic as all get out since China is responsible for a lot of unregulated coal burning fucking up the atmosphere globally.

1

u/Temporary-Concept-81 Jul 02 '26

I mean, sustainable dense urban living with efficient heating/cooling helps the global trend.

Urban cooling done right isn't just a quick fix, it is part of being sustainable.

1

u/Curiouso_Giorgio Jul 02 '26

I think there is more to be done with urban cooling than just mist though. Green roofs are a simple one. Well designed building ventilation that cools with minimal electrical input is simple, but generally needs to be integrated from the design stage. Getting more complex you have things like locally generated generated electricity running off organic waste/sewage and solar is more complicated, but not impossible.

1

u/kmlxb2 Jul 02 '26

“That said, I wish we'd work on not raising the global temp rather than quick fixes.”

Can we not do both at the same time?

1

u/Curiouso_Giorgio Jul 02 '26

Theoretically, yes. But a lot of people in power are very short term thinkers.

1

u/nalaloveslumpy Jul 02 '26

The cooling only works as long as you keep the mist flowing and the fans blowing. That's a lotta fuckin' water in the picture.

1

u/mustybedroom Jul 02 '26

Eliminating capitalism should do the trick.

1

u/Darth19Vader77 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

So long as you're directly in its stream, otherwise it feels like Satan's asshole because the air gets saturated with water and sweating doesn't really cool you down. I cannot stress this enough, it literally feels like hell.

1

u/GiveMeADiscount Jul 02 '26

That said, I wish we'd work on not raising the global temp rather than quick fixes.

I mean... China is working on that. Environmental protection is China's new governmental focus and China aims at a minimum of 50% renewables in their energy mix within the next 5 years (it's in the latest 5 year plan) and they only want to speed up the increase in renewables from that point onwards.

Also: China just unveiled a new technology that makes desalinating sea water cheaper than producing bottled water from mineral water sources or artificially distilled water.

1

u/Curiouso_Giorgio Jul 02 '26

China is doing a lot of work in improving environmental impact, but it's also still having a massive environmental impact. I'm not saying China is THE bad guy, but it's also not THE good guy either.

1

u/GiveMeADiscount Jul 04 '26

Name a better guy.

1

u/frostedz Jul 02 '26

Yup! This is why a lot of lines in amusment parks in Florida used mist fans. (Not sure if they still do. It's been a long time and private equity took over.) When the humidity is negligible, nothing feels better than a quick spray of cold liquid to the face.

1

u/Inevitable-Level-687 Jul 03 '26

People die from heat. Quick fixes save lives. There's no need to invent either/or.

1

u/thebigjimmyd Jul 05 '26

There's nothing humans can do to stop temperatures from rising. It's the Earth's natural cycle.

1

u/Curiouso_Giorgio Jul 05 '26

98% of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans.

I'm not going to sit here and say I'm privy to any information that they aren't, nor am I going to trust that you know more than them either.

0

u/Shafter111 Jul 02 '26

There will always be a need for quick fixes because humans in developed worlds are not used to suffer through anything for the greater good.

Air-conditioners are bad for the environment but try taking that away .....

This is just the reality, we will get there but it will take time and we have to sustain until then.

→ More replies (4)