Maybe it’s a disagreement of terms? I guess they aren’t technically “cooling” the area in an active sense, but they absolutely keep it cooler even when it’s 95 and the dew points over 70
To be fair, things like insulation are also good here. You want something outside to get hot when the sun shines on it instead of whatever space you're cooling.
(There are, of course, many heat sources inside that are annoying. I was running some fuzz tests yesterday and was annoyed to watch my air conditioner scale up in power to remove the heat that was wasting. I guess that's why people use The Cloud for everything. You can heat up someone else's city while enjoying the comforts of home!)
I live in Vietnam. It is 8am right now and the dew point is 80. It only 80 at the moment but is supposed to get up to 90 later in the day. I assume the dew point will also go up to around 90.
AccuWeather says the "RealFeel" will be 97 and "RealFeel Shade" will also be 97, so being in the shade does almost nothing, since it is overcast and raining very slightly at the moment.
We're not in a heat wave or anything, this is just normal weather basically year round. If anything it's been especially rainy and cool the past few weeks.
Trees are nice but are not remotely a substitute for air conditioning. Trees do not lower humidity enough to stop the average European/American from sweating constantly just sitting still here.
that's not to say that the heat under a trees' shade cannot still be oppressive. merely that shade matters, as the existence of two "RealFeel" measurements you shared indicates
Well the whole thread was something arguing they are.
First post: "I love trees and want more of them in our cities, my only point is that they are not usually a substitute for HVAC"
Reply: "I guess we disagree on what trees do well"
I don’t think anyone (certainly not me) has intended to argue that trees can replace AC, just that they make the city around them (including indoors in many cases) much cooler than they would be without the trees