Global and local bioclimatic predilections for rebalancing the heating and cooling of buildings

Air-conditioning relies on electricity that isn’t ubiquitous while policies encourage passive alternatives —yet cooling really should respond to occupants’ distress. Here I show where passive measures have been sufficient for comfort and identify local predilections for rebalancing demand between heating and cooling —apportioned by population neighboring meteorological stations. Access to air-conditioned shelter has been occasionally indispensable for 21% of population —generally between 20°S and 39°N and below 500 m elevation. Meanwhile reverse-cycle air-source heat-pump/air-conditioning has been a reasonable expectation for 72% of the population. Refocusing on 9493 locations with ≥ 14 years of daily observations, stationary heating and cooling demands were found where 19% of population dwelt. Otherwise, summer cooling demand generally increased while winter heating demand decreased —except some mid-latitude continental areas demonstrated a predilection for both heating and cooling demands to increase. Over 30% of population dwelt where heating demand increased, while almost 65% dwelt where cooling demand increased. To estimate which HVAC package is locally appropriate, refer to nearby comparable meteorological stations detailed in the file “RESULTSout_1987-2020.csv” (n = 16,582 records) that can be downloaded at https://doi.org/10.5518/967– but beware of microclimatic variability in urban heat islands.