Under very specific circumstances, this technology really can reduce surface temperatures by up to the claimed 3.5C. The first I heard of this technology was on Tech Ingredients’ channel about a year ago, where they go into very specific detail about how it works. Since then, I’ve seen Nighthawkinlight attempt to refine the material by producing consistent nanospheres. You could make the stuff yourself, they tell you how.

To be absolutely clear, I’m not knocking these inventors, who have found a novel incremental advance in this technology (they made the technology more durable so it wears in the weather better) I’m saying the article is bad and the author should feel bad. “Unlike previous attempts at cooling coatings…” does more than suggest that those “attempts” were somehow unsuccessful at being a cooling coating, especially when taken with unequivocal claims to unique “invention.” It reads like an ad or propaganda, which of course it is. Daniela Benites is the Communications Coordinator for the University of Maryland School of Engineering, and the author of this article. You’ll never guess where these two researchers/scientists/inventors/students/whateversoundsbestinthearticleatthetime go to school.

This article is a fluff piece of grossly overstated popsci which does a poor job of explaining how the “new technology” works. (some major disadvantages: being almost useless on cars, actually useless in the shade or on any surface that doesn’t point directly into space, and useless when obstructed by clouds) It isn’t new, it isn’t magic, and these guys didn’t invent it. They found a new material/production method, but they don’t get any credit for inventing what is basically reflective paint. Standard science “journalism” stuff, not surprised you doubted it.

Don’t worry about all that though, there’s a handy little popup that says the article is totally trustworthy: We are assured this is a “fact-checked, peer-reviewed publication” from a “trusted source” and has been “proofread.”