Concrete, asphalt and urban heat islands add to the misery of heat waves(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Concrete, asphalt and urban heat islands add to the misery of heat waves
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/CLIMATE-CHANGE/URBAN-HEAT/zgpormdkevd/
91 comments
Why is it so complicated to fill all the boulevards with trees that will, in the future, provide a thick canopy?
I've involved myself in local effort to achieve this.
2 main problems we always encounter.
1. This requires planning and change. Tearing up pathways and streets is expensive, takes planning on administrative side and execution on the physical one. Cities and towns have limited money and don't want go through the effort and cost of it. You'll also encounter NIMBYs who are against any change whatsoever.
2. Tree roots in cities generally grow more horizontal and close to the surface. Reason for this is water and air access. If the surrounding area is paved over with concrete or other solid materials and doesn't allow for drainage and airflow, like some light cobbled pathways would, trees will come up and crack the concrete. Since a lot of the underlying structure is compacted soil to allow stable roads and buildings, water won't drain into it and provide less water for soil.
We wanted to revitalize an open empty market space in our small district. Think 200sqm. Total cost for replacing the old concrete tiles with less compacted cobbles and some wildflower beds and trees was 10m Euros.
1. This requires planning and change. Tearing up pathways and streets is expensive, takes planning on administrative side and execution on the physical one. Cities and towns have limited money and don't want go through the effort and cost of it. You'll also encounter NIMBYs who are against any change whatsoever.
2. Tree roots in cities generally grow more horizontal and close to the surface. Reason for this is water and air access. If the surrounding area is paved over with concrete or other solid materials and doesn't allow for drainage and airflow, like some light cobbled pathways would, trees will come up and crack the concrete. Since a lot of the underlying structure is compacted soil to allow stable roads and buildings, water won't drain into it and provide less water for soil.
We wanted to revitalize an open empty market space in our small district. Think 200sqm. Total cost for replacing the old concrete tiles with less compacted cobbles and some wildflower beds and trees was 10m Euros.
I live in a bedroom suburb that is known for its thick tree cover. It was one of the driving factors for me to move here, as well as the fact our area is significantly cooler than the nearby city.
There is a constant battle where retirees who have moved out here want to cut down all the trees because they are “a nuisance.”
There is a constant battle where retirees who have moved out here want to cut down all the trees because they are “a nuisance.”
I'm in a thickly wooded suburb, which has absolutely terrible power reliability. I've been on generator 9 days in the last 7 months: Two four-day outages and a one-day. On the other hand, the trees provide shade and quiet and beauty.
I love the trees in front yards and in some other places, but in back yards where they're in the utility easement and never should've been allowed there in the first place, they _are_ a nuisance. It's important to differentiate the two; if we want the benefits of electricity we have to compromise a little on every-tree-everywhere-no-matter-the-cost.
I love the trees in front yards and in some other places, but in back yards where they're in the utility easement and never should've been allowed there in the first place, they _are_ a nuisance. It's important to differentiate the two; if we want the benefits of electricity we have to compromise a little on every-tree-everywhere-no-matter-the-cost.
> if we want the benefits of electricity we have to compromise a little
As someone from a country where electricity comes from the ground, not the sky: unless you live in a place that also doesn't have sewers or municipal water, no we do not.
Someone at some point made the (at the time perhaps even sensible, but more likely not) choice to run electricity along poles, fully exposed to the environment, instead of using utility pipes buried several feet deep. And you now live with the consequences of that decision.
As someone from a country where electricity comes from the ground, not the sky: unless you live in a place that also doesn't have sewers or municipal water, no we do not.
Someone at some point made the (at the time perhaps even sensible, but more likely not) choice to run electricity along poles, fully exposed to the environment, instead of using utility pipes buried several feet deep. And you now live with the consequences of that decision.
As an example, during the Iowa derecho which tore up much of the state, our neighborhood was only out of power for about three hours thanks to the buried lines. Other parts of town didn't get power back for over two weeks. Buried power lines is going to be on my list of desired features in any new property I buy.
As someone from a country where our population density is probably a tiny fraction of yours, yes that decision is often sensible. The cost of underground installation, especially for things with voltage clearance requirements, is absolutely staggering.
How about we start with all the places that have huge asphalt and concrete slabs? Because that's what we're talking about. These are not middle-of-nowhere places, these are where people congregate and/or live in high enough density to justify the cost.
Plant trees there, and move your utilities underground, geography and climate permitting.
And then keep that electricity above ground for all the parts where people don't (or sparsely) live. They're not the areas that are part of this problem.
Plant trees there, and move your utilities underground, geography and climate permitting.
And then keep that electricity above ground for all the parts where people don't (or sparsely) live. They're not the areas that are part of this problem.
Obviously most neighbourhoods are not 'starting' on this because most of the voters rather not bear the cost and disruption of moving electrical lines underground.
Our little town has been burying power lines for years (because of snow load) and it’s been very nice for the trees.
Unfortunately some dumb bug ate all the old trees so many of the roads are nude now, but they’re slowing building them back up with a tree nursery.
But it takes 20+ years.
Unfortunately some dumb bug ate all the old trees so many of the roads are nude now, but they’re slowing building them back up with a tree nursery.
But it takes 20+ years.
contractors for utility here in California are cutting old growth trees when no one is looking, as fast as possible - they do it because they are pinched for money by some of the wealthiest companies in this area. Every actor in management level knows what is going on, but the stories told on the ground between the operators could be anything. "Every little tree" is fake tears.
Just watched Ice Cube in a video cruising through South Central LA where he grew up. There were no trees along any of the streets. He said the city cut them all down because the Police Helicopters couldn't see through them. I guess FLIR doesn't penetrate trees.
I tried searching but I couldn’t find any evidence to support this.
No evidence to support the cutting-down, but I can personally confirm that FLIR doesn't see through foliage. Each pixel takes the temperature of the nearest surface, which is a leaf, instead of whatever's behind it.
In war footage sometimes you see FLIR imagers being used to find tanks hidden under brush and stuff, but this is because the tank has been there long enough for its engine residual warmth to heat up the cover material. And sometimes you can track a moving target through _very thin_ brush because there are gaps between the leaves, in this case it's like visually tracking someone wearing a bright color -- as soon as the cover is thick enough to not have gaps anymore, you lose them.
So, I can't prove a chain of reasoning, but I can say that part of it at least fits with physical reality.
In war footage sometimes you see FLIR imagers being used to find tanks hidden under brush and stuff, but this is because the tank has been there long enough for its engine residual warmth to heat up the cover material. And sometimes you can track a moving target through _very thin_ brush because there are gaps between the leaves, in this case it's like visually tracking someone wearing a bright color -- as soon as the cover is thick enough to not have gaps anymore, you lose them.
So, I can't prove a chain of reasoning, but I can say that part of it at least fits with physical reality.
Rather than FLIR can’t they use LiDAR to see through the gaps in the foliage in the manner that ruins are being discovered in thick rainforests?
The way that technique is currently used, it takes bazillions of sample points from carefully-orchestrated survey flights, and it's looking for megastructures, walls and roads and things many orders of magnitude larger than the individual trees. It's not going to help you find a single vehicle since that could be a single fallen tree, etc, there's a lot of noise in the signal.
Last year I visited LA over a couple days. I remember walking from downtown to Hollywood, I barely saw any trees. Just concrete with the occasional lawn in front of a house. I don't know if that's supposed to be a "rough area"; I didn't feel particularly unsafe.
Anecdotes I've heard from community members in Black neighborhoods confirms this, they've talked about how cops want better sightlines for following/shooting at running suspects (from the street or from the sky).
What a wildly asinine reason to cut down trees. I sincerely hope this is apocryphal.
I might call and ask the city engineer before going to Ice Cube as an information source.
Civil engineer 7 years in public works and transportation.
1. The local agency having jurisdiction would assume the risk of having installed hazards within a clear zone. That is the area beyond a curb or shoulder that is recommended to be free of anything an errant vehicle could collide with. A city would probably tolerate this. A state DOT would probably not.
2. Who pays for it? Landscaping is more costly than you think and contractors tend to be specialized. For a significant streetscaping project, you would need someone who has an efficient pipeline for mobilizing migrant labor. Cities and states tend to have massive shortfalls in capital improvement budgets versus what is desired. Example: Little Rock infrastructure CAPEX needs are around $1B. Their 3-yr bond is around $35M. Are you really going to blow it all on trees when you have major life safety improvements to make?
3. Who maintains it? Tree litter has to be swept. Roots destroy the adjacent pavement. They can get old and fall on a motorist if left alone. Your city probably doesn’t have the staff to provide every service every resident wants at all times. How many firefighters are you willing to fire to pick up branches?
Have some empathy for your City Manager or Mayor. These are the decisions they make frequently. Their problems are boring to most and don’t usually make it to HN, but they are hard problems.
1. The local agency having jurisdiction would assume the risk of having installed hazards within a clear zone. That is the area beyond a curb or shoulder that is recommended to be free of anything an errant vehicle could collide with. A city would probably tolerate this. A state DOT would probably not.
2. Who pays for it? Landscaping is more costly than you think and contractors tend to be specialized. For a significant streetscaping project, you would need someone who has an efficient pipeline for mobilizing migrant labor. Cities and states tend to have massive shortfalls in capital improvement budgets versus what is desired. Example: Little Rock infrastructure CAPEX needs are around $1B. Their 3-yr bond is around $35M. Are you really going to blow it all on trees when you have major life safety improvements to make?
3. Who maintains it? Tree litter has to be swept. Roots destroy the adjacent pavement. They can get old and fall on a motorist if left alone. Your city probably doesn’t have the staff to provide every service every resident wants at all times. How many firefighters are you willing to fire to pick up branches?
Have some empathy for your City Manager or Mayor. These are the decisions they make frequently. Their problems are boring to most and don’t usually make it to HN, but they are hard problems.
Clearly many places do.
But an ever growing problem is the need for fresh water and infrastructure. And I know this always gets push back, but a lot of desert is great for development principally because before modernity no one could live there. Further, the deserts have been expanding on their own so reclamation is a thing.
Having been to Arcosanti, wish there was as some desire to explore alternatives. I have no love of being completely dependent upon vehicles and their huge footprint and risk exposures.
But an ever growing problem is the need for fresh water and infrastructure. And I know this always gets push back, but a lot of desert is great for development principally because before modernity no one could live there. Further, the deserts have been expanding on their own so reclamation is a thing.
Having been to Arcosanti, wish there was as some desire to explore alternatives. I have no love of being completely dependent upon vehicles and their huge footprint and risk exposures.
Someone needs to pay for the tree and its ongoing maintenance. Thats why many studies note a great temperature and foliage difference between rich and poor areas.
Someone needs to pay for roads and ongoing maintenance and yet there always seems to be money for new roads.
Thats a little different because the roads are owned by the public. The property where the tree might go adjacent to the road is often privately owned.
Maintenance costs.
At least here in the UK things like maintenance of trees falls to the most local authority (town/parish councils) that are notoriously underfunded and will cut down a tree is it's cheaper than maintaining it. They are allergic to the risk posed by falling branches too.
At least here in the UK things like maintenance of trees falls to the most local authority (town/parish councils) that are notoriously underfunded and will cut down a tree is it's cheaper than maintaining it. They are allergic to the risk posed by falling branches too.
Are there no local taxes which can cover this? I'm definately paying for "green" maintenance by my local taxes and not via income or other nation wide ones (but not in UK).
Oh there absolutely are local taxes, and they only increase. Here in the UK it's "council tax", and often paid to the authority one higher up than the one responsible for trees and green spaces. A relatively small amount then trickle down to the local town and parish councils for them to spend.
Council taxes are mostly spent on social services. Councils can barely fund garbage collection, schools, and road maintenence on top of that. Probably not much left for all the nice things.
>Are there no local taxes which can cover this?
There are monthly, local taxes, yes. Payable by all residents.
Are they enough? Nothing is ever enough.
There are monthly, local taxes, yes. Payable by all residents.
Are they enough? Nothing is ever enough.
As I responded elsewhere: Someone needs to pay for roads and ongoing maintenance and yet there always seems to be money for new roads.
Because, if you're Comcast/Universal, those trees (publicly-owned, by the way) might provide shade to picketers who are fighting for their jobs: https://deadline.com/2023/07/writers-strike-wga-files-federa...
Because trees need time to grow and take roots. It's possible to plant big trees but it requires heavy machinery as root are large.
Usually there is not room in the soil (pipes etc), and asphalt/concrete prevent a tree to get water.
Also trees evolved to live in an ecosystem. A city is not an ecosystem.
And there also are roofs and walls and roads, so tree will just mitigate the problem.
It's feasible, but the cost is high, and it also implies giving up car space.
Usually there is not room in the soil (pipes etc), and asphalt/concrete prevent a tree to get water.
Also trees evolved to live in an ecosystem. A city is not an ecosystem.
And there also are roofs and walls and roads, so tree will just mitigate the problem.
It's feasible, but the cost is high, and it also implies giving up car space.
You are quite correct otherwise, but just about everything on Earth is an ecosystem. The word does not just refer to forests and meadows and grassland. Cities are surprisingly rich and complex ecosystems in fact. But they could be even richer.
> A city is not an ecosystem.
A city is an ecosystem, and we desperately need to treat them as one rather than try an obliterate all signed of none human life.
> not room in the soil
Not true in any sense, yes there are services under the ground but that is a tiny amount of usage. Roots can cause problems for hard surfaces, but the answers to that is more turf and planting, exactly as the article is proposing.
> also implies giving up car space.
Also only a good outcome, we need less cars stationary on streets using up valuable space.
A city is an ecosystem, and we desperately need to treat them as one rather than try an obliterate all signed of none human life.
> not room in the soil
Not true in any sense, yes there are services under the ground but that is a tiny amount of usage. Roots can cause problems for hard surfaces, but the answers to that is more turf and planting, exactly as the article is proposing.
> also implies giving up car space.
Also only a good outcome, we need less cars stationary on streets using up valuable space.
A city is a techno-socio-economic +(ecological) system
> It's possible to plant big trees but it requires heavy machinery as root are large.
Mature trees are also simply expensive by itself, as they require many years to grow. They are expensive to transport, and the transplant frequently fails to take hold, requiring buying another expensive tree, digging up the previous one and replacing it. This makes planting mature tree cost tens of thousands of dollars, compared to tens of dollars for planting saplings.
Mature trees are also simply expensive by itself, as they require many years to grow. They are expensive to transport, and the transplant frequently fails to take hold, requiring buying another expensive tree, digging up the previous one and replacing it. This makes planting mature tree cost tens of thousands of dollars, compared to tens of dollars for planting saplings.
So plant small trees and invest in the future! The best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago, and the second best time is today.
> A city is not an ecosystem.
Maybe this is the problem. Humans like to pretend we are separate from the environment rather than a part of it, and the consequences of this lunacy are felt in every aspect of our lives, always to the negative.
Maybe this is the problem. Humans like to pretend we are separate from the environment rather than a part of it, and the consequences of this lunacy are felt in every aspect of our lives, always to the negative.
>always to the negative
Only if you let yourself focus solely on the negative. For example, I don’t have to worry about a bear or really animal attacking me in the city. I can navigate safely without my own source of light. I am not going to get dysentery or cholera from the water supply or a neighbor’s runoff. I can travel great distances and participate in many communities without maintaining my own vehicle. I don’t have to worry about everything being constantly coated in a layer of dust. I could go on for a while more…
There's not much natural in a city. Just decoration, really.
San Diego: https://goo.gl/maps/SofHcmcLdyNCpsEB8
LA: https://goo.gl/maps/4XzjwTJ3xS438izu5
Sacramento: https://goo.gl/maps/5QVxr3nzwa6cmd5TA
Brooklyn: https://goo.gl/maps/bwqb8ekAiWCsL1Ai6
Washington D.C.: https://goo.gl/maps/AYmNQAErn6h8yKco6
Houston: https://goo.gl/maps/6BMiFgyWv1ZM1HqV9
You just need to do it. Some is better than none and you need some to have more.
LA: https://goo.gl/maps/4XzjwTJ3xS438izu5
Sacramento: https://goo.gl/maps/5QVxr3nzwa6cmd5TA
Brooklyn: https://goo.gl/maps/bwqb8ekAiWCsL1Ai6
Washington D.C.: https://goo.gl/maps/AYmNQAErn6h8yKco6
Houston: https://goo.gl/maps/6BMiFgyWv1ZM1HqV9
You just need to do it. Some is better than none and you need some to have more.
Another reason is police helicopters can not see suspects hiding under the trees. No joke, look it up.
This is, however, not an issue in the large majority of the civilized world where the police typically don’t even have helicopters, never mind having the problem of suspects hiding under urban trees!!
And yet, still not worth boiling the planet over. Plant trees.
That’s setting up some maintenance nightmares down the road. Tree roots can break into sewage lines and water mains. I would not want to be around when that happens!
No place in the world has solved this
So to avoid maintenance every 40 or 50 years everyone should bake in the heat annually?
The roof over your head now will likely need to be replaced on a more frequent basis than trees will cause maintenance issues.
The roof over your head now will likely need to be replaced on a more frequent basis than trees will cause maintenance issues.
Random failures, not planned maintenance. There are other ways to stay cool. How about a metal canopy?
the take space that is already taken, cost money to install, and cost money to maintain.
there are other reasons to put the trees there anyway (physical / mental health, heat, etc) but they are not well appreciated by everyone.. and we as a society have to collectively make a choice between those pros and cons.
there are other reasons to put the trees there anyway (physical / mental health, heat, etc) but they are not well appreciated by everyone.. and we as a society have to collectively make a choice between those pros and cons.
Great for Balcony tomatoes, humans not so much
If you walk in Scottsdale (yes, I'm one of the few) early in the morning or late at night and you pass one of those hated golfing courses you feel the cold.
What’s the consequence of creating concave or at least non convex areas in streets?
It is evident that convex spaces create heat pockets; so what if we augmented our architecture for reflection or at least in a similar manner as anechoic chambers and made it difficult for heat to bounce off?
I understand that this will likely cause higher floors to accumulate more heat, but the surface area getting heated will be larger and thus not concentrated on the road / street level. This is likely a problem for American buildings as they usually have thinner walls.
One such way to construct such surfaces would be planting trees vertically which give shade and absorb heat; though this is likely a maintenance problem.
Streets unfortunately have little space for trees unless of course dependence on cars is reduced and public transportation, bikes and walking become the main methods of commuting as in eg Copenhagen where > 65% commute on foot or by bike or public transport to go to work.
It is evident that convex spaces create heat pockets; so what if we augmented our architecture for reflection or at least in a similar manner as anechoic chambers and made it difficult for heat to bounce off?
I understand that this will likely cause higher floors to accumulate more heat, but the surface area getting heated will be larger and thus not concentrated on the road / street level. This is likely a problem for American buildings as they usually have thinner walls.
One such way to construct such surfaces would be planting trees vertically which give shade and absorb heat; though this is likely a maintenance problem.
Streets unfortunately have little space for trees unless of course dependence on cars is reduced and public transportation, bikes and walking become the main methods of commuting as in eg Copenhagen where > 65% commute on foot or by bike or public transport to go to work.
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at but streets are generally convex to direct water to the edges.
In the graphic of the article the heat pocket is a consequence of a convex structure. Light bounces off the sides and reaches the bottom. A concave structure or at least a non convex one wouldn’t cause something like that.
Ah, like a canopy of some sort at roof level. I have been places where pedestrian areas are covered in that style and it is pretty effective, the cost is probably the big question. I suppose we'll see that experiment first in wealthier urban shopping areas where it's easier to fund. There are all the issues with managing such structures, especially if they have vegetation on them, but if heat waves keep getting worse it seems inevitable that collectively we'll keep trying different approaches until something sticks.
I think GP means "enclosed".
Obviously, if you want to build cities that are actually pleasant to be in, the first thing to do is remove cars and make things more comfortable for pedestrians.
To me most of the USA is just a dystopian hellscape where you cannot live without a car, and there is no city centre to speak of as you need to drive between points of interest that are spread around along massive motorways.
To me most of the USA is just a dystopian hellscape where you cannot live without a car, and there is no city centre to speak of as you need to drive between points of interest that are spread around along massive motorways.
If the first step is to remove something that few people want to do without, you’re just saying the first step is to do nothing.
There are many things you can do to make a city more walkable without immediately jumping to currently unworkable ideas like “ban cars”. Like property tax rebates for shaded sidewalks.
There are many things you can do to make a city more walkable without immediately jumping to currently unworkable ideas like “ban cars”. Like property tax rebates for shaded sidewalks.
I am 100% with you on this, but I don't think that is feasible at the moment; making them walkable is a great start though. Reduced dependence will enable trees at the street level which will make them even more walkable.
Maybe the surface will get so hot that you can only move about on it in conditioned vehicles - but underground sidewalks in tunnels will become the walkable city.
Kind of like how in some snow cities you can get from skyscraper to skyscraper in elevated walkways.
Kind of like how in some snow cities you can get from skyscraper to skyscraper in elevated walkways.
I think the simplest thing would be painting as many surfaces white as possible. Not entirely fun in full sun though. (Though maybe there’s room for a combination of white surfaces under a light thick canopy of solar panels?)
While I am a big fan of canopies and they are extensively used where I come from to reduce the heat that reaches the street, they are also not permanent structures and deployed on single or two lane streets.
I am thinking that such deployments are harder in 4+ lane streets, so something more permanent needs to be done, and a permanent deployment means obscuring the sun in the winter.
I am thinking that such deployments are harder in 4+ lane streets, so something more permanent needs to be done, and a permanent deployment means obscuring the sun in the winter.
I was thinking white roofs plus solar panels. But indeed the biggest impact would be if roads were white instead of black. With the unsavory effect of blindness sadly.
I wonder, perhaps stone could be an alternative? It'd force cars to move at a slower speed, and the variable in shape and structure could help scatter the heat from radiation.
Seems like that might help with snow/ice season. But at the cost of being slower all the time. Be fine with me.
I don't think it helps all that much as frost still occurs which is .. problematic.
I understand trees require maintenance to upkeep, but at the same time I actively avoid going to places and spending money there when it is hot (or cold and windy and exposed) and there are no trees. I get anxiety when everything is just large featureless concrete and asphalt expanses with zero shade or green color. I am sure I am not alone in this, so in a sense the presence of trees tends to bring in more shoppers to an area.
Personally I think it is kind of sociopathic when we build large population centers and plant zero trees or worse cut down old trees in an older town/city and never bother to plant new trees so that tree cover is maintained.
Personally I think it is kind of sociopathic when we build large population centers and plant zero trees or worse cut down old trees in an older town/city and never bother to plant new trees so that tree cover is maintained.
This is exactly why I want to live in a rural area again, in a city of less than 50k people.
Once you hit 75k people or beyond, heat accumulate OVER DAYS AND NIGHTS, so you end up with "tropical nights" where temperatures do not below 20C, so your sleep quality worsen.
I live in france, so I'm lucky that it's possible to pay rent on welfare, so I just have to move to a small city that cheap and cold.
Once you hit 75k people or beyond, heat accumulate OVER DAYS AND NIGHTS, so you end up with "tropical nights" where temperatures do not below 20C, so your sleep quality worsen.
I live in france, so I'm lucky that it's possible to pay rent on welfare, so I just have to move to a small city that cheap and cold.
Small towns and countryside means things are far apart.
Let me tell you about tropical nights. I live where temperatures don't drop below 30 at night in summer with 80% humidity. Thank god it's a big city. During the day buildings shade me from sun and because everything is packed it's rarely more than 5 min walking from AC to AC. I would probably die if I had to walk far distances through spreadout town or god forbid countryside without working public transport. Such weather is OK for bicycling however only if landscape very flat. I can compare because I also lived in small towns with similar weather. No thanks.
Let me tell you about tropical nights. I live where temperatures don't drop below 30 at night in summer with 80% humidity. Thank god it's a big city. During the day buildings shade me from sun and because everything is packed it's rarely more than 5 min walking from AC to AC. I would probably die if I had to walk far distances through spreadout town or god forbid countryside without working public transport. Such weather is OK for bicycling however only if landscape very flat. I can compare because I also lived in small towns with similar weather. No thanks.
I feel like 50k is quite large for a “rural” area. The places I’ve lived in or visited with that population felt very (sub)urban.
The cutoff for "rural" in America is ~25,000 I believe, but there's more too it than that. A town of 50,000 that is the center of its own micropolitan area is far more rural than a town of 25,000 an hour outside of a metropolis.
Rural/city is more of a feeling than a numbers game. I put the dividing line somewhere around “where do the people who live there work” and if the answer is “the nearby big city” it is a suburb or exurb.
Still can be quite nice, of course.
Still can be quite nice, of course.
Cover surfaces with this ARPA-E funded material https://arpa-e.energy.gov/technologies/projects/passive-radi...
Not only does it reflect heat (what metals do), it’s designed to emit heat energy (what metals don’t do) in the atmospheres IR window so that they are actually cooling as well.
Not only does it reflect heat (what metals do), it’s designed to emit heat energy (what metals don’t do) in the atmospheres IR window so that they are actually cooling as well.
This is one of my major gripes living in NYC - I see less and less plant life and open dirt patches. People buy homes and pave over every square inch. Trees are cut down and never replaced, you're lucky if the dirt patch it once occupied isn't paved over. Thankfully the city went around ripping up the sidewalks to put in rain gardens bringing life back to dead streets. Of course most of the schmucks with rain gardens just let them turn into trash basins.
During the recent heat wave in NYC I was in my yard under an 80ft oak enjoying the shade in my yard. Neighbors were hiding in the AC as they have concrete gardens. My yard is filled with wildlife like bumble bees, birds, squirrels and possums live under my shed. The neighborhood cats also congregate in my yard. I love it. Then I walked down to the store and went past some homes who cut down their trees and paved everything and its a sweltering nightmare.
Just have a look around 1940s.nyc and compare to google maps. You'll notice much greener yards and dirt around property.
During the recent heat wave in NYC I was in my yard under an 80ft oak enjoying the shade in my yard. Neighbors were hiding in the AC as they have concrete gardens. My yard is filled with wildlife like bumble bees, birds, squirrels and possums live under my shed. The neighborhood cats also congregate in my yard. I love it. Then I walked down to the store and went past some homes who cut down their trees and paved everything and its a sweltering nightmare.
Just have a look around 1940s.nyc and compare to google maps. You'll notice much greener yards and dirt around property.
People moving back to cities from the suburbs are figuring out all over again why their ancestors left.
I grew up Rural and farmed with my grandfather, eventually had to move to a city and hated it ever since.
I dont know how people can live in urban and suburban areas willingly.
I miss the greenery, the wild animals and planting random shit in the yard to see what grows.
I miss having no HOAs and just doing what I want in my yard.
Ironically the only thing I liked about las vegas was going out into the mountians and relaxing/hiking/camping in the forests to remind me of home.
Concrete crowds and asphalt for some reason kills my motivation to do anything after work.
Here in Southern California it’s especially bad. I’ve read papers that say it’s up to 10 degrees F warmer here due to hundreds of square miles on pavement and concrete. It even causes changes to weather patterns causing storms to bypass the entire area.
My Silicon Valley city pays people to rip out their lawns. Owners usually replace with artificial turf, rocks, or dyed mulch, none of which cool or provide habitat for critters. They should really encourage the installation of native plants only. My personal favorite is the Manzanita, which some varieties can grow tree-like up to 15 feet and needs no supplemental water
Trees are obviously better, but if nothing else we could probably achieve a huge cooling effect by just stretching sun shades across our 'urban canyons'
At this point, you might get a good deal on buying and demolishing vacant commercial real estate. Plant trees, apply to rezone it to open space. I’d bet you could spin up a non-profit to do this and raise real money.
I am working on an AI predicting heat island in German urban environments. (Actually we predict the temperature of accuracy on 10m x 10m which is sick btw)
More information in German: http://www.klips-projekt.de/ Less information but in English if you cant google translator: https://www.hhi.fraunhofer.de/en/departments/ai/projects/kli...
More information in German: http://www.klips-projekt.de/ Less information but in English if you cant google translator: https://www.hhi.fraunhofer.de/en/departments/ai/projects/kli...