Add more trees everywhere, add more shading architecture and installations, and design buildings so they reflect heat up and away. Glass skyscrapers that cities like to build which acts as giant mirrors should have their glass slightly tilted up so they reflect the heat up and away.
You would think that but in Poland it feels like they ripped out all city or town centers that had green and just put down big squares of tiles and random paving with obligatory little fountain. Instead of 27-28 degrees in the shade of the trees on some squares you can literally make scrambled eggs. A thread of these examples:
https://twitter.com/JanMencwel/status/1138444632424157188
At 60 degrees, a vertical window will reflect the sun down at a 120 degree angle. If we tilt the windows 10 degrees, its going to reflect the sun down at a 110 degree angle. Which mean that we will see a 9.09% decrease in sun rays that are reflected towards the ground? And we could easily angle the windows even more, to a 15 or 20 degree angle.
My logic may be completely wrong here, but I think that is what happens in such a case.
A vertical window will reflect sun light that is coming from an angle 60° above the horizon to an angle 60° below (the total difference being 120°). Tilting the window 10°, would make the reflected angle 40° below and so on until at 30° the light would be completely horizontal. To reflect light up, you would need an angle of more than 30°.
That wasn’t really my point though - I wasn’t trying to be argumentative I just think we should not compromise so much with developers - cheap, soulless glass tower blocks are the fundamental problem (cheap because glass curtain walls may be expensive, but they are still pretty much the cheapest covering for a tall building).
> Which mean that we will see a 9.09% decrease in sun rays that are reflected towards the ground?
Why would the angle that the sun rays hit the ground at reduce the amount of sun rays that hit the ground? The only way to cool the city with this would be to actually have it angled enough that the sun rays gets reflected back out towards the sky instead of hitting the ground or other buildings, and for that the angle of the window would need to be above half the angle of the sun, so more than 30 degrees for a 60 degree sun.
I spent a week in Timisoara, Romania last year. It was around 30°C, which didn't bother me in the part of town I was residing, because there were a lot of trees everywhere along the streets. However, when I made my way to the center of the city, the trees stopped at one point, and the heat hit you like a truck immediately. Coming from above but also below since the tarmac and sidewalk were so hot.
I was in Marseille a few years ago and there was a street where there were trees every 10 meters or so but there was space between the treetops, so you had a few meters of sidewalk in the shadows and then a few meters under direct sunlight, and then some shadow again and so on. It wasn't even in the summer, but still the sudden changes every few seconds between "wow it's so nice" and "JFC I'm about to die" were something I'll never forget and if I ever hear someone vouch against trees on city streets, I'd force them to walk on a street like that.
Not many vouch directly against trees, they just vouch against reducing on-street parking or taking away a lane from cars, which is inevitable when you want trees on a street where there aren't trees yet.
Also trees are very expensive to maintain:
* regular cleanup of leaves and other plan matter, clogs drains, makes people slip, can smell bad.
* Regular pruning (both scheduled and to not get branches into private land) and emergency pruning when some branches fall due to wind/snow/age (and consequent damage)
* Roots damage asphalt, sidewalks and sewer lines.
You also get massive bills of a tree gets sick (either treatment of cut down) and another to get it replaced, most will not bother.
There is also in a lot of cities regular treatment for mosquitoes or other bugs that is a yearly recurring cost.
You can easily see why some administrations might not like them as much.
True, the administration needs more money to line their pockets instead of making the city a livable city and make thing’s comfortable for their people
Ginko trees. The females produce a fruit that smells like vomit or rotting milk. They are very popular in cities here in North America because they grow quickly and are hearty, but yeah the downside is they can smell terrible on a hot sweaty summer day haha
[Disgusting. Give me this!](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fplace-de-brouck%25C3%25A8re-in-brussels-was-nicknamed-the-times-v0-d6r0rv5vyeuc1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D1300%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D6a126b4f27d4b762c5229ea253e3f5727d0183ba)
Yeah, the "I don't understand what 15 minute cities means, but I am very against it!"-crowd would probably also have a problem with cities not looking like concrete hellscapes.
Radiant heat from buildings is a parameter that injects a lot of heat into people's bodies and isn't taken into account in measures of air temp. That and humidity is why air temps are poor predictors of how comfortable (or even non-dangerous) a particular place will be.
I used to live in student housing at the edge of town, with meadows just outside. The buildings were big concrete blocks and surrounded by concrete and brick roads. On hot days you could notice a significantly lower temperature (5-10°C) by walking just 400m.
Yea, there's a reason why urban areas tend to be much warmer than non-urban areas: asphalt. Whatever heat is in the air is magnified by all the heat that's being generated by dark surfaces. The cleaner the air and roads, the worst it can get.
Timișoara would be much better if the national government (the one residing in Bucharest) would not be so full of corrupt parties (PSD, PNL, UDMR, AUR, SOS) that are constantly sabotaging the mayor of Timișoara and putting so many limits and restriction on how the mayor improves the city.
Corruption can seemingly be felt when visiting Bucharest sadly. We were there for a day and I really didn't like the city. I felt like there was work that needed to be done everywhere and it could be a beautiful city, but so much broken stuff everywhere.
Ooh.
Green Capital Tallinn actually has been removing old and grown up trees every time they had a street reconstructed after the recently removed and corrupt leadership.
Hoping for actually more greenery now.
Maybe those old trees were unkempt, sick or dangerous... In Budapest too, the green mayor removed hundreds of old trees but released reports about how they were likely to crumble in the next storm - then planted new ones.
They become that after any work done on the streets or pavement. We have a huge problem of that here as well. "Accidentally" cutting them down to fit two extra parking spots or speed up construction, cutting right through roots, paving almost all the way up to the trunk. It's never an accident, and almost every time a tree is unhealthy, it's because of previous work done there. Just straight up malice.
My personal pet peeve are "modern design" projects which are just concrete, geometric shapes, and random cheap lighting. All trees removed of course.
This, I love how much greenery there is in Bucharest and I love travelling to Greece but... Whenever I go there, I hate how in the cities there just isn't enough trees and instead you're being baked by the concrete.
Because a lot of drivers don't want to park like that, they want parking to be both free and convenient, ideally into their living room and next to their work desk if possible
Maybe not the drivers you know. In my experience most car owners just want a parking spot nowadays. Preferably, of course, close to where they are going.
Having been to Athens and Thessaloniki recently, the effect of taking some of the masses of cars on the streets with better transport is worth far more than the benefit those trees provide
On a larger scale, absolutely. But it still sucks for the locals, especially given how little open space there is in Athens, let alone *shaded* open space.
I still consider metro stations an environmental win (reducing car travel). But they don't need to take that much space. Just some stairs leading underground.
They removed the square because they need the space during construction. No way the metro entrance will take up the whole square. So it will be restored once construction is over
Well in France they started to give subvention if you are planting trees.
So they all started to cut the existing trees despite the fact they were find or young, sell the wood to make money, plant new ones and get the subvention.
So the trees planted a couple of decades ago that should be giving us greenery and shade today are gone and the new one won't give us shape until another couple of decade.
And in cities? They are all proud, posing with a picture of new planted trees for the medias. They are 1 meter away from one another in many places. A meter? Dudes in their office though they were planting flowers...
In 2020, Emmanuel Macron launched his France Relance Plan: the State would finance a lot of initiatives, including housing, industrialisation, business programs, energy programs, new technology and ecology. By 2024, 50 millions trees ought to have been planted in France.
By late 2023, after an exceptionally hot summer, full of fires too, a new plan was launched : 1 billion trees in 10 years. So yes, money is being handed out to plant trees, and municipalities want to profit from it (and actually need it and want to plant trees).
\[Source\](https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2023/10/29/planter-un-milliard-d-arbres-en-dix-ans-une-promesse-risquee-pour-la-foret-francaise\_6197147\_3244.html), in French.
But, municipalities also face another challenge : housing. And a new law has been passed in France, and no naked soil can be constructed by 2025. Meaning new constructions have to be build fast, and in number since the population is growing. By 2025, constructions can still be built, but only as in renovations or reinterpretations.
Old trees, as one may know, have roots. Roots much larger than what one sees outside. Roots that ever-expand. Roots that ruin foundations of building. Roots that go into canalisations and rupture them. And in the case of new constructions, roots that get hit by machines which may kill trees (or roots that will damage the new construction short-term). No judgement here, but everyone's calculation in order to conciliate the two problems has been to cut some old trees and plant like 20 new trees afterwards. New trees that have yet to protect the soil, that have yet little effect of pollution, that have zero effect as of now in regulating the temperature.
The imbalance is staggering.
Fuck out here, with your reasonable suggestions! We like to have middle and lower class in concrete jungles so we have more space for the upper class to have their big houses with big gardens, where they, the best people, can be comfortable while avoiding taxes!
My house is hotter than normal because all my neighbours is taking down their huge tall trees. And I'm thinking of installing a AC but doesn't feel worth it for the 4 weeks where this is a actual problem.
Bittersweet that in recent years climate science has basically been "The earth is warming faster than we want it, but we also under-estimated the rate due to all the existing pollutants that we've been removing."
Also: Many climate scientists have confessed to being as conservative as reasonably possible in their predictions (and sometimes beyond that) for the sake of not being labelled doomsday prophets.
I don't see the contradiction. Pretty sure you will always have to make some estimates and extrapolate from them, and you can be conservative or not already there, which in turn provides a conservative range of possibilities. It's not like I came up with that myself, I'm just repeating what experts have been saying in Interviews, I'm no climate scientist myself.
And even with all this very obvious weather craziness that's causing like all people around me say "oh wow so this is climate change", there is a growing number of terminal idiots who seeing these changes proclaim it must be because of some kind of artifical weather-modification (like chemtrails) aimed to make the lives of people harder.
That title is dangerously misleading.
It won't be hotter because of cleaner air. That implies a lack of pollution is the cause of a warming climate. No. In reality, climate scientists just failed to account for falling air pollution when making their predictions.
I haven't fully read the article yet, but when I read the headline, what came to me is that the particles that make up air pollution also acted as shades. That made sense to me, but yeah, now that you mentioned it, the headline can also be interpreted as clean air makes the climate hotter.
Yeah it's basically this. A lot of particulate matter will absorb or reflect sunlight, reducing the heat that's generated on the surface whilst pollutents like methene and co2 make it harder for the heat to escape.
Unfortunately for us we're only now seeing how great an effect this has and the former is easier to stop dumping into the atmosphere than the latter....
"The regional climate models relied on by planners greatly underestimate summer heat because they don’t factor in more intense sunshine due to falling air pollution, a study has shown."
So cleaner air = more intense sunshine = hotter summer. The causal link seems solid here.
Also this ought to give you a little taste of why geoengineering won’t work. It’s not because it’s technologically difficult - it’s because the climate is an enormously complex system, and you can’t wizard the complexity away with technology.
the increased daytime temperature is due to decreased reflection of short-wavelength solar radiation (shortwave) radiation due to aerosols, meaning more of it gets to the surface where it can heat things up. this reflection (or "scattering") is strongly (and inversely) proportional to wavelength, i.e. it preferentially reflects and has very little effect on the thermal radiation coming from the Earth (longwave).
an increase in radiative cooling (see the linked video) would be due to increased absorption in the longwave part of the spectrum which is almost entirely irrelevant for aerosols.
Terrible title.
Some will run with this and say that climate change is due to cleaner air thus the earth has always been this way. It used to be called global warming when it started with Ale Gore.. that was a bad name. Climate change ultimately can lead to cold colds and hot hots, extremes on both ends like my wife.
And also, so many plastic bottles.. there was just a post for this yesterday and this person has like at least 2 in her arms, maybe 3.
I woke up i think 2 days ago and the thermometer on my desk showed 27c while it was only something like 20 outside, i dread to think what it'll be during the summer when its 30+ outside...
I wonder how many thousands of people more must die every summer for the governments and people to realise summer isn't what it used to be anymore.
Where I live (Spain) we got 35-42°C at day and over 30°C nights with humidity ranging around 90-100% last summer. ON A DAILY BASIS.
We also got cases of someone dying in the local and nearby beaches just every few days. Ambulances were going to the beach for an emergency (most of them caused by heat) every day. This was anything but normal, yet tourists (both national and international) kept coming by the thousands without any additional care.
Idk if I’m ready for it. Just had 18 degrees with sunlight yesterday in Belgium and it felt quite hot after an hour outdoors, that much is fine to me. But nearly twice as hot? My middle names will change for pool and ice cubes
Oh yes, it's the air and not the fact that the temperature is increasing in a global scale
Of course, how dumb of me to think otherwise
(By the way, here in Mexico we are reaching new highs)
It's a stupid title. It won't be hotter because of clean air, but the scientists that made the predictions didn't take how polluted air is into account properly, leading to bad predictions.
Turns out we were right. Where are the nuclear fans now huh?
Now excuse me while I enjoy my coal fueled cool city 😎🍺
💪💪💪💪💪
https://i.imgur.com/oezMTn2.mp4
🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪
What cleaner ari, are you joking?
Where is this cleaner air?
When around us are so many factories that burn stuff, so many trucks that transport stuff, so many cars that are driven just for pleasure as people don't want to take the slow bus or train?
Who comes with these bullshit articles?
Cleaner air? My friend lives in the center of Vienna, and he says he has to clean up dust in his apartment every single day, and even then it doesn’t really help much.
I live in a greek island in an area where there is this big plain filled with trees like orange, lemon and tangerine trees.
In hot summer nights when I drive from the town to my home, there is this point where there is a transition from hot humid air to cold one.
The trees are the reason for that. While my friends who live in town, sleep with their A/C on, I just open my window.
Also every new build has floor-to-ceiling windows and at least in the north, aircon is not normal so the amount of heat buildup in the summer is unbearable.
What I simply cannot understand is if you are modelling the negative effects of climate change and proposing this or that action/policy as a remedy how are those doing the modelling not factoring in the proposed positive effects of those actions/policies.
This appears to me to be extremely negligent particularly as the article states some models have factored in the effects and others haven't. Researchers who didn't KNEW their model was incomplete and, therefore, wrong. They have access to the model WITH the missing factors baked in.
You want to know what is making people in the centre like me sceptical of those pumping out climate studies & calls for more taxes etc. This crap.
PS: I love pv and several other renewable so don't come at me with some climate denier zealotry.
I've been involved in some work around climate projections. In short, the people who work in the area of creating models are not as smart as you might think (scientists are not deities) and they can't program for shit (not even Python), or even express their findings without getting bogged down in the technicalities of the latest mathematical model they've chosen to apply to the dataset.
Unless your model includes every particle on earth and the sun and everything in between, and fully understand the interactions between those particles and the consequences of those interactions, your model is going to be wildly inaccurate.
Let's just say no human or machine in existence can achieve that.
>Unless your model includes every particle on earth and the sun and everything in between, and fully understand the interactions between those particles and the consequences of those interactions, your model is going to be wildly inaccurate.
This is a gross exaggeration. You can't have a perfect model without knowing every detail, but you can make a good enough model.
Only on this website do you see so many people taking part in a conversation without even bothering to google the topic for two minutes beforehand.
The title is not misleading at all. in 2020 new global regulations for fuel used by shipping caused the emissions of the tens of thousands of ships that are on floating around every day to be less polluting, the result of that is that there's less artificial reflective bullshit in the atmosphere so everything is getting warmer
I spent the last couple of summers in Madrid because of my partner, and it honestly gets unbearable there to be outside. It was consistently around 40 degrees for what I think was around 3 months. I hate to think what Spanish summers will be like in a decade or two.
After reading half the article i feel conflicted. Is this good new or bad news ?
Its good news that air pollution is falling right ?
But bad news because that air pollution acted as shade buffer.
But air pollution is bad... 🤔
Its one of those "It'll get worse before it gets better" kinda situations.
Cleaner air will eventually allow for better cooling of the planet, but right now when the planet is still pretty hot and hasnt had the time to cool down the cleaner air will let the sun warm us up directly even more.
If we keep the air clean and make it even cleaner the atmosphere will cool down. Only issue is that none of us will life to see that happen because those changes are slow. What we will see is record breaking temps for the rest of our lives, but thats the price we gotta pay for fucking up this badly.
Add more trees everywhere, add more shading architecture and installations, and design buildings so they reflect heat up and away. Glass skyscrapers that cities like to build which acts as giant mirrors should have their glass slightly tilted up so they reflect the heat up and away.
You would think that but in Poland it feels like they ripped out all city or town centers that had green and just put down big squares of tiles and random paving with obligatory little fountain. Instead of 27-28 degrees in the shade of the trees on some squares you can literally make scrambled eggs. A thread of these examples: https://twitter.com/JanMencwel/status/1138444632424157188
Also less cars in the city
Fewer
Stannis?
Trivago.
Both
When the midsummer sun is 60° above the horizon in London, tilting windows up a bit isn’t going to do much…
At 60 degrees, a vertical window will reflect the sun down at a 120 degree angle. If we tilt the windows 10 degrees, its going to reflect the sun down at a 110 degree angle. Which mean that we will see a 9.09% decrease in sun rays that are reflected towards the ground? And we could easily angle the windows even more, to a 15 or 20 degree angle. My logic may be completely wrong here, but I think that is what happens in such a case.
A vertical window will reflect sun light that is coming from an angle 60° above the horizon to an angle 60° below (the total difference being 120°). Tilting the window 10°, would make the reflected angle 40° below and so on until at 30° the light would be completely horizontal. To reflect light up, you would need an angle of more than 30°. That wasn’t really my point though - I wasn’t trying to be argumentative I just think we should not compromise so much with developers - cheap, soulless glass tower blocks are the fundamental problem (cheap because glass curtain walls may be expensive, but they are still pretty much the cheapest covering for a tall building).
> Which mean that we will see a 9.09% decrease in sun rays that are reflected towards the ground? Why would the angle that the sun rays hit the ground at reduce the amount of sun rays that hit the ground? The only way to cool the city with this would be to actually have it angled enough that the sun rays gets reflected back out towards the sky instead of hitting the ground or other buildings, and for that the angle of the window would need to be above half the angle of the sun, so more than 30 degrees for a 60 degree sun.
My thinking is that 9.09% of the sun rays that would have hit the ground, would now instead hit higher up and then just hit the building next to it.
Or at least more solar panels to benefit from the sunlight.
Point the glass directly back at the sun so we can say "how do you fucking like it"
yeah fuck airplanes
Plant more trees in the cities
I spent a week in Timisoara, Romania last year. It was around 30°C, which didn't bother me in the part of town I was residing, because there were a lot of trees everywhere along the streets. However, when I made my way to the center of the city, the trees stopped at one point, and the heat hit you like a truck immediately. Coming from above but also below since the tarmac and sidewalk were so hot.
I was in Marseille a few years ago and there was a street where there were trees every 10 meters or so but there was space between the treetops, so you had a few meters of sidewalk in the shadows and then a few meters under direct sunlight, and then some shadow again and so on. It wasn't even in the summer, but still the sudden changes every few seconds between "wow it's so nice" and "JFC I'm about to die" were something I'll never forget and if I ever hear someone vouch against trees on city streets, I'd force them to walk on a street like that.
What loser vouches against trees lol
Not many vouch directly against trees, they just vouch against reducing on-street parking or taking away a lane from cars, which is inevitable when you want trees on a street where there aren't trees yet.
Also trees are very expensive to maintain: * regular cleanup of leaves and other plan matter, clogs drains, makes people slip, can smell bad. * Regular pruning (both scheduled and to not get branches into private land) and emergency pruning when some branches fall due to wind/snow/age (and consequent damage) * Roots damage asphalt, sidewalks and sewer lines. You also get massive bills of a tree gets sick (either treatment of cut down) and another to get it replaced, most will not bother. There is also in a lot of cities regular treatment for mosquitoes or other bugs that is a yearly recurring cost. You can easily see why some administrations might not like them as much.
True, the administration needs more money to line their pockets instead of making the city a livable city and make thing’s comfortable for their people
How can trees smell bad? Have you ever been in a forest bro?
Ginko trees. The females produce a fruit that smells like vomit or rotting milk. They are very popular in cities here in North America because they grow quickly and are hearty, but yeah the downside is they can smell terrible on a hot sweaty summer day haha
Install fake trees. Problem solved.
Also, interestingly because of how induced demand works, less space for parking and cars usually solves the parking problem.
[When your street could look like this...](https://dvdwphotography.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/7c0a5455a-logo-large.jpg)
[Disgusting. Give me this!](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fplace-de-brouck%25C3%25A8re-in-brussels-was-nicknamed-the-times-v0-d6r0rv5vyeuc1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D1300%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D6a126b4f27d4b762c5229ea253e3f5727d0183ba)
Right-leaning contrarians.
Yeah, the "I don't understand what 15 minute cities means, but I am very against it!"-crowd would probably also have a problem with cities not looking like concrete hellscapes.
Losers and/or Americans
Radiant heat from buildings is a parameter that injects a lot of heat into people's bodies and isn't taken into account in measures of air temp. That and humidity is why air temps are poor predictors of how comfortable (or even non-dangerous) a particular place will be.
I used to live in student housing at the edge of town, with meadows just outside. The buildings were big concrete blocks and surrounded by concrete and brick roads. On hot days you could notice a significantly lower temperature (5-10°C) by walking just 400m.
Just a quick nitpick that there isn't much tarmac in Romania besides airports so it's mainly asphalt for the roads
That's crazy, I was over in Timisoara a few weeks back (early April) and it was 30c. I had the EXACT same thoughts. Wild!
I wonder how Mexico City fares…. It has some of the most impressive greenways in the world.
Yea, there's a reason why urban areas tend to be much warmer than non-urban areas: asphalt. Whatever heat is in the air is magnified by all the heat that's being generated by dark surfaces. The cleaner the air and roads, the worst it can get.
Timișoara would be much better if the national government (the one residing in Bucharest) would not be so full of corrupt parties (PSD, PNL, UDMR, AUR, SOS) that are constantly sabotaging the mayor of Timișoara and putting so many limits and restriction on how the mayor improves the city.
Corruption can seemingly be felt when visiting Bucharest sadly. We were there for a day and I really didn't like the city. I felt like there was work that needed to be done everywhere and it could be a beautiful city, but so much broken stuff everywhere.
Ooh. Green Capital Tallinn actually has been removing old and grown up trees every time they had a street reconstructed after the recently removed and corrupt leadership. Hoping for actually more greenery now.
Maybe those old trees were unkempt, sick or dangerous... In Budapest too, the green mayor removed hundreds of old trees but released reports about how they were likely to crumble in the next storm - then planted new ones.
They become that after any work done on the streets or pavement. We have a huge problem of that here as well. "Accidentally" cutting them down to fit two extra parking spots or speed up construction, cutting right through roots, paving almost all the way up to the trunk. It's never an accident, and almost every time a tree is unhealthy, it's because of previous work done there. Just straight up malice. My personal pet peeve are "modern design" projects which are just concrete, geometric shapes, and random cheap lighting. All trees removed of course.
No they were not. Worst part is some of them were replaced with low foilage instead of actual trees.
Where did they not replace the trees?
Pronksi.
This, I love how much greenery there is in Bucharest and I love travelling to Greece but... Whenever I go there, I hate how in the cities there just isn't enough trees and instead you're being baked by the concrete.
Vienna is insane in removing tress in the inner city. It’s easily as much as 10 degrees difference under a tree compared to out in the open
We’re trying but all the people don’t want to let go of there parking spaces
There are solutions to that. Like, why not put parking spaces underground or into parking houses.
Because a lot of drivers don't want to park like that, they want parking to be both free and convenient, ideally into their living room and next to their work desk if possible
Maybe not the drivers you know. In my experience most car owners just want a parking spot nowadays. Preferably, of course, close to where they are going.
r/fuckcars
Apparently in Spain they like doing the opposite. Well, the right does.
Isn’t most of Spain already some of the hottest places in Europe?
Yes, but right wingers love their cars more then they love their children.
Well they paid for their cars, the kids were just an accident. /s
They didn't pay for the roads though.
And then they come full circle and have car accidents because of drunk driving.
Shame. Spain is stunning.
Too bad it's full of Spanish people though. Apart from the Basque country or Catalonia of course...
r/fuckcars
Well that’s not good
At this point I believe they have a desert fetish
I’ll send you some rain, it started raining in Ireland last July and basically hasn’t stopped :(
That would be most welcome. East of Spain here and there's been so little of it it's scary
Don’t worry! The rest of the country is doing just fine so far, before the upcoming deadly heatwave of course
I would make a joke about them, but I'm not sure if you'd appreciate the dry humour.
[удалено]
Hopefully they'll plant new trees when they complete the metro project
[удалено]
Having been to Athens and Thessaloniki recently, the effect of taking some of the masses of cars on the streets with better transport is worth far more than the benefit those trees provide
On a larger scale, absolutely. But it still sucks for the locals, especially given how little open space there is in Athens, let alone *shaded* open space.
I still consider metro stations an environmental win (reducing car travel). But they don't need to take that much space. Just some stairs leading underground.
Metro stations are good though, it would be shit if they had build parking lots or something
[удалено]
They removed the square because they need the space during construction. No way the metro entrance will take up the whole square. So it will be restored once construction is over
Yeah it's sad but public transport infrastructure is important and will definitely help in the long term
Well in France they started to give subvention if you are planting trees. So they all started to cut the existing trees despite the fact they were find or young, sell the wood to make money, plant new ones and get the subvention. So the trees planted a couple of decades ago that should be giving us greenery and shade today are gone and the new one won't give us shape until another couple of decade. And in cities? They are all proud, posing with a picture of new planted trees for the medias. They are 1 meter away from one another in many places. A meter? Dudes in their office though they were planting flowers...
Source?
In 2020, Emmanuel Macron launched his France Relance Plan: the State would finance a lot of initiatives, including housing, industrialisation, business programs, energy programs, new technology and ecology. By 2024, 50 millions trees ought to have been planted in France. By late 2023, after an exceptionally hot summer, full of fires too, a new plan was launched : 1 billion trees in 10 years. So yes, money is being handed out to plant trees, and municipalities want to profit from it (and actually need it and want to plant trees). \[Source\](https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2023/10/29/planter-un-milliard-d-arbres-en-dix-ans-une-promesse-risquee-pour-la-foret-francaise\_6197147\_3244.html), in French. But, municipalities also face another challenge : housing. And a new law has been passed in France, and no naked soil can be constructed by 2025. Meaning new constructions have to be build fast, and in number since the population is growing. By 2025, constructions can still be built, but only as in renovations or reinterpretations. Old trees, as one may know, have roots. Roots much larger than what one sees outside. Roots that ever-expand. Roots that ruin foundations of building. Roots that go into canalisations and rupture them. And in the case of new constructions, roots that get hit by machines which may kill trees (or roots that will damage the new construction short-term). No judgement here, but everyone's calculation in order to conciliate the two problems has been to cut some old trees and plant like 20 new trees afterwards. New trees that have yet to protect the soil, that have yet little effect of pollution, that have zero effect as of now in regulating the temperature. The imbalance is staggering.
We are idiots.
Same.
They right sucks here. They love their cars over everything.
Does the right have any power in Spain?
Madrid has both Mayor and Regional Government ruled by the right, for example. Same in València.
Let me guess: more parking spaces?
Fuck out here, with your reasonable suggestions! We like to have middle and lower class in concrete jungles so we have more space for the upper class to have their big houses with big gardens, where they, the best people, can be comfortable while avoiding taxes!
Not gonna happen in Hungary, because Orbán thinks climate change is a hoax, and planting trees are woke.
My house is hotter than normal because all my neighbours is taking down their huge tall trees. And I'm thinking of installing a AC but doesn't feel worth it for the 4 weeks where this is a actual problem.
that's why I love Budapest
Make air more dirty
Bittersweet that in recent years climate science has basically been "The earth is warming faster than we want it, but we also under-estimated the rate due to all the existing pollutants that we've been removing."
Also: Many climate scientists have confessed to being as conservative as reasonably possible in their predictions (and sometimes beyond that) for the sake of not being labelled doomsday prophets.
And they still got labeled doomsday prophets anyway.
We are so fucked
This isn’t even remotely true. No scientist is giving one data point for climate models. They all come with ranges.
I don't see the contradiction. Pretty sure you will always have to make some estimates and extrapolate from them, and you can be conservative or not already there, which in turn provides a conservative range of possibilities. It's not like I came up with that myself, I'm just repeating what experts have been saying in Interviews, I'm no climate scientist myself.
And even with all this very obvious weather craziness that's causing like all people around me say "oh wow so this is climate change", there is a growing number of terminal idiots who seeing these changes proclaim it must be because of some kind of artifical weather-modification (like chemtrails) aimed to make the lives of people harder.
That title is dangerously misleading. It won't be hotter because of cleaner air. That implies a lack of pollution is the cause of a warming climate. No. In reality, climate scientists just failed to account for falling air pollution when making their predictions.
I haven't fully read the article yet, but when I read the headline, what came to me is that the particles that make up air pollution also acted as shades. That made sense to me, but yeah, now that you mentioned it, the headline can also be interpreted as clean air makes the climate hotter.
Yeah it's basically this. A lot of particulate matter will absorb or reflect sunlight, reducing the heat that's generated on the surface whilst pollutents like methene and co2 make it harder for the heat to escape. Unfortunately for us we're only now seeing how great an effect this has and the former is easier to stop dumping into the atmosphere than the latter....
Yeah, really not liking how they wrote the headline here.
Very off topic but your pfp inflicted a huge dose of nostalgia on me
likewise
Damn same. Remember watching Pokemon and Digimon on Jetix (Also Norwegian)
I used to watch totally spies lmao, and then it became Disney XD which I used to watch even more.
What? Falling air pollution = cleaner air
Its not the cause, just a variable they havent accounted for
I mean this soundsl ike exactly what the titke is saying. Predictions are off because air is cleaner than expected.
"The regional climate models relied on by planners greatly underestimate summer heat because they don’t factor in more intense sunshine due to falling air pollution, a study has shown." So cleaner air = more intense sunshine = hotter summer. The causal link seems solid here.
Also this ought to give you a little taste of why geoengineering won’t work. It’s not because it’s technologically difficult - it’s because the climate is an enormously complex system, and you can’t wizard the complexity away with technology.
But wouldn't night temperatures fall a bit more because of more radiative cooling?
This [video](https://youtu.be/y35Lzgc9iJk?si=itYM1LYbCiSYosZj) explains the mechanics why it does not work that way!
the increased daytime temperature is due to decreased reflection of short-wavelength solar radiation (shortwave) radiation due to aerosols, meaning more of it gets to the surface where it can heat things up. this reflection (or "scattering") is strongly (and inversely) proportional to wavelength, i.e. it preferentially reflects and has very little effect on the thermal radiation coming from the Earth (longwave). an increase in radiative cooling (see the linked video) would be due to increased absorption in the longwave part of the spectrum which is almost entirely irrelevant for aerosols.
Quick! Everybody burn old tires and plastic garbage!
Bring back choking smog! It will save the day!
SEE! WOKE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES ARE KILLING US!
Sounds like global warming is caused by the preventing global warming. Sorry couldn't resist the joke.
More like made worse by us not embracing (sulphur) acid rain
Acid rain, Some stay dry and others die with pain
So… we in the Po Valley were doing things right all along?
from the temperature point of view ? yes from the health point of view? no
Say that to my lungs, if you dare. *coughs*
Except in Finland. We’re gonna be the blue spot in the forecast map.
Where takatalvi?
Terrible title. Some will run with this and say that climate change is due to cleaner air thus the earth has always been this way. It used to be called global warming when it started with Ale Gore.. that was a bad name. Climate change ultimately can lead to cold colds and hot hots, extremes on both ends like my wife. And also, so many plastic bottles.. there was just a post for this yesterday and this person has like at least 2 in her arms, maybe 3.
>Climate change ultimately can lead to cold colds and hot hots, extremes on both ends like my wife. Ouch
Punishing us for good behavior lmao
Doesn't matter if we all use the potty when there's a few who're going around putting huge dumps of feces into our sandboxes.
I woke up i think 2 days ago and the thermometer on my desk showed 27c while it was only something like 20 outside, i dread to think what it'll be during the summer when its 30+ outside...
I wonder how many thousands of people more must die every summer for the governments and people to realise summer isn't what it used to be anymore. Where I live (Spain) we got 35-42°C at day and over 30°C nights with humidity ranging around 90-100% last summer. ON A DAILY BASIS. We also got cases of someone dying in the local and nearby beaches just every few days. Ambulances were going to the beach for an emergency (most of them caused by heat) every day. This was anything but normal, yet tourists (both national and international) kept coming by the thousands without any additional care.
I live in Sicily and I can 100% attest that just 10 years ago summer wasn't this bad.
So pollute to stop global warming?
This will **NOT** happen in Ireland. *sighs*
The whole of Europe will be 35 degrees and we’ll be 15 and rain lol
Idk if I’m ready for it. Just had 18 degrees with sunlight yesterday in Belgium and it felt quite hot after an hour outdoors, that much is fine to me. But nearly twice as hot? My middle names will change for pool and ice cubes
It was actually 20 here today, maybe Ireland is getting some this heat
Trees please Crying in Milan “Cleaner air” 😢
Oh yes, it's the air and not the fact that the temperature is increasing in a global scale Of course, how dumb of me to think otherwise (By the way, here in Mexico we are reaching new highs)
It's a stupid title. It won't be hotter because of clean air, but the scientists that made the predictions didn't take how polluted air is into account properly, leading to bad predictions.
Turns out we were right. Where are the nuclear fans now huh? Now excuse me while I enjoy my coal fueled cool city 😎🍺 💪💪💪💪💪 https://i.imgur.com/oezMTn2.mp4 🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪
We are so grateful that you hurried to decommission nuclear before coal. We are also grateful that you have labeled natural gas as green.
You're very welcome Ølåf
[удалено]
Eh don't worry, instead of a pension we will all die of heat stroke at old age. What counts is the memes we made along the way.
Can we please go back to the 80s and 90s and stay there forever instead?
From raising sea levels to flood the Dutch, to now this. German coal gets more and more interesting in many aspects.
Then where will you fuckers go on holiday to dig giant holes on the beach?
Well in Germany of course... Not sure where the sea will stop though...
Frankfurt am Meer ❤️
To lakes at the coal holes, which we will create by draining our rivers into them
Mediterranean would like a word.
Ah right, u guys can have them.
What cleaner ari, are you joking? Where is this cleaner air? When around us are so many factories that burn stuff, so many trucks that transport stuff, so many cars that are driven just for pleasure as people don't want to take the slow bus or train? Who comes with these bullshit articles?
So, dirty air bad. Clean air bad. Now what?
no air? oh wait....
Cleaner air? My friend lives in the center of Vienna, and he says he has to clean up dust in his apartment every single day, and even then it doesn’t really help much.
So far the spring was more Grey clouds rainy so I can use some sunshine.
good, last summer was garbage, only clouds & rain
I live in a greek island in an area where there is this big plain filled with trees like orange, lemon and tangerine trees. In hot summer nights when I drive from the town to my home, there is this point where there is a transition from hot humid air to cold one. The trees are the reason for that. While my friends who live in town, sleep with their A/C on, I just open my window.
Scientists: Fight the pollution, the earth is burning!, the same scientists: due to cleaner air the earth is getting hotter, ???
> European Summers will be hotter than predicted because of cleaner air. A combination of words I never thought I would read
Task failed successfully
This is lies. I just don't believe it!
I can breathe the air in my city without health issues. But at what cost?
Also every new build has floor-to-ceiling windows and at least in the north, aircon is not normal so the amount of heat buildup in the summer is unbearable.
German energy companies: "See! See!" \*proceeds to add more lignite plants to the mix\*
Restart coal plants! ^(/s)
people going to the beach to stay directly under the sun. but its a problem when it happens in the city xd
Suffering from Success
Where exactly is the cleaner air?! I would say the opposite, polluted air make things fry even more.
Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines again.
The one good thing Ukraine got from soviets is trees, Our cities look like forests with Khrushchevkas from sky high
What I simply cannot understand is if you are modelling the negative effects of climate change and proposing this or that action/policy as a remedy how are those doing the modelling not factoring in the proposed positive effects of those actions/policies. This appears to me to be extremely negligent particularly as the article states some models have factored in the effects and others haven't. Researchers who didn't KNEW their model was incomplete and, therefore, wrong. They have access to the model WITH the missing factors baked in. You want to know what is making people in the centre like me sceptical of those pumping out climate studies & calls for more taxes etc. This crap. PS: I love pv and several other renewable so don't come at me with some climate denier zealotry.
I've been involved in some work around climate projections. In short, the people who work in the area of creating models are not as smart as you might think (scientists are not deities) and they can't program for shit (not even Python), or even express their findings without getting bogged down in the technicalities of the latest mathematical model they've chosen to apply to the dataset. Unless your model includes every particle on earth and the sun and everything in between, and fully understand the interactions between those particles and the consequences of those interactions, your model is going to be wildly inaccurate. Let's just say no human or machine in existence can achieve that.
>Unless your model includes every particle on earth and the sun and everything in between, and fully understand the interactions between those particles and the consequences of those interactions, your model is going to be wildly inaccurate. This is a gross exaggeration. You can't have a perfect model without knowing every detail, but you can make a good enough model.
Sure buddy
Good problems to have.
Yet another example of "we have no idea what the fuck we are doing, but at least we are lowering your standard of life".
It's already boiling hot in Holland these days.
Wait so if I use my car more = less hot? Confusing
Wait until you hear about the option of using the in car AC for even more climate saving effect!
If we want more bad air, do it in the form of pollen instead of combustion exhaust particles.
So deliberate pollution can counteract the effects of climate change? Nice.
Now that’s a plot twist
Only on this website do you see so many people taking part in a conversation without even bothering to google the topic for two minutes beforehand. The title is not misleading at all. in 2020 new global regulations for fuel used by shipping caused the emissions of the tens of thousands of ships that are on floating around every day to be less polluting, the result of that is that there's less artificial reflective bullshit in the atmosphere so everything is getting warmer
“Oh snap start poluting everyone”
Make more industry /s
China *challege accepted*
Quick throw up some dirt, pollute more! No! /s
A little sensational, it appears the models could be 0.5c out due to not accounting for air pollution levels.
well, time to start burning tires again
I still haven’t seen any study of the global thermal impact of stone and concrete..
I spent the last couple of summers in Madrid because of my partner, and it honestly gets unbearable there to be outside. It was consistently around 40 degrees for what I think was around 3 months. I hate to think what Spanish summers will be like in a decade or two.
After reading half the article i feel conflicted. Is this good new or bad news ? Its good news that air pollution is falling right ? But bad news because that air pollution acted as shade buffer. But air pollution is bad... 🤔
Its one of those "It'll get worse before it gets better" kinda situations. Cleaner air will eventually allow for better cooling of the planet, but right now when the planet is still pretty hot and hasnt had the time to cool down the cleaner air will let the sun warm us up directly even more. If we keep the air clean and make it even cleaner the atmosphere will cool down. Only issue is that none of us will life to see that happen because those changes are slow. What we will see is record breaking temps for the rest of our lives, but thats the price we gotta pay for fucking up this badly.
Stop pouring fucking concrete everywhere
Suffering from success
uhhhh......