Phoenix heat efforts make national news (Miami: landlord, to live in, moving)

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Williamhbonney

Have you ever seen phoenix from an airplane?

Your suggestions are ridiculous.

Yes, I have.

Looks like it needs more low water use trees to me.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by hikernut

The urban heat island’s main effect is to increase the overnight lows. Afternoon temperatures are very similar across the Valley. As I’m writing this the temperature in Phoenix is 108. San Tan Valley is 109. Buckeye is 110. The difference in morning temps can be 5-8 degrees, though.

IMO, even a determined effort would only drop the overnight low a couple of degrees Fahrenheit, and likely have no noticeable impact on the daily high temps.

Correct. The main difference is in overnight lows. Phoenix's overnight lows in summer are something like 12 degrees hotter than before WW2. Only 2 of those degrees are attributable to climate change.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by goolsbyjazz

More trees would be wonderful, but I am not sure which types could survive our extreme temps? I too would like to see evidence on whether lighter asphalt results in cooler temps. I thought they were experimenting with that sort of thing already?

Any of these work well and use less water than a non-native tree.


https://www.lawnstarter.com/blog/lan...trees-phoenix/

[locolife]

Originally Posted by Not Sure 12

More trees = More water needed

Will that work?

Yes, ditch the grass for shade trees, it would use a fraction of the water as lawns. Especially native trees which just require drippers basically.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by locolife

Yes, ditch the grass for shade trees, it would use a fraction of the water as lawns. Especially native trees which just require drippers basically.

That's not an effective solution. Grass provides a cooling effect if it's maintained properly, and the amount of water needed for the average person's grass lawn is minuscule compared to other things which we take for granted. Dogs & other animals prefer grass, and it's much easier & safer for children to play outdoors on grass compared to plain dirt or crushed rock. You really need to think outside the box more about these things, and realize how many people would be negatively impacted if your blatant statement of "ditch the grass" were to become a reality.

[SAN_Man]

Originally Posted by locolife

Yes, ditch the grass for shade trees, it would use a fraction of the water as lawns. Especially native trees which just require drippers basically.

Drippers that are only needed to supplement during the dry months. There are a lot of great Sonoran Desert trees that will grow really well with just a little additional water.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

That's not an effective solution. Grass provides a cooling effect if it's maintained properly, and the amount of water needed for the average person's grass lawn is minuscule compared to other things which we take for granted. Dogs & other animals prefer grass, and it's much easier & safer for children to play outdoors on grass compared to plain dirt or crushed rock. You really need to think outside the box more about these things, and realize how many people would be negatively impacted if your blatant statement of "ditch the grass" were to become a reality.

I'm talking about planting trees and xeriscape, not a bare rock yard. And here is your cooling effect statistic.

I have no issue with keeping some grass for dogs and animals what I see as a waste is acres of grass on golf courses, corporate areas and a lot of front lawns which almost never see anybody or animal on it.

8. Save energy – A lawn has been shown to reduce home cooling requirements as much as 4 percent compared to a home with no vegetation cover. However, a Xeriscape with good tree, shrub and vine placement can cut cooling costs up to 46 percent.


https://wateruseitwisely.com/blog/to...ert-xeriscape/

[hikernut]

There are definitely some things that could be done to make summer life more bearable here, but there's no willpower to follow through. Developers want to make the maximum use of land at the lowest cost. So we get shopping centers placed in a sea of black asphalt parking lots with little/no shade. The lot sizes are so tiny in new residential construction today that it's not practical to plant trees that would someday grow tall enough to provide shade for homes.

So, we will get higher and higher temperatures over the decades. If it's 114 or 116, does it really matter? Neither is a habitable situation. The homeless man in the video would be dead in either case without access to a place indoors to cool off.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by locolife

I'm talking about planting trees and xeriscape, not a bare rock yard. And here is your cooling effect statistic.

I have no issue with keeping some grass for dogs and animals what I see as a waste is acres of grass on golf courses, corporate areas and a lot of front lawns which almost never see anybody or animal on it.

8. Save energy – A lawn has been shown to reduce home cooling requirements as much as 4 percent compared to a home with no vegetation cover. However, a Xeriscape with good tree, shrub and vine placement can cut cooling costs up to 46 percent.


https://wateruseitwisely.com/blog/to...ert-xeriscape/

So in other words: you want the government to control what kind of vegetation people have on their own property. If somebody has xeriscape, that's perfectly fine. Low water/low maintenance trees & shrubs are preferable to many homeowners, but the last thing we should be doing is forcing residents & businesses to switch to xeriscape if they don’t want to. Most homes in older neighborhoods have grass yards, and there are established greenbelts in the Phoenix area which are absolutely beautiful to say the least. Step back and consider how pathetic these areas would look, and how much expense & inconvenience would be put on the property owners if grass & non native trees were mandated to be ripped out.

If you see grass as a waste, that's strictly your opinion. What about swimming pools and water parks? They require more water than the average person's grass yard. Agriculture is the biggest glutton of all, sucking up over 70% of Arizona’s available water. You and the other control freaks like to focus on grass because it's an easy target, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to these other things. In the words of a grumpy old person: GET OFF MY LAWN!

[john3232]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

So in other words: you want the government to control what kind of vegetation people have on their own property. If somebody has xeriscape, that's perfectly fine. Low water/low maintenance trees & shrubs are preferable to many homeowners, but the last thing we should be doing is forcing residents & businesses to switch to xeriscape if they don’t want to. Most homes in older neighborhoods have grass yards, and there are established greenbelts in the Phoenix area which are absolutely beautiful to say the least. Step back and consider how pathetic these areas would look, and how much expense & inconvenience would be put on the property owners if grass & non native trees were mandated to be ripped out.

If you see grass as a waste, that's strictly your opinion. What about swimming pools and water parks? They require more water than the average person's grass yard. Agriculture is the biggest glutton of all, sucking up over 70% of Arizona’s available water. You and the other control freaks like to focus on grass because it's an easy target, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to these other things. In the words of a grumpy old person: GET OFF MY LAWN!

Or in my case, I'M NOT GIVING UP MY POOL.