Now according to this press release from UC Irvine, green spaces in cities are bad for the planet….but wait, what about the UHI offset? Can I buy grass credit certificates?
Urban ‘green’ spaces may contribute to global warming, UCI study finds
Turfgrass management creates more greenhouse gas than plants remove from atmosphere
— Irvine, Calif., January 19, 2010 —
Dispelling the notion that urban “green” spaces help counteract greenhouse gas emissions, new research has found – in Southern California at least – that total emissions would be lower if lawns did not exist.
Turfgrass lawns help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and store it as organic carbon in soil, making them important “carbon sinks.” However, greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer production, mowing, leaf blowing and other lawn management practices are four times greater than the amount of carbon stored by ornamental grass in parks, a UC Irvine study shows. These emissions include nitrous oxide released from soil after fertilization. Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas that’s 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, the Earth’s most problematic climate warmer.
“Lawns look great – they’re nice and green and healthy, and they’re photosynthesizing a lot of organic carbon. But the carbon-storing benefits of lawns are counteracted by fuel consumption,” said Amy Townsend-Small, Earth system science postdoctoral researcher and lead author of the study, forthcoming in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
The research results are important to greenhouse gas legislation being negotiated. “We need this kind of carbon accounting to help reduce global warming,” Townsend-Small said. “The current trend is to count the carbon sinks and forget about the greenhouse gas emissions, but it clearly isn’t enough.”
Turfgrass is increasingly widespread in urban areas and covers 1.9 percent of land in the continental U.S., making it the most common irrigated crop.
In the study, Townsend-Small and colleague Claudia Czimczik analyzed grass in four parks near Irvine, Calif. Each park contained two types of turf: ornamental lawns (picnic areas) that are largely undisturbed, and athletic fields (soccer and baseball) that are trampled and replanted and aerated frequently.
The researchers evaluated soil samples over time to ascertain carbon storage, or sequestration, and they determined nitrous oxide emissions by sampling air above the turf. Then they calculated carbon dioxide emissions resulting from fuel consumption, irrigation and fertilizer production using information about lawn upkeep from park officials and contractors.
The study showed that nitrous oxide emissions from lawns were comparable to those found in agricultural farms, which are among the largest emitters of nitrous oxide globally.
In ornamental lawns, nitrous oxide emissions from fertilization offset just 10 percent to 30 percent of carbon sequestration. But fossil fuel consumption for management, the researchers calculated, released about four times more carbon dioxide than the plots could take up. Athletic fields fared even worse, because – due to soil disruption by tilling and resodding – they didn’t trap nearly as much carbon as ornamental grass but required the same emissions-producing care.
“It’s impossible for these lawns to be net greenhouse gas sinks because too much fuel is used to maintain them,” Townsend-Small concluded.
Previous studies have documented lawns storing carbon, but this research was the first to compare carbon sequestration to nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions from lawn grooming practices.
The UCI study was supported by the Kearney Foundation of Soil Science and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
I am far from a greenie but I do like a well planted space. I think planting something on the rail lines is a good idea. Grass is very nice but labor intense. I would consider something like clover or some other love growing herb or wild flower instead. It would require less maintenance and provide a nice aroma when the train passes over it. The draw back I see besides upkeep cost are the possible issuse of people mistaking the tracks for a dead line and setting up a picnic between the rails, though that would be Darwinism at it’s finest I suppose.
Eco terrorists. They strive for certain ideals and then can turn on them This is their anxiety disorder showing up. They would hate goats eating the grass because they generate CO2 and CH4.
When I was a kid, My brother and I raised sheep for our allowance. We worked for every dime. I put myself thru private H.School with my own earnings. We used sheep to mow the 5 acre farmstead around buildings and farm machinery. Less running mowers.
Another excuse not to mow my lawn??? I LIKE it!
I always new there was a very good reason to leave the yard equipment in the shed. These two young ladies have now found it for me!!!
A recent “discussion” with an AGW proponent has started me on the path to really know the facts. I thank all of you for posting to various links that have been a wealth of important resources. I am a neophyte and certainly no scientist, I am an accountant. All accountants know debits must equal credits, and when they don’t, adjusting entries are needed. These entries are often audited to see if they, a) were required and b) pass the smell test. Too often it seems that AGW proponents need to make “hindcast” adjusting entries to arrive at what they “want and expect”, rather than what is. That being said, today 1/20/2010 in New York’s Newsday – “The end: HOTTEST decade, the 2000-2009 decade was the warmest on record, easily surpassing the previous hottest decade, the 1990’s.” They quote the NCDC as saying 2000-2009 was 0.96 degrees over normal, which “shattered the 1990’s record value of .65 degrees over normal. My questions are: How was “normal” calculated, is the temperature data accurate, and isn’t this the typical sensationalistic approach used to scare rather than inform? I would appreciate thoughts on how best to rebutt these types of claims.
EdP
“Green Dragon (02:20:47) :
‘inversesquare (01:02:27) :
How can people be so gullible?’”
Did you know that the word gullible isn’t in the dictionary? Check it.
cheers David
Maybe they have been smoking grass?
Turf requires nitrogenous fertilisers? Lawn maintenance requires petroleum and water? I wish someone would pay me to do these “studies”.
Instead, I have to work for a living. What am I doing wrong?
We are all supposed to replace our lawns with vegetable gardens, anyway. This study just gives more support to that idea.
Now if we can only get those pesky Home Owners Associations to go along…
This seems like just more evidence that the only way to ‘save’ the earth’s climate is mass suicide of the human race.
“Lawns look great – they’re nice and green and healthy, and they’re photosynthesizing a lot of organic carbon. But the carbon-storing benefits of lawns are counteracted by fuel consumption,” said Amy Townsend-Small, Earth system science postdoctoral researcher and lead author of the study, forthcoming in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
———————–
When those vainly foolish urban “green” spaces are bleached colorfully ‘blight’ in pursuit of reduced carbon emissions, employed people will en mass transit to urban sprawl and rural retreat, for their daily, weekly and yearly commute to be at one, alone with nature. No accounting that, huh.
Peer reviewed research. … It works every time for those with good employment.
If at first one doesn’t succeed, review, revise, re-target and resubmit until success is granted. Given that the time and money invested in research are considerable, it must be played out to a published conclusion, regardless.
‘Climategate’ is ordinary. The process of mutual and cross validation, ensures that it becomes so.
Very easy to forget that climate is not weather. If you don’t like the trend, you must to wait a year before it changes. … or 3 years or 5 years turnaround depending upon your “grant/funding/election cycle”.
Luke (22:08:28) :
Sheep you darn fool !
But think of the methane, not to mention the lanolin.
Grumbler (06:01:06) :
Did you know that the word gullible isn’t in the dictionary? Check it.
cheers David
I’m not gullible enough to believe that one.
adj. easily deceived or cheated; naive; credulous.
Interesting observation (if this isn’t the right place for it, perhaps it could be moved there).
Tuesday, January 19th:
Checked the temperature for zip code 36312 (Dothan, AL airport???) at 0600 on weather.com. It had 39 deg-F. This was posted the next day on weather.com as the low for the day.
Here is what the temperature looked like at a nearby nuclear power plant at 0600 and at 0628 on two seperate channels of instrumentation (I hope the columns line up):
Time Sec Pri
0600 41.1 40.1
0628 37.6 37.4
diff: 3.5 2.7
So, between 0600 and 0628, there was about a 3.0 degree temperature drop that doesn’t show up on the weather.com low for the day. I haven’t had a chance to check the NWS low for the day, yet. The temperature reading displayed on my Honda Accord was 39 deg-F when I got in it and showed 37 deg-F by the time I got to work, further confirming the above.
I wonder if modern ‘climate change confirmation” algorithms reject this final stage of early morning cooling as “not meaningful”???
Historical high-low thermometers probably wouldn’t have rejected this temperature drop.
Newsflash… “LIFE CONTRIBUTES TO GLOBAL WARMING”
This is truly the OCD underbelly of the green movement turning on itself. Much like nuclear is NEVER part of the CO2 conversation, now green really isn’t green. Note no mention of the “green spaces” in the study most likely being planted with non-native turf species that required excessive fertilization and maintenance. Wheras plantings of other types of groundcover (I think someone mentioned clover) would not require similar maintenance to a traditional lawn. In te plains states of the US they have developed strains of drought tolerant (no watering), native grasses (no fertilizing) that won’t gow over 6 inches tall (no mowing). Lawns aren’t necessarily not green, just the same as green spaces are not necessarily not green as well… although that seemed to be where the reporter was trying to take the readers.
No, the only option is to beat people back into the stone age by making “life” so unaffordable that they choose not to breed.
Grumbler (06:01:06) :
“Green Dragon (02:20:47) :
‘inversesquare (01:02:27) :
How can people be so gullible?’”
Did you know that the word gullible isn’t in the dictionary? Check it.
cheers David
It is in my trusty 1925 Pocket Oxford English Dictionary!!!!!! It means to “dupe” or “fool” believe it or not.
I wish these greenie half-wits would come & mow my ruddy garden, its takes an age & the stuff seems to grow even faster taking up more CO2 in the process!
First our lightbulbs, now our lawns. Is nothing sacred!?!
Kate (02:15:52) :
Good info. I wonder if the professor mentioned solar vacuum heat-pipe collectors and their feasibility and efficiency. I understand they can exceed eighty to ninety percent efficiency in collection unlike electric panels at twenty percent or lower. Since my winter is more expensive than the summer, this seems the way to go, if any in my mid-latitude location. Three or four of these would carry most heat needed, except January and February when auxillary would be needed. But a roof full would not only totally heat but could cool if passive refrigeration, similar to propane refrigerators, was feasible and available. As a bonus would keep the attic cooler too. Could be a reality in the future since the output temp on hot summer days would be between 250-275C per specs which might be hot enough to drive the refrigeration unit. Use solar heat to cool too! Was any of this was also mentioned?
“Grumbler (06:01:06) :
How can people be so gullible?’”
Did you know that the word gullible isn’t in the dictionary? Check it.”
I just spat, sorry wasted, a mouthful of wine all over my lappy when I read this post.
Concise Maquarie Gullible :easily deceived or cheated noun gullibility, adj gullibly.
sorry:-)
longbloke and others I have had the best laugh in ages from your witty comments.
Our local schoolmarm has just organised a huge oval to be astroturfed. trees and established native low water gardens..gone.
main water lines to town had to be moved they ran under said oval, cost? immense!
astroturf life is app 15 years..
tons and tons of sand to pack it onto ,and on top of it.
cost of equipment labour etc to install it all probably 15 years of mower fuel:-) and wages
injuries to kids from burns when playing,?
well the school nurse will continue to be employed too…
no shade, no new trees as they may produce leaf litter..
increased heat due to lack of cooling airflow over the now HOT surface.
fumes from degassing plastic turf
enviro pullution from said turf as it breaks shreds and disintegrates..
and we dont Have a tram to push the bloody idiot head mistress under, especially the one with the blade attachments.:-(
Luke (22:08:28) :
Sheep you darn fool!
Nice try, 🙂 , but “Silencing the Lambs: Scientists Target Sheep Belching to Cut Methane”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561039911777481.html
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive” — Sir Walter Scott
Mike Ramsey
A subtle turning of the argument. Copenhagen failed to grant the rabid environmentalists total control, so on to the next screaming emergency about which something must be done immediately or we’re all gonna die!
Unfortunately, they made so much stink this time around, that even the people who believe everything they are told will remember that CO2 didn’t kill us.
Even the most dense among us knows that we expel Co2 with every breath. I don’t think that screaming about something that makes them feel good at the dentist’s office is going to have quite the impact they are hoping for.
While we are on the subject of California railways and their stupid grassed tracks (maybe that’s why California is nearly bankrupt!), a weather pattern has been happening to California in the form of strong rains. Can anyone explain this form of severe weather?
Is this a highly probable part of El Nino?
Having several explanations or figuring out what is going on would be very interesting.
Classic case of torturing the numbers until they confess.
Did they include a full “global warming” estimate of astroturf?
Where you draw your lines is everything in this kind of comparison – how many times have we gone over ethanol from corn, gradually increasing the factors in the calculations to get the answer we are looking for? Replace this with disposable nappies (daipers), plastic bags or whatever else you care to mention.
These studies are the best examples of the maxim that figures don’t lie, but liars figure.
Oh, and about being gullible – all those who checked their dictionaries fell for it…..
OMG we’re producing CO2 and its making the planet hot! What should we do? Plant grass it will soak up the CO2. Ok ok lets plant lots of grass!
Newsflash- Lawnmowers produce more CO2 than the lawn absorbs. Oh no, what can we do now? Ahhhh!
These environuts are really whacko. Hopefully they’ll worry themselves into the nut house and leave the rest of us alone.