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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So which is the greater waste shown in the photo, the grass or the tram?
Los Angeles:
The foothills have received almost 5 inches of rain since Sunday and Wednesday’s storm is predicted to drop 4 to 8 inches on the area, Department of Public Works Director Gail Farber said.
The warmists say droughts.
The ecoterrorists say no watering lawns.
How do the CO2 frat rats explain all this moisture?
I have a question that maybe someone can answer. When sunlight hits concrete, rocks, water etc some of it is reflected but some of it is absorbed and eventually converted to heat. But what happens when sunlight hits green plants? At least some of that energy is converted to chemical energy as CO2 is converted to O2 plus plant matter. But is the amount significant enough to affect the earth’s energy balance?
OT
Stimulus works!
…….at least for one person. Who? Penn State University’s Michael Mann, a climate scientist whose credibility has come into question. He’s the guy behind Al Gore’s famous “hockey stick” graph, which has been discredited.
Mann was also a central figure in the Climate-Gate email scandal, which showed prominent global warming alarmists to be fudging the data and squelching dissent.
According to today’s Wall Street Journal, more than $2.4 million is “stimulating” the career of Michael Mann:
Mr. Mann came by his grants via the National Science Foundation, which received $3 billion in stimulus money. Last June, the foundation approved a $541,184 grant to fund [Mann’s] work […] He received another grant worth nearly $1.9 million […] Both grants say they were “funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.”
Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/20/the-stimulus-works/#ixzz0dAbQTjNm
I expect soon to see a study proving that wearing socks with sandals is healthier for the environment.
John Wright (00:22:21) :
Luke (22:08:28) :
Sheep you darn fool!
No, you can win against these loons. They’ll just remind you that sheep fart and emit dreaded methane
Horses, they are caecalids and have a completely different digestive system compared to ruminants. Sort of a living Prius.
Well, we always knew that AGW was an astroturf movement, anyway. Why all the surprise?
Phillip Bratby said:
‘ “Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas that’s 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, the Earth’s most problematic climate warmer.” And I thought water vapour was important. Silly me.’
Has anybody here looked up N2O? It’s at 310 ppb. Who cares what kind of GHG it is compared to CO2 when it is less than 1/1000th as abundant, making it a microtrace gas in the atmosphere.
As CO2 is irrelevant to climate, as shown by Miskolicz and Zagoni, then N2O is just another eco-scare tactic. We always have to have a crisis – crisis mode being a politically expedient way to get things done.
The EPA claims a 120 year half-life for N2O in the atmosphere, which I seriously doubt, considering the 200 year half-life for CO2 the IPCC uses is really about 5.4 years. I bet there is already papers out there which cover the real half-life – I do not trust government agencies for obvious reasons.
Along these lines, here would be an interesting calculation:
If we replaced all global electricity generation with solar panels, what would this do to the global energy balance? The energy balance starts with the amount of Solar Blackbody emissions (calculated at 5778 K – 30% albedo) reaching the earths surface, to be re-emitted at T^4 (calculated to be at 255 K).
With solar panels everywhere intercepting the incoming solar radiation (in effect, an addition to the albedo term), how much is the earths blackbody radiation lowered? Will we need a lot more GHG’s to make it up.
Just thinking out loud.
” wayne (07:04:47) :
Kate (02:15:52) :
Good info. I wonder if the professor mentioned solar vacuum heat-pipe collectors and their feasibility and efficiency.”
…No, he did not. I like the look of these pipes and they don’t shred any birds or drive people mad with vibrations. Unfortunately, they also don’t produce vast profits for the prophets of doom, either, so don’t expect much publicity for these energy collectors anytime soon.
crosspatch (00:18:08) :
Get a goat. End of problem.
REPLY:
I already have 20 goats and 20 sheep. they do a great job of mowing the lawn, eating the weeds in my pastures and the goats just love leaves that have just fallen to the ground… Actually the leaves never make it to the ground because the goats catch them on the way down. Just don’t let them in the garden, you use weeder geese for that area instead. Guineas of course are very useful for insect control.
Weeder Geese: http://extension.missouri.edu/publications/DisplayPub.aspx?P=G8922
David S (08:18:26) :
I have a question that maybe someone can answer. When sunlight hits concrete, rocks, water etc some of it is reflected but some of it is absorbed and eventually converted to heat. But what happens when sunlight hits green plants? At least some of that energy is converted to chemical energy as CO2 is converted to O2 plus plant matter. But is the amount significant enough to affect the earth’s energy balance?
First, it is green because all of the other visible light colors are absorbed.
According to this paper http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?doi=10.1175%2F2008JHM1021.1&request=get-abstract&ct=1
, “the global rmse for snow-free July land surface albedo [is] 0.024”
And to think … all those years of procrastinating on mowing my lawn was really saving the planet. Where’s my check?
I have a plea for the “Greens” please leave us alone. Find your own planet. We have spent tens of thousands of years developing technology and advances in farming, healthcare, energy, plastics and find your attacks on everything that makes life pleasant to live annoying. we like eating weel, we like to be comfortably warmi in the winter and cool in the summer. we like our cozy houses; we like it all and we especially like our nice green lawns. Go live in caves if you like. Stop trying to impose your hatred of everything to do with mankind on us. We like one another.
Frankly I think you all must be victims of too early toilet training.
Is this “study” from the same California that waters the medians of their freeways? Just how much energy/CO2/etc. does that take? Around here, in flyover country, we let God take care of it. If He wants green grass, He makes it rain. Costs less. Never argue with God.
I thought I was the last person on Earth with a hand pushed reel mower. Neighbors assumed (correctly?) that I was nuts. But, with lots of shade, the grass doesn’t grow well and I don’t water it (see freeway median comment above) so there isn’t much to mow. Now moss has taken over most of the lawn, which doesn’t need anything. The rest of the property is xeriscaped and the patch of moss in front is green, so the homeowner’s association doesn’t object. And my water bill is tiny.
The secret to easy life: Let nature do the work.
You think the tree-huggers could figure this out?
I think there is one sort of carbon storing that is not getting enough attention. Government paperwork. Think about it. All that carbon dioxide, turned into trees, turned into wood pulp then into paper. The paper is filled with useless information, submitted to the government then filed in some warehouse somewhere, never to see the light of day again.
Not enough people realize the good side of government paperwork.
(Not serious, in case anyone was wondering)
A practical question following up on the beneficial impacts of turfgrass or lack thereof.
I have 5 vacant lots, each 80 x 125. Is it better to leave them as they are i.e. a combination of grass, weeds, clover but no trees. I must mow the lots to comply with vegetation height restrictions but I do not and cannot afford to fertilize or treat weeds chemically and do not irrigate. OR Would it be better to plant trees throughout? I’d still have to mow so the question is pretty simple.
Is it better for the environment (assuming there is so such a thing) to plant the area in trees or leave as open turf. To put it another way, which alternative stores more carbon? Maybe the question is too simplistic but at least it is practical one and is not hypothetical. I think many others with with relativey small but wide expanses of open ground on their property would be interested in the answer.
Guy R Erwood (06:25:24) :
This seems like just more evidence that the only way to ’save’ the earth’s climate is mass suicide of the human race.
Remember the episode of “Star Trek” (TOS) where they went to a planet that was at war with another planet and casualties were selected by computers? That’s what’s happening next.
Instead of using Super Computers to futily model the climate, they will using model who should survive and who should be sent to the suicide chambers.
Aside from the fact that N2O only amounts to about 323 parts per billion by volume[1] (more than 1000 times lower than CO2 concentrations), it should be mentioned that N2O is also alleged to be a potent destroyer of stratospheric ozone[2]. As many people are aware, the anomalous Antarctic cooling trend has been hypothetically linked to stratospheric ozone depletion[3]. If stratospheric ozone depletion leads to cooling trends as claimed, then N2O should hypothetically cancel out some (or all) of its global warming potential as it destroys stratospheric ozone over Antarctica and elsewhere.
These alarmists should seriously get a grip on what gases are responsible for what.
1. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/hats/insitu/cats/conc/smo_n2o_all.png
2. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/46776/title/Nitrous_oxide_fingered_as_monster_ozone_slayer
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/03/us/ozone-hole-is-now-seen-as-a-cause-for-antarctic-cooling.html
“Espen (22:30:56) :
Geoff Sherrington: Trees as carbon sinks is not just a myth: Boreal Forests are very good carbon sinks, since they accumulate carbon in the soil.”
Actually boreal forests are NOT good carbon sinks, Canadian studies have shown that they are net emitters. Only tropical forests are net sinks. I have references somewhere but if you do a quick search on “boreal forests net CO2 emitters” you will find plenty of articles eg> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/11/are_boreal_forests.php
“Using a one million sq. km stretch of forest in Manitoba, Gower and his colleagues coupled their measurements of how carbon moved between the atmosphere and the trees with past records and computer models to examine how the forest’s ability to store carbon dioxide has changed since mid-century. Their results showed that the forest’s ability to store more carbon dioxide than it emitted had weakened over the last few years – to the point where it has now become a net emitter of carbon.”
Bernice (05:09:01) :
It is time for the greens to lead by example, no more grass cutting in Central Park, reduce the carbon foot print and increase the CO2 sink. Return the park land to its former glory, wild grasses, wild flowers, butterflies. (…)
And snakes, wolves, perhaps a few cougars. That should give the joggers some added incentives.
People don’t like Nature, unless it is neutered and managed into an idealized version that isn’t natural at all.
“Is it better for the environment (assuming there is so such a thing) to plant the area in trees or leave as open turf. To put it another way, which alternative stores more carbon? Maybe the question is too simplistic but at least it is practical one and is not hypothetical. I think many others with with relativey small but wide expanses of open ground on their property would be interested in the answer.” -Phaedruscj
Trees devour carbon dioxide and spew out oxygen. The re-growth of forests in Eastern US is looked at as the reason North America is a carbon sink with less CO2 leaving the US than entering it.
Virgin Atlantic had a million dollar contest for the best proposal to take CO2 out of the air. I entered and proposed they simply plant tress, once grown cut them down and sell the wood continuosly plant more. They stiffed me and I never got the million dollars, although there could not be a simpler, more cost effective solution.
Studying turf grass is a waste of time and money. If you want to know what’s ruining the planet, look no farther than the Third World, all the people there and all their pollution. To focus any attention on turf grass is absurd.
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.
Same calculations apply to production agriculture, more or less. Quit eating.
Phaedruscj (09:29:53) :
Is it better for the environment (assuming there is so such a thing) to plant the area in trees or leave as open turf.
According to the California Dept of energy leader, you should paint the ground white. :~P
Jon (10:02:15) :
“Is it better for the environment (assuming there is so such a thing) to plant the area in trees or leave as open turf. To put it another way, which alternative stores more carbon? Maybe the question is too simplistic but at least it is practical one and is not hypothetical. I think many others with with relativey small but wide expanses of open ground on their property would be interested in the answer.” -Phaedruscj
Trees devour carbon dioxide and spew out oxygen. The re-growth of forests in Eastern US is looked at as the reason North America is a carbon sink with less CO2 leaving the US than entering it.
Virgin Atlantic had a million dollar contest for the best proposal to take CO2 out of the air. I entered and proposed they simply plant tress, once grown cut them down and sell the wood continuosly plant more. They stiffed me and I never got the million dollars, although there could not be a simpler, more cost effective solution.
According to the GCM’s, forests have a lower albedo than pastures/meadows/grass/farmland… so CO2 aside, clearcutting forests is allegedly helping cool our planet to the point that “land use” in the models is a net cooling forcing – despite UHI and all the concrete or asphalt roads and parking lots, etc
You can be sure that using more wood (i.e. building more) is just an absolutely unacceptable carbon sink to these whack-jobs, just the same way that nuclear is an unacceptable CO2-free energy source (only wind and solar right?), and just the same way that biochar adoption for farming – which as a byproduct appears to significantly increase soil productivity, and could decrease reliance on petrochem-derived fertilizers – is also not an option.