It is not lawns that are the problem, it is how they are cared for. People that pour heavy doses of synthetic fertilizers on their lawns every year, pour large quantities of water on those lawns every year, apply heavy doses of herbicides and pesticides every year, and spend large dollar amounts on mower fuel are what is contributing to global warming.
People that use a much more common sense approach to lawn care, use little commercial fertilizer (even trucking fertilizers contribute), practice water conservation, mow high and infrequently, mulch mow, and put the grass clippings and any leaves that fall back into the soil contribute much less to global warming.
Lawns themselves are not the problem since Ma Nature has put them out there, those meadows you see that were not carved out of the forest by man but are natural, for a reason.

All true kimmsr. The irony is the relatively small faction of the yard community advocating such sensical, sustainable approaches over high imput "scientific" methods may well be voicing the only scientific way to allow yards to exist under future rules and regs based on global warming impact.

In other words, back to the future if we don't want lawns outlawed.

My initial concern after reading that study though is that ALL 'lawns' will get decreed bad and regulated out of existence in the name of fighting global warming. Some how lower input practices and methods need to get a study done that includes the solar radiation aspect. Grass and trees have a cooling effect over many substitute surfaces like rock, asphalt, etc.

Politicians and bureaucrats have a habit of taking one limited, preliminary study and charging off on full implementation.

I'm pretty sure all lawns, and the way they are maintained, do not have the same "bad" global warming impact suggested by the study above.

At the risk of repeating myself, I live in the desert, but I only watered 4 times last year. I probably mowed 4 times, also,

I haven't used anything but UCG for at least 4 years and haven't used anthing since.

One of the great things about these forums is the minimal inclusion of things political. However, I can't stand by when there is evidence of a mixture of fact and fiction, as I perceive in this thread. Organic lawn practices do wonders for reducing harmful chemicals, particularly those found in pesticides from lawns and possibly streams, but they do nothing to solve the myth of global warming. To claim organic grain fertilizers or cutting lawns at higher heights or watering less frequently will contribute to any reduction to "global warming," is like promoting higher production of carrots to support the Easter Bunny. What I love about this forum is that so much of the advice and facts shared are supported by logic, factual-based studies and other legitimate scientific research. I hope we can stay on track with this approach. "Organic lawn care" and "global warming" should never be included in the same sentence. They are "as the east is to the west."

First, when someone does a study that basically says greenspaces are bad regarding global warming effects, I think it merits discussion on internet boards frequented by people who by and large have and enjoy lawns. Global warming is one of those topics that is almost entirely "political". So, here lawn talk and politics have to go hand in hand.

Each poster can join in or stay out at their election. However, staying out of the political debate in this context may very well mean your lawn gets laws and regulations passed that affect it (and maybe even outlaw it) without your voice being heard.

Second, I find it a bit pompous, frankly, for you to act like you have concrete answers (in the negative) to the very question I asked if perhaps we needed additional scientific studies to tie down pro or con.

The study establishes that "greenspaces" i.e. as it relates to this forum, lawns have some impact on global warming. Similarly, knowledgeable folks here would likely agree organics, as practiced by some, can and usually does have significantly lower inputs of just the kind of ingredients the study author used to determine impact of greeenspaces on global warming. Fertilizer and irrigation. You site neither study nor theory/application to support your position.

In short, all you seem to be adding to the discussion is self important unsupported opinion.

So, I ask again, if the author of this study had studied the soil and practices involved in organic lawn maintenance, how likely is it that the greenspace would have been determined to be bad as opposed to good for global warming? Add what seems to me to be a key factor not accounted for in the study, cooling efffect of greenspace, especially in urban environments, and I hope and would somewhat expect (just applying background info) that the results might be just the opposite of those found in the study in question.

And, fwiw, I think organic practices, including cultural practices, can very much affect the net effect on the carbon cycle, air gasses and air temps.

By a lot, a little? I don't know. Some real scientific review and data would be nice before govt starts telling lawn owners what they have to do, no?

I was reading on Science Digest yesterday something that I thought the folks here might find interesting.

The computer models on that "little" problem called global warming may need to be significantly revised (i.e., they are not giving accurate predictive data) because of a failure to account for what soil organisms do in the carbon dioxide cycle.

One study I found today discusses, in effect, the "microherd" on the sea floor. I hadn't thought about it there. Obviously another huge variable all getting back to many many organisms we know little about regarding each species and how they interact with themselves and variable ingredients.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091218132535.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0603-can_carbon_dioxide_be_a_good_thing.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100108101425.htm

In short Stan, soil micro organisms can play a huge role in global warming. And, most who know much about "organics" would agree that the kind, quantity and health of micro organisms in the soil can definitely be affected by organic v. chemical practices.

Your claim there is no inter relationship simply looks specious based on the scientific studies and knowledge we have regarding micro organisms. Now, how much and whether it is enough to make decisions on pro or con on "lawns" and lawn practices in regards to global warming, I don't know.

Hence the reason for asking the question originally.

Here is another study that mentions in passing one of the variables the other study did not take in to consideration in reaching its conclusion that, paraphrased: "greenspaces contribute to global warming."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0504-right_mix_of_trees_fights_global_warming.htm

"Furthermore, the trees would be most valuable if they were planted in the center of the city, where areas of continuous asphalt typically send CO2 straight into the atmosphere."

In a nutshell, greenspaces, even with the carbon footprint the study notes, may still be much better than the other things that would replace greenspaces, like asphalt and concrete, etc.

Here is a link that might be useful: Mention of deleterious affect of ashphalt v. trees

Not a study on the issue of organic practice values v. traditional management, but, suggests trees and grass may help lock up more carbon in the SOIL.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127110421.htm

Here is a link that might be useful: Fight global warming by using soil storage

My point is not to argue with research that points to the benefits of organic garden practices. What has shown itself to have no validity is global warming itself. If the revelations of deceit over the past few months haven't shed light on the myth, the record cold patterns should reveal the truth. Organic gardening is 100% valid. Global warming just isn't. Organic practices shouldn't be tied to something that doesn't show any legitimate evidence of existing. Sorry, Al Gore. Not everyone in your Volunteer State buys the composted manure you're trying to sell!

I see now Stan. I did misunderstand your position. And, fwiw, I think there are many issues in that debate that are not being portrayed very well, accurately or fully in the debate.

Have temps gone up? Most likely though even that isn't as concrete as some would claim. Is it absolutely for certain we are playing a large, or the largest role in that 30 year cycle? Much less confirmed scientifically. Can we do something to affect rising temps? Don't know. Should we try in case its mostly a natural cycle? Don't know. Do I want the equivalent of UN eggheads who have precious little knowledge of the intricacies of earth's climate and weather trying to effect weather world wide long term? --- Yikes, there is a scary thought.

Is it probably prudent to try to pollute less and be better stewards of the environment whether global warming is real or not? Yes. Is it even more reasonable on the off chance some of the worst case scenario folks might be partially right, or heaven forbid, mostly right? With in reason, yes.

So, where does that put me on the Al Gore spectrum? I don't know Stan.

But, I like folks who generally give pols the "I'm from Missouri, show me treatment." You tell'em.

Here is a study suggesting there are other forces at work. To what degree at this point in the "cycle" - whatever the cycle may be? Eh, there is the question:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100205091825.htm

Here is a link that might be useful: Some natural cycles re climate based on solar orbit cycles