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?

Here is the scoop from my mortgage broker on Tuesday, before the Feds met. $XXX,000 (80% of value) plus $XX,000 2nd home equity line of credit - interest only. 1st mortgage at 6.625% fixed 30 year, line of credit at 8.25% adjustable rate (runs with prime) and interest only payment. $417,000 first mortgage at 5.875% fixed 30 year. 2nd home equity line of credit at $XXX,000 at 7.625% - interest only adj rate (your rate is prime plus .125 - so could go down after tomorrow). Nonconforming $XXX,000 with no mortgage insurance. Rate 7%. Nonconforming loan of $XXX,000 with monthly mortgage insurance until paid down to 80% rate is 6.75% I didn't get a chance to talk to her today, but I will tomorrow. The last time the Feds dropped the prime, she went down, then adjusted up, but not totally up, the next day.

Mortgage rates are a lot more complicated than the Fed rate, they are going to move a bit but they should settle down pretty soon. Many people believe that home mortgage rates and even the prime rate are simply based on the Fed rate which is really not true. The Federal funds rate certainly influences the prime but not linearly. I am going to oversimplify this a lot but mortgages are a lot like any inventoriable product. You buy from a supplier at a set price and you sell to customers. Certainly the amount you have to pay sets a floor on the amount you charge but it doesn't set the price. Supply and demand sets the price. This gets more complicated by banks selling the mortgages, almost all banks are currently selling mortgages because they don't pay enough to keep. Banks are actually adversely affected by interest rate hikes also. They have 8 years of record low loans that are locked in, and the proceeds from those loans are used to pay depositors. That is essentially how banks work, they pay money to depositors and mark that up for loans. The interest rate spread is essential for making money. Alternately, they can sell the loans to a third party and get paid an origination fee. The kicker to this idea is that banks have to have loans. If the interest rate moves up enough that buyers decide not to pursue a loan (or buy a home) then the banks are screwed. The second kicker is - as loans start paying higher interest and stocks slow down (see bottom note) there is more demand for mortgages from businesses that buy mortgages. So competition for the better mortgage rates as an investment actually drives the rate down a bit. TL,DR: Typically, we see rates go up and then settle down a bit before they move up again. This needs to happen fairly slow or it creates a shock that grinds things to a halt. I believe you are safe for the next couple of years. Frankly, I would bet interest money will still be stupid low for the next 5 to 10 years, but the crystal ball gets a little cloudy at that distance. Note: I have seen half a dozen talking heads on the news giving reasons that the Fed is raising interest rates. I can't tell you whether they are just oversimplifying it for the public or they are really that bad, but they are mostly wrong. The Fed is currently very concerned about the PE ratios in the stock market. They are way too high and, actually, way above the danger zone. The Fed needs to slow the stock market down, they have needed to for a while but didn't do anything during the election to be safe. The market responded to Trump's election very differently than they thought and now they have to act. The primary reason for the rate hike is that they have to get investors out of the stock market and into the bond and debt market. There are other reasons, such as employment and the economy that have an impact but many of those are offset by artificially low international rates.

I have lived in most states in western USA. Can't say humidity was a THING I noticed until living in MN. I am going to chalk that up to being a child and children just manage? Even in New Mexico I don't remember the heat being a thing. We did the Disney thing in Florida a few years ago. It was October. We were there when the humidity broke for the season. Oppressive and restrictive is all I can say. Everyone crabs about northern winters but as we say you can always put on more clothes--you can only get sooo naked. I will second the bright sun of winter. Often it comes with very frigid days but it is winter, after all. We are having a rather glorious summer. Some humidity true but a week on, some relief then it returns allows for plenty of gardening and outdoor time. I think that is the key, change. Non stop heat/cold/humidity--what ever--is exhausting. I prefer the hit of extremes to the non stop torture of day after day after day--that's what gets me down. The idea of summer in the southern states holds nothing appealing. Maybe a new thread is needed. Where would be the perfect, climate wise,place to live? Four seasons, nothing EXTREME.....