Warming ponds could accelerate climate change

February 20, 2017
Ponds used in the experiment. Credit: University of Exeter

Rising temperatures could accelerate climate change by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide stored in ponds and increasing the methane they release, new research shows.

The scientists experimentally warmed an array of over seven years by 4-5ºC and studied the impacts on and rates of metabolism.

Changes observed after the first year became "amplified" over a longer period, according to the study by the University of Exeter and Queen Mary University of London

After seven years, a pond's ability to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) was reduced by almost half, while release almost doubled.

Lakes and ponds cover about 4% of Earth's surface (excluding areas covered by glaciers and ice sheets) but they are disproportionately large sources of methane and CO2 to the atmosphere.

Ponds of less than one square metre are responsible for releasing about 40% of all methane emissions from inland waters.

"This is the first experiment to investigate the long-term effects of warming in aquatic ecosystems," said lead author Professor Gabriel Yvon-Durocher, of the Environment and Sustainability Institute on the University of Exeter's Penryn Campus in Cornwall.

"Given the substantial contribution small ponds make to the emission of greenhouse gases, it is vital to understand how they might respond to .

"Our findings show that warming can fundamentally alter the carbon balance of small ponds over a number of years, reducing their capacity to absorb and increasing emissions of methane.

"This could ultimately accelerate climate change."

Such effects are known as "positive feedbacks" - where the effects of global warming on components of the biosphere lead to changes that further climate change.

"The amplified effects of experimental warming we have observed in ponds are different to those we typically see on land, where large initial effects of warming appear to diminish over the long term," Professor Yvon-Durocher said.

"This accelerating effect in ponds, which could have serious impacts on , is not currently accounted for in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models."

The paper, entitled "Long-term warming amplifies shifts in the carbon cycle of experimental ponds", is published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Explore further: Global warming may increase methane emissions from freshwater ecosystems

More information: Long-term warming amplifies shifts in the carbon cycle of experimental ponds, Nature Climate Change, nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nclimate3229

Related Stories

Large and increasing methane emissions from northern lakes

January 4, 2016

Methane is increasing in the atmosphere, but many sources are poorly understood. Lakes at high northern latitudes are such a source. However, this may change with a new study published in Nature Geoscience. By compiling previously ...

Recommended for you

New research could predict La Nina drought years in advance

November 16, 2017

Two new studies from The University of Texas at Austin have significantly improved scientists' ability to predict the strength and duration of droughts caused by La Niña - a recurrent cooling pattern in the tropical Pacific ...

23 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FactsReallyMatter
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2017
This accelerating effect in ponds, which could have serious impacts on climate change, is not currently accounted for in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models.


So am I to presume that we haven't panic'd enough? The AGW models are currently already predicting temp well above what the actual temps are. There could be serious impacts here which are not included. So these models should actually be predicting even higher temps, that would be even farther from reality.

Even the AGW crowd admit the models are incomplete, yet the that doesn't stop the cultists from screaming we need to take radical action now.
JamesG
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2017
"Warming ponds could accelerate climate change"

Or not. No one can predict the future.
rodkeh
Feb 20, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2017
Hi JamesG. :)
"Warming ponds could accelerate climate change"

Or not. No one can predict the future.
That's not true, mate. Your brain does it with every step you take and with every post-date decision you make based on the 'balance of probabilities' which your knowledge base has built up in your mind's 'world construct' that you intend 'navigating into the future' from the next step to future years life/property Insurance policies. The Climate Science merely provides that particular knowledge base for making decisions about future costs/benefits of action/non-action choices and the nature/extent of said actions/non-actions. One either consults one's knowledge base or not; that choice is up to you, in this instance regarding balance of probabilities re potential Climate Change causes, problems and solutions. Think well before you reject common sense approach, even in the face of incomplete models which nevertheless TREND towards more warming, not less. Good luck. :)
RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2017
Hi rodkeh. :)
Just more fear mongering nonsense!
If ever you are caught in the headlights of a speeding truck bearing down on you, I will be sure to NOT say "Watch out, rodkeh, there's a speeding truck coming at you!" to, because in your philosophy I would be "fear mongering" at you. Good luck with that attitude, mate; it's the sort of attitude that may 'eliminate you from the gene pool' sooner rather than later. Watch out! :)
RealityCheck
4.2 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2017
Hi FactsReallyMatter. :)
This accelerating effect in ponds, which could have serious impacts on climate change, is not currently accounted for in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models.


So am I to presume that we haven't panic'd enough? The AGW models are currently already predicting temp well above what the actual temps are. There could be serious impacts here which are not included. So these models should actually be predicting even higher temps, that would be even farther from reality.

Even the AGW crowd admit the models are incomplete, yet the that doesn't stop the cultists from screaming we need to take radical action now.
Be constructive, not counterproductive in critiques. :)

It's the OBVIOUS TREND that is NOW disturbing/alarming, regardless of models/predictions 'detail'.

PS: I too, long pointed out many things the earlier models missed; but more of the missing pieces are being finally recognized/included. It's the TREND that hurts! :)
humy
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2017
"Warming ponds could accelerate climate change"

Or not. No one can predict the future.

JamesG

Obviously false.
Science has correctly predicted the future many times.
Science has correctly predicted when the next eclipse will be many times.
That is proof that someone CAN and already HAS correctly predicted the future (and many times), moron.
FactsReallyMatter
1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2017
It's the OBVIOUS TREND that is NOW disturbing/alarming, regardless of models/predictions 'detail'.


Reacting without understanding is considered knee-jerkism. It is usually not a good way to formulate policy.

Particularly in AGW, as is seen across many posts and articles here, the clear cherry picking of those trends which only support the narrative.
BTW, the RSS data (excluding el nino ) is flat. There is even nothing to kneejerk to.
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2017
Particularly in AGW, as is seen across many posts and articles here, the clear cherry picking of those trends which only support the narrative.

I agree, people should avoid cherry picking. Speaking of massive cherry picks:
BTW, the RSS data (excluding el nino ) is flat. There is even nothing to kneejerk to.

Yes, let's throw away the warmer temperatures (el nino) and keep the cooler la nina temperatures - surely there's absolutely no cherry picking there ;).

By the way, wouldn't it be nice if someone were to separately plot out the el nino, la nina, and enso neutral temperatures so people could see the trends in those? Yeah, it's been done: https://skeptical...ing.html . So the trend obviously isn't "flat" anywhere. And the current warming obviously isn't just due to el nino. (By the way, those are Gistemp temperatures, but RSS has the same trend, so going to satellites doesn't help your cherries ;)
FactsReallyMatter
1 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2017
El nino is not an AGW inspired event, even the IPCC does not conclude a link between el nino and AGW becuase el ninos are even less understood than the 'global climate'

Thus, whether observed changes in ENSO behaviour are physically linked to global climate change is a research question of great importance.

https://www.ipcc....6-2.html

RSS clearly has a flat trend for nearly 20 years, only interrupted by the last el nino. This was not predicted by the AGW models and the IPCC has been at its wits end to try and explain it away, even using such terms as 'the pause'.

But if it makes you happy, RSS has release the data based on annual values, go ahead and include the el nino.

https://bobtisdal...re-2.png
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2017
El nino is not an AGW inspired event

And, of course, no one claimed they were. The point of the graph was that if you look at el nino years, you see the warming trend. And if you get rid of el nino years, you have to get rid of la nina years and the resulting enso neutral years show warming (and the same amount of warming).
RSS clearly has a flat trend for nearly 20 years

Yes, of course, if you cherry pick a short term and look at a period dominated by la nina (or, worse, starting with an el nino if you're really dishonest), you're going to have difficulty seeing the long term climate trend. But el ninos exist, just like la nina, and unless you like to lie to yourself, you need to look at all of the data rather than cherry picking a short period that gives a trend that supports your anti-science narrative.
FactsReallyMatter
1 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2017
Please stop with your BS trend answers, it is clear that is only a diversion from the truth.

The models predict on a much shorter period. Their predictions do NOT include the actual last 20 years and it is a real problem for the IPCC. You clearly won't ackknowledge it, but that is irrelevant as the IPCC and all the AGW priests have and they have spent the past years doing all they can to explain it away.

For 20 years it has not been getting warmer and this scares the shit out of the AGW crowd.

SteveS
4 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2017
For 20 years it has not been getting warmer and this scares the shit out of the AGW crowd.


http://www.woodfo...99/trend

Warming
zz5555
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2017
Please stop with your BS trend answers, it is clear that is only a diversion from the truth.

I see. You can't argue with the data, so you claim it's a "diversion from the truth."

The models predict on a much shorter period. Their predictions do NOT include the actual last 20 years and it is a real problem for the IPCC.

Umm, what? The output from climate models is not intended to be used for near future projections. That's why IPCC projections are for the decade 2090-2099. Maybe in the future they'll be applicable for decadal trends, but certainly not now. As for not including the actual last 20 years, they actually include the historical data from 1900 (https://www.ipcc....-of.html - this is from 2007, so it's a bit old, but I don't think you're worth looking for more up-to-date data). You seem to just make things up to fit your anti-science narrative.
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2017
As SteveS pointed out, you've always been wrong about the "not warming for the last 20 years", but I'm beginning to believe you've always know that you were wrong - you just keep lying anyway. I've tired of your anti-science whinings and willful ignorance, so I won't be reading any more of your alternative facts. The real world is enough work without having to deal with someone's alternate reality.
FactsReallyMatter
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2017
Here's your trend, which I provided above and you missed (based on annual values):

https://bobtisdal...re-2.png

If trends matter, does not that trend matter. Or do we need to include the last El nino for it to fit your narrative. I know you don't like it, but el ninos are linked to AGW, as much as you cultists would like them to be.

Face it, the models haven't predicted the last 20 years, it annoys the hell out of you cause it disturbs your faith. Just pray some more, maybe the doom and gloom will still come.
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2017

Here's your trend, which I provided above and you missed (based on annual values):


It shows a clear warming trend over the last 20 years

But don't take my word for it, try it for yourself, here's the data

http://data.remss...03_3.txt

Or do we need to include the last El nino for it to fit your narrative.


Remove the El nino months and we still have a warming trend over the last 20 years.

http://www.cpc.nc...rs.shtml

Face it, you've cherry picked the wrong period, you should have said the last 19 years. That's cherry picking for you, you have to be sure to choose the right cherry.

https://www.resea..._Warming
FactsReallyMatter
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2017
A Trend that is an order of magnitude below the errors bars in NOT a trend. That is noise, just like every AGW cultist spreads with their misinformation.
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2017
just like every AGW cultist spreads with their misinformation


Remember this

For 20 years it has not been getting warmer and this scares the shit out of the AGW crowd.


and this

Here's your trend, which I provided above and you missed


and this

BTW, the RSS data (excluding el nino ) is flat.


order of magnitude below the errors bars


So now that you've acknowledged the warming trend, tell me how are you calculating the "error bars"? As facts really matter to you I'm sure you can show that the trend is more than 10 times lower than the maximum error.
howhot3
5 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2017
@FactsReallyMatter is just another Dumb-ass denier goon. Look at what he sites as "Facts" to him. Infact I find his claims of intelligence kind of demeaning to anyone with a science background. In other words, a complete BOZO. So from the article,
Lakes and ponds cover about 4% of Earth's surface (excluding areas covered by glaciers and ice sheets) but they are disproportionately large sources of methane and CO2 to the atmosphere. Ponds of less than one square metre are responsible for releasing about 40% of all methane emissions from inland waters.
Lets face it. Mr. @Facts has none.

FactsReallyMatter
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2017
The period from 1998 to present shows (without error) .02 degrees, or ~.01 degrees/decade. The error bars are much higher. You can google them, maybe learn a little.

https://bobtisdal...re-2.png

Tip : error bars are not chocolate bars. You don't eat them and make them go away.
SteveS
5 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2017
For 20 years it has not been getting warmer and this scares the shit out of the AGW crowd.

A Trend that is an order of magnitude below the errors bars in NOT a trend. That is noise, just like every AGW cultist spreads with their misinformation.

The period from 1998 to present shows (without error) .02 degrees, or ~.01 degrees/decade. The error bars are much higher. You can google them, maybe learn a little.

The period from 1998 to present is not 20 years. From Jan 1997 to Dec 2016 or Feb 1997 to Jan 2017 if you prefer,(there's very little difference) is 20 years.The trend for the last 20 years is 0.065 k/decade, the trend uncertanty is not 0.65 k/decade.

http://passthroug...inty.pdf

just like every AGW cultist spreads with their misinformation.


Who's spreading the misinformation here?

Facts really DO matter.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2017
The thing about this is, as the permafrost melts it will make a bunch of little ponds. So now we're talking about a big positive feedback.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.