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 ponds over seven years by 4-5ºC and studied the impacts on greenhouse gas emissions 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 methane 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 global warming.
"Our findings show that warming can fundamentally alter the carbon balance of small ponds over a number of years, reducing their capacity to absorb carbon dioxide 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 climate change, 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
FactsReallyMatter
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
Or not. No one can predict the future.
rodkeh
Feb 20, 2017RealityCheck
RealityCheck
RealityCheck
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
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
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
I agree, people should avoid cherry picking. Speaking of massive cherry picks:
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
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
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).
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
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
http://www.woodfo...99/trend
Warming
zz5555
I see. You can't argue with the data, so you claim it's a "diversion from the truth."
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
FactsReallyMatter
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
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
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
SteveS
Remember this
and this
and this
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
FactsReallyMatter
https://bobtisdal...re-2.png
Tip : error bars are not chocolate bars. You don't eat them and make them go away.
SteveS
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
Who's spreading the misinformation here?
Facts really DO matter.
Da Schneib