Have a look at the two articles about the same research below - one from the ABC and the other from the Australian. It looks to me like some very dodgy reporting by the Australian. Some key differences:

The Australian claims that the study found a 5% increase in respiration rate, compared to the "predicted" 23%. The ABC claims that both of these numbers are measurement from the study. The Australian opens the article with an attack on cliamte change modeling.

The ABC describes the research in detail and highlights the lack of basic science. The Australian describes it as "the most comprehensive global analysis of its kind".

The ABC points out the plants tend to be a net carbon sink, and that researchers fear this could be reversed by temperature increases. The Australian adds 'perspective' with this: "Worldwide, plants are thought to pump out about 60 billion tonnes of CO2 a year — about six times what humans produce by burning fossil fuels."

The ABC article describes the 'net source' problem as a possible 'overprediction', whereas the Australian describes it as an incorrect assumption.

The ABC gives the lead scientist's name. The Australian does not, refering to them as "the researchers". It took me a long time to find the article in The Australian online, even after I found the ABC article and head read the hard copy Australian.

The Australian describes it as an "Australian-led study" of North American trees, and also as a "worldwide study" that  backed "Australian research findings". The ABC points out that the lead researcher is a scientific advoser at Sydney University Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, where Australian colleagues did similar work with Eucalypts. The Australian named two local scientists, one of whom offered commentary that appears to support the attack on climate modeling.

---

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-17/carbon-dioxide-from-plants-less-less-of-a-global-warming-problem/7248052

By Anna Salleh

Plant carbon dioxide may not make global warming worse, study suggests

Plants may be better at acclimatising to rising temperatures and contribute less to carbon dioxide in a warming world than some have previously thought, a new study suggests.

Key points:
Concern carbon dioxide from plant growth could make global warming worse in the future
Study suggests plants are better at acclimatising to rising temperatures than previously thought
This means they are less likely to become a net source of CO2 for the planet in the future

"Maybe some of our models are over-predicting the degree to which plant respiration will cause accelerating feedback that speeds up climate change," said Professor Peter Reich, an ecologist and plant physiologist from the University of Minnesota who led the study published today in Nature.

Plants absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and release it when they burn sugar to produce energy in a process known as respiration.

For every 10 degrees Celsius of temperature increase, plants are known to double their rate of metabolism, which has led to fears that global warming will trigger a positive-feedback loop, switching plants from being a net carbon dioxide sink — absorbing more carbon dioxide than they release — to becoming a net source of the warming gas.

Sink or source? Models disagree

According to Dr Reich, however, the jury is still out on how big this problem is.

"The best models on the planet disagree wildly about what will happen in 40 or 50 years, with some saying that the land surfaces will still be a strong sink, but others saying they will become a big source," he said.

Part of the problem is there is a lack of basic science on plant respiration, especially how plants acclimatise to changing environments.

Maybe some of our models are over-predicting the degree to which plant respiration will cause accelerating feedback that speeds up climate change.

As temperatures increase, the enzymes involved in metabolism work faster so fewer enzymes and resources are needed to obtain the same amount of energy, and less carbon dioxide is produced.

How well this acclimatisation occurs will determine when, and if, plants switch from becoming a net sink to a net source of carbon dioxide.

To find out, the Dr Reich and his colleagues studied 10 North American tree species exposed to temperatures that are 3.4C above normal over several years in the field.

Experiments on North American trees

The researchers kept plots warm using above-ground infrared lamps and wires carrying electricity buried in the soil to simulate normal forest conditions. Temperature sensors connected to a computer controller ensured plot temperatures were kept stable.

In their extensive analysis, which involved supplementary lab experiments, Dr Reich and colleagues compared the respiration rate of trees acclimatised to "warm" plots and controls acclimatised to "ambient temperature" plots.

This turn-around from plants providing net sequestration to becoming a net source of carbon dioxide will take a lot longer if it happens at all.

They found that for the given 3.4C above normal, plants that had experienced the warming treatments increased respiration by only 5 per cent, while the controls increased respiration by a whopping 23 per cent.

Dr Reich said the findings reduce the likelihood that increased respiration in plants in a warming world would make global warming worse.

As I posted yesterday it is bullshit research.

'First, the data behind this parameterisation are measured at leaf scale; it has not been confirmed that the differences among PFTs observed at this scale also emerge at canopy/ecosystem scale.

In light of our results, there is an urgent need for future work which tests how the stomatal parameterisation (g1, the sensitivity of the conductance to the assimilation rate, see material and methods) scales from the leaf to the canopy/ecosystem. Secondly, we have assumed all vegetation to have the same drought sensitivity.

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep23418

parameterisation? tortured "data"?

Junk science. Send more money.

Good observation, FD. The Australian is a private newspaper that aims to reflect the views of its owner, Rupert Murdoch. It's not subject to any laws or regulation, aside from civil libel laws. The Australian can pretty much say what it likes, and does. It aims to be an ideological mouthpiece for a particular political agenda. Market forces don't effect it - the Australian costs News Ltd millions each year. Rupert's "B' list shareholders foot the bill.

The ABC, on the other hand, is a public broadcaster. It is subject to comprehensive federal broadcast laws - laws that don't effect print media. The ABC is not allowed to knowingly tell porkies, for example - a law the Australian is exhempt from. The ABC is also the subject of a public charter, written into the Broadcasting Act. Chairpersons and board members can be sacked or told what to do by the government, and regularly are. Crucially, viewers and listeners can complain to the ABC, which receives hundreds of complaints and comments a day. Unresolved complaints can be taken to the ABC tribunal, which can also sack ABC employees and tell them what to do.

Readers of the Australian can complain by way of a letter to the Editor.

Such checks and balances shape the willingness of these media to present facts objectively. The ownership of these media also influences their willingness to tell the truth, or which parts of the truth are profitable to them and their friends.

The Australian is part of the News Ltd busines model - a model replicated in every English speaking country. The tabloids make the money and influence the masses, and the broadsheets are funded to influence the business and political decision makers. The Times in the UK and the Wall Street Journal in the US perform the broadsheet role, shared with the Sun and Mirror in the UK and the New York Post in the US. Alongside this, Rupert buys up pay TV to grab TV audiences and influence the 24 hour news cycle. The more influence he has in the press, the more he is able to influence laws to get a monopoly in other media.

This is the Murdoch business model, which includes his influence in politics and elections. The Leveson Inquiry in the UK showed how much influence Rupert has. Rupert is able to get ministers sacked with a phone call from an editor. He is able to print dirt, and he is more than willing to break the law to do this. Ultimately, he is able to get prime ministers elected, get his friends on their staff, and shape their media policy for his own interests. This is the real Murdoch business model.

Rupert's agenda includes getting public broadcasters out of internet news. He sees the ABC and BBC as unfair competition to his paywall news services. In Australia, this agenda has spread to all ABC services, including television. Rupert's mouthpieces - Miranda Divine, Andrew Bolt and Piers Ackerman cheerfully repeat this message. It was highly influential on Tony Abbott, who spent much of his reign conducting petty attacks on the ABC (and some not so petty).

These are the forces that shape the presentation of your facts, FD. Ultimately, it's how we establish facts and reach consensus - or not. The Australian is Murdoch's conservative Australian spearhead. Part of its agenda is to critique AGW, and like everything else it does, it does this as part of its business model. Murdoch and his staff are allied with conservative lobby groups like the Institute of Public Affairs. The clients of these groups include the fossil fuel industry - one of the most profitable industries in the world and one with very deep pockets. The combined lobbying/PR costs of companies like Shell, BP, Total, BHP and Rio Tinto, etc, would match the GDP of a small European country. The private media has a stake in this.

The ABC is bound under its charter to neutrality. Unlike News Ltd's advertisers, it has no business stake in this debate. It does not employ lobbyists or staffers who's entire role is to get politicians elected and shape policy. It's manager (it has no owner) does not Tweet messages about sacking prime ministers' chiefs of staff, for example - Tweets that get front page attention and weeks worth of editorial. If this ever happened, they be justifiably sacked.

Murdoch has a loud voice. He is able to shape truth. Your article shows just how this is done.

BOTH reports still claim the results are premature. contradictory and of little primary value.  They may have BOTH put their ideological slants on it, but they both concluded it meant very little.

innocentbystander. wrote on Mar 24^th, 2016 at 6:54pm:



Is that the one who bought riverside properties despite apparently accelerating rising sea levels?

The climate change debate needs economists just as much as it needs scientists. No amount of science is going to help you if you spend 10X more than you need to trying to fix the problem, which is what we typically do.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 25^th, 2016 at 7:33am:

We already are changing it!