Oceans Are Absorbing Almost All Of The Globe’s Excess Heat

New York Times - Tim Wallace

This year is on track to be the third consecutive hottest year on record. Where does that heat go? The oceans, mostly.

         Where the Oceans Have Been Colder and Hotter Than Average

Average temperatures from each decade compared with the 20th-century average.

Ocean temperatures have been consistently rising for at least three decades. Scientists believe that global sea surface temperatures will continue to increase over the next decade as greenhouse gases build up in the atmosphere.
According to a report by the International Union for Conservation of Nature released last week, the Southern Hemisphere has experienced intense warming over the past decade, with strong heat accumulation in the midlatitude regions of the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Natural patterns such as El Niño and La Niña can have year-to-year effects on temperatures. Individual storms can also influence ocean temperatures for months or longer. But the overall temperature trends by decade reveal a backdrop of human-caused warming.

Record High Annual Mean Surface Temperatures, 2015

Last year, nearly all observed ocean surface temperatures registered above average because naturally occurring conditions caused by El Niño combined with human-induced warming. About a quarter of those observations broke record highs.

Heat Accumulates in the Oceans
Since 1955, more than 90 percent of the excess heat retained by the Earth as a result of increased greenhouse gases has been absorbed by the oceans, leaving ocean scientists like Eric Leuliette at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration feeling that 90 percent of the climate change story is being ignored.

Estimated Heat Accumulation

Amounts in zettajoules, or sextillions of joules, relative to 1971 levels.

For several decades, more energy has been absorbed than emitted at the top of Earth's atmosphere. According to Gregory Johnson, an oceanographer at NOAA, the rate of energy gained between 1971 and 2010 was roughly equal to the power required to run 140 billion 1,500-watt hair dryers over the same number of years. The rate has only increased in the past decade. This excess energy has largely been sucked up by the oceans, which have a huge capacity to store heat. As the oceans store more heat, however, they expand. Scientists have shown that over the past decade, this thermal expansion has caused about one-third of the rise in sea levels.

What Hotter Oceans Bring
The oceans act as Earth's enormous heat sponge, sheltering continents and the people who live on them from atmospheric extremes. The near-surface ocean takes only decades to warm in response to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations, but the deep ocean will take centuries to millenniums, raising sea level all the while. In the meantime, warmer ocean temperatures may also increase the destructive potential of extreme weather, like cyclones and hurricanes. In fact, the effects of warmer waters are already widespread.

Josh Haner/The New York Times

Ice Melt and Sea Level Rise
The Greenland ice sheet is studded with meltwater streams, rivers and lakes. The rate of melt is alarming many scientists. Both ice melt and thermal expansion are causing a significant rise in global sea levels.

Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Marine Species Are at Risk
Warmer temperatures are threatening some marine animal and plant species, like these bleached coral on the Great Barrier Reef. Scientists also predict that some birds, like the black-legged kittiwakes in Norway, may soon die off in warmer waters.

Bruno C. Vellutini

Habitats Are Changing
The warmer conditions have allowed some jellyfish, like the comb jellyfish, pictured above, in Narragansett Bay, to have longer seasons. Others have expanded their territory. In some cases, United States fisheries have shifted north to cooler waters.

Links

• Rising Sea Levels May Disrupt Lives of Millions, Study Says
• August Ties July for Hottest Month on Record
• Global Temperatures Are on Course for Another Record This Year
• Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun

Crocodile Study In Queensland's Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve To Assess Climate Change Impact

ABC News - Matt Watson

A crocodile close to 4.6 metres long was captured during the latest research trip. (Supplied: Ben Beaden/Australia Zoo)

 Bindi, Robert and Terri Irwin have joined Queensland scientists tracking 150 saltwater crocodiles from Cape York's Wenlock River to try and determine the impact of climate change on the animals and reduce the number of attacks on humans.
The annual crocodile research trip takes place in the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve in August.
The 2016 expedition captured 23 crocodiles, 11 of which were added to the research program.
The University of Queensland's Professor of Zoology, Craig Franklin, said 150 crocodiles in the Wenlock River had been tagged since 2008.

Bindi Irwin and Professor Craig Franklin in Cape York. (Supplied: Ben Beaden/Australia Zoo)

 Professor Franklin said the data would give scientists an understanding of the types of thermal environments crocodiles liked to live in.

"They do have a preferred temperature range and if it gets too warm for them up top, they may move further south to cooler waters," he said.

During their latest trip, a crocodile tagged in 2008 was recaptured and retagged with an acoustic tag, which lasts 10 years.
"We're going to be tracking that one individual animal for 18 years," Professor Franklin said.
"It was a big animal, definitely one of the alpha males in the river system.
"It had grown by about 18 centimetres [since 2008] and it was close to 4.6 metres long."
Professor Franklin said the acoustic tag was implanted in the crocodile, underneath its left forelimb, during a minor surgical procedure.
"It sends out like a morse code and we have listening stations along the Wenlock River so when it swims past, it tells us the animals in that location," he said.
"It also tells us what the body temperature is of that animal.

Researchers are now tracking 150 crocodiles. (Supplied: Ben Beaden/Australia Zoo)

"In the times of climate change and global warming, what's going to be fascinating to see is how it will influence the biology of crocodiles."

Living 'safely' with crocodiles a study aim
Professor Franklin said some crocodiles were fitted with satellite transmitters that monitor the diving behaviour.
"So far we have five million recordings of body temperature from the 150 animals and also their location data," he said.
"From their behaviour, to their movement patterns, to their thermal physiology."
Professor Franklin said the data was important in predicting the movements and range of crocodiles as the planet warmed up.

"We would like to educate people more broadly about living alongside crocodiles safely," he said.

"The information we're gaining definitely gives us an indication of what their behaviours are like and when it's best not to be in crocodile habitat or close to the water."

Links

• 'Catastrophic' global loss of 10pc of wilderness over past two decades
• Port Augusta solar project needs $100m to shine, firm says
• Green sea turtles thrive in Raine Island recovery project off Queensland
• Religious groups pray to support the Pacific's battle against climate change
• Climate change challenges winemakers in NSW central west

My Student Missed Class... To Sue The Government Over Climate Change

Charlotte Observer - Mallory McDuff*

Youths like Kelsey Juliana – who is part of a suit against the federal government – are fighting for climate action. Chris Polydoroff

At the small liberal arts college where I teach, it's hard for students to miss class with any degree of anonymity.
But last semester, one of my students, Kelsey Juliana, gave the most compelling excuse for missing class that I've heard in 16 years of teaching.
She was flying to Oregon to sue the federal government for failure to protect youth from climate change's impacts. As a teacher, writer, and mother, I call that an excused absence.
On April 8, 2016, the federal District Court in Eugene, Ore., decided in favor of 21 plaintiffs, ages 8-19 years old, and Dr. James Hansen, in their case brought against the federal government and the fossil fuel industry. The decision denied motions seeking to dismiss the climate change lawsuit, which claims failure of the U.S. to protect youth from greenhouse gas emissions is a violation of their constitutional rights.
This decision advanced the legal fight to require the federal government to implement a plan to limit carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to 350 ppm by 2100. Oral arguments for the federal climate lawsuit are scheduled for Tuesday in Eugene, Oregon.
Much is at stake in this case brought by 21 young people from across the country. For starters, the health of my own children is on the line.
And in this divisive political season, I want my children, my students and other parents to know that youth are taking legal action to protect their right to a healthy future.
An unusual element of the case includes the unlikely allies of the federal government and its agencies, along with fossil fuel interests of the American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.
Argued by attorney Julia Olson with Our Children's Trust, the complaint alleges the government violated the Fifth Amendment rights of the youth to due process and equal protection. The case also rests on the public trust doctrine, which asserts the government has a responsibility to protect natural systems for future generations.
Youth in other states have secured similar wins to advance science-based climate legislation, with lawsuits proceeding in Oregon and Colorado.
As a teacher, I have ferried students to climate rallies, participated in climate action trainings and designed climate justice tours across the state of North Carolina.
As a writer, I have interviewed faith leaders in congregations to document actions to protect the climate, such as installing solar panels on sanctuaries.
But as a mother, I often wonder if these shotgun actions will produce substantive changes to help my children mitigate the climate crisis. The climate movement needs diverse tactics and strategies at different scales, and I need to harness my own work to something larger than my local actions.
This federal lawsuit provides critical momentum for the work of my students and greater hope that my own children aren't powerless in the face of our systemic addictions to fossil fuels and virtual inaction by our legislators.
I'm not naïve enough to think one federal court case will tilt the momentum for climate action worldwide. But as a 50-year old parent, I'm old enough to know that legal decisions – harnessed with sustained grassroots action – can shift the scales, at a time when we need positive and united change to protect our children's futures.
The night after the April court case, my student e-mailed me with an update from Oregon: She had said goodbye to the other plaintiffs, who were heading home after having a sleepover together. Sitting at my desk late at night, with my two children asleep, I smiled at the image of youth suing the government - and then staying up late to savor each other's company, enjoying their fundamental right to a healthy life.

*Mallory McDuff, Ph.D. teaches at Warren Wilson College in Asheville, NC.

Links

• Youths Secure Second Win In Washington State Climate Lawsuit
• "Landmark Climate Lawsuit: Meet the Youth Activists Suing the U.S. Government & Fossil Fuel Industry"
• VICTORY IN LANDMARK CLIMATE CASE!
• In Wake of WA Climate Rule Withdrawal, Youth Petitioners Return to Court
• Youth Files Constitutional Climate Petition with the Supreme Court of Pakistan
• Colorado Youth File Appeal After Court Places Oil & Gas Development Above Public Health Interests

Climate Change Policy Needs Market Mechanism

The Age - Editorial

The public brawl being played out in the Climate Change Authority is a fresh story, and yet a highly familiar one. It is not surprising people plucked from differing walks of life to advise the government on global warming would have sharply conflicting views.
A majority of board members, most appointed by the Coalition, have recommended the government build on current policy settings to meet existing greenhouse gas reduction targets. They have been challenged by two members, scientist David Karoly and academic and author Clive Hamilton, who believe the majority has failed by not stressing Australia needs to cut emissions much more rapidly if it is to play its part in limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees – a benchmark agreed under the Paris climate deal.

Could you people hurry up and get serious, please? Photo: Nick Cobbing/Greenpeace

The pair would like to see what would effectively be a reboot – scrapping the Direct Action emissions reduction fund and introducing the type of emissions trading scheme both major parties used to once support. They also want a dramatic scaling up for the renewable energy target. It is a battle over what is achievable and what is desirable.
Australia's political class has been having this sort of argument since 2007, when both the Howard government and the Rudd opposition went to an election supporting a market-based scheme.
In this case, the dissenting report is more clearly playing the role the authority was intended to – providing independent advice, and leaving the politics to the politicians. Under no calculation does an emissions cut of 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 – the maximum proposed by the Coalition – measure up to Australia playing its part. The majority report only acknowledges this discrepancy in passing. That is a mistake. More than 2 degrees of warming will be catastrophic for millions of people and countless species. Everything must be done to avoid it. If our lawmakers ever get properly serious about cutting emissions, they will find they can be brought down more rapidly and at lower cost than those who argue against taking action claim.
The country should adopt the targets the authority recommended last year, including a cut of at least 45 per cent by 2030 and net zero emissions by mid-century. The current approach is a pseudo climate policy, more about planting trees than cutting industrial emissions. Wise heads in both major parties know this, and want an end to the years of aggressively oppositional politics on climate change. They are also hearing the increasingly vocal call from interest groups – spanning business, unions, the welfare lobby and environmental organisations – for a meaningful bipartisan deal.
This could take a range of forms, and there are suggestions in both the majority and minority report worth considering. To be serious, they must include a market-based scheme that requires polluters to either reduce emissions or pay a significant cost for their greenhouse pollution.
With a pure cap-and-trade scheme unlikely to win support, this could be achieved by converting the existing "safeguard mechanism" into a baseline-and-credit scheme that required industrial players to pay for emissions above a set level. That level would be reduced year-on-year.
This – complemented by an extended clean energy target and a plan for orderly closure of coal-fired plants, including helping communities where jobs will be lost – would be a significant start towards Australia delivering on its international commitments.
The Age urges both parties to drop the political point-scoring and ideological frolics in the pursuit of this compromise. It is time to get started in earnest.

Links

• Climate Change Authority's Move To Canberra Raises Independence Concerns
• Partisan Polarization On Climate Change Is Worse Than Ever
• 'We’re Not Going Anywhere,' Say Climate Change Authority Dissenters
• Climate Change Authority Divided Over Emissions Reduction

Bioethicist: The Climate Crisis Calls For Fewer Children

The Conversation - Travis N. Rieder

Should a future parent consider the impact more people will have on the Earth? child via www.shutterstock.com

Earlier this summer, I found myself in the middle of a lively debate because of my work on climate change and the ethics of having children.
NPR correspondent Jennifer Ludden profiled some of my work in procreative ethics with an article entitled, "Should we be having kids in the age of climate change?," which summarized my published views that we ought to consider adopting a "small family ethic" and even pursuing fertility reduction efforts in response to the threat from climate change. Although environmentalists for decades have worried about overpopulation for many good reasons, I suggest the fast-upcoming thresholds in climate change provide uniquely powerful reasons to consider taking real action to slow population growth.
Clearly, this idea struck a nerve: I was overwhelmed by the response in my personal email inbox as well as op-eds in other media outlets and over 70,000 shares on Facebook. I am gratified that so many people took the time to read and reflect on the piece.
Having read and digested that discussion, I want to continue it by responding to some of the most vocal criticisms of my own work, which includes research on "population engineering" – the intentional manipulation of human population size and structure – I've done with my colleagues, Jake Earl and Colin Hickey.
In short, the varied arguments against my views – that I'm overreacting, that the economy will tank and others – haven't changed my conviction that we need to discuss the ethics of having children in this era of climate change.

How bad will things get?
Some comments – those claiming climate change is a hoax, devised by those who wish to control the world's resources – are not worth responding to. Since 97 percent of all relevant experts cannot convince climate change skeptics of the basic scientific facts, then nothing I say will change their minds.
Other concerns, however, do require a response. Many people reacted to my work on procreation ethics by saying climate change will not be so bad, and so curbing individual desires, such as having children, in its name is unnecessary fear-mongering.
In my work, I suggest that 1.5-2 degrees Celsius warming over preindustrial levels will be "dangerous" and "very bad," while 4 degrees C will be "catastrophic" and will leave large segments of the Earth "largely uninhabitable by humans." Here is a very brief survey of the evidence for those claims based on what I consider reputable sources.
At 1.5-2 degrees C, a World Bank report predicts an increase in extreme weather events, deadly heat waves and severe water stress. Food production will decrease, and changing disease vectors will create unpredictable infectious disease outbreaks. Sea levels will rise, combining with increased storm severity to place coastal cities at risk. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that from the years 2030-2050 – as we reach this level of warming – at least 250,000 people will die every year from just some of the climate-related harms.

It’s widely recognized that the global poor will disproportionately suffer the consequences of climate change. Here people displaced by flooding in Pakistan in 2010 line up for water. Asian Development Bank, CC BY-NC-ND 

Perhaps many of us in rich countries (the "us" who might be reading this) will be largely protected from these early harms; but that doesn't make them less real to the vulnerable citizens of, say, Bangladesh, Kiribati or the Maldives. In fact, it escalates the injustice, as the global wealthy have benefited from and contributed to climate change the most, while the global poor will be hurt first and worst.
At 4 degrees C warming, the World Bank predicts that every summer month will be hotter than any current record heat wave, making the Middle East, North Africa and the Mediterranean deadly during the summer months. Many coastal cities will be completely under water, and all low-lying island nations will likely have to be abandoned. Hundreds of millions, if not billions of people could become climate refugees, as their homelands become uninhabitable.
Based on these descriptions, I stand by my predictions.

No, environmentalists don't hate babies
Other critics have argued that advocating for a lower birth rate = hating babies or being "anti-life."
Obviously I don't hate babies! I'm pretty wild about my own kid, and small humans in general.
This anti-life charge is more interesting, but equally wrong. The premise seems to be that those who wish to lower fertility rates must be misanthropic, or fail to see the value of humans. But that gets things exactly backwards: A radical concern for climate change is precisely motivated by a concern for human life – in particular, the human lives that will be affected by climate disruptions.
A valuable philosophical contribution here is the distinction between "making people happy" and "making happy people." When I feed a hungry person, or prevent a harm from befalling someone, I improve a person's well-being. But when I create a person whom I will then feed and prevent from harm, I make a person who will predictably be well off. In the first case, I added happiness to the world by helping an existing person; whereas in the second case, I added happiness by creating a person who will be happy. See the difference?
I, like many philosophers, believe that it's morally better to make people happy than to make happy people. Those who exist already have needs and wants, and protecting and providing for them is motivated by respect for human life. It is not a harm to someone not to be created.
In fact, I would argue that it is more "anti-life" to prioritize creating new life over caring for, or even not harming, those who already exist.

Can the economy grow with lower population growth?
Another opposing argument: People are not only consumers – they are also producers, and so will make the world better.
Yes, humans are producers, and many wonderful things have come from human genius. But each person, whatever else they are (genius or dunce, producer or drag on the economy) is also a consumer. And this is the only claim needed in order to be worried about climate change.
The problem here is that we have a finite resource – the ability of the Earth's atmosphere to absorb greenhouse gases without violently disrupting the climate – and each additional person contributes to the total amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. So although humans will hopefully save us (we do, in fact, desperately need brilliant people to develop scaleable technology to remove carbon from the air, for instance), the solution to this cannot be to have as many babies as possible, with the hope that this raises our probability of solving the problem. Because each baby is also an emitter, whether a genius or not.
Lastly, there's the view that lowering fertility rates will kill the economy.
Several commenters point to low-fertility countries like Japan, Italy and Germany, and argue that problems experienced by such countries are proof that the "real" population crisis is our dropping fertility rate. We need more babies to grow into healthy young producers to keep our economic engine humming.
The truth in this objection is the following: An economy that requires infinite growth to be healthy will be harmed in a world of finite resources. But if it's true that our economies can't survive slowing or even reversing population growth, then we're in some trouble no matter what.
Why? It's simple logic that we cannot grow our population forever. We can either reflect now on how to protect our economy while working toward a sustainable population, or we can ignore the problem until nature forces it on us, perhaps violently and unexpectedly.
I'll conclude with one, final thought: I don't enjoy arguing for a small family ethic, or a population engineering scheme. Despite snide accusations to the contrary, I get no research funds or any other incentive for making this case. I'm arguing these points because I'm genuinely worried about the future of our planet, and the people who will inherit it, and I believe difficult yet civil discussion is the crucial first step to making that future one we won't be condemned for creating.

Links

• The ethics of climate change: what we owe people – and the rest of the planet
• The baby bonus failed to increase fertility - but we should still keep it
• Your MP doesn't 'believe' in climate change? Ask the tough questions
• Making the moral case on climate change ahead of Paris summit

Intelligence Director On Climate Change As “Underlying Meta-Driver Of Unpredictable Instability”

Center for Climate & Security -  Caitlin Werrell | Francesco Femia



Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, recently addressed the 2016 INSA & AFCEA Intelligence & National Security Summit. He spoke specifically to national intelligence during a time of transition between administrations, and how looking out at potential future failures and collapses over the coming decades, climate change will be "an underlying meta-driver of unpredictable instability."
Clapper's remarks covered the existing security landscape that will continue through to the next administration, regardless of who becomes Commander In Chief. He calls it "a world of unpredictable instability." From his remarks:

This upcoming transition will happen at a particularly, I think, difficult time as we're facing the most complex and diverse array of global threats that I've seen in my 53 years or so in the intelligence business. So we are living in what I've come to call a world of unpredictable instability, in which two-thirds of the nations around the world are at some risk of instability in the next few years.

The Intelligence Community spends a lot of time trying to predict where this "world of unpredictable instability" will lead to state failures and collapses, as well as trying to reduce uncertainty for decision-makers. Director Clapper continued:

Nearly everywhere, the IC can point out the potential for failures or collapses. We certainly can't anticipate the specifics, the when, where and how for our policymakers. This unpredictable instability has been a constant for certainly this administration and will be, I think, for the next one too no matter who our President is.

Despite the difficulty of predicting failure and collapse, Clapper pointed specifically to the role that climate change will play in this mix:

In the coming decades, an underlying meta-driver of unpredictable instability will be, I believe, climate change. Major population centers will compete for ever-diminishing food and water resources and governments will have an increasingly difficult time controlling their territories. And so because of all of these factors, after ISIL's gone, we can expect some other terrorist entity to arise and a cycle of extremism which will continue to control us for the foreseeable future. And by the way, our more traditional adversaries like Russia and China and Iran and North Korea will continue to challenge us.

Clapper expanded on this during the Q&A session where he was asked "How are we positioned to deal with impacts of such changes as climate and technology?"

Well, I alluded to that briefly in my remarks, and I do think climate change is going to be an underpinning for a lot of national security issues. The effect on climate, which drives so many things ‐‐ availability of basics like water and food, and other resources, which are increasingly going to become matters of conflict, and already are, between and among countries. And so this is going to give rise to national security insight that we'll need to understand this and hopefully help anticipate it. So I think climate change over time is going to have a (inaudible) effect on our national security picture.

Director Clapper highlighted that the Intelligence Community is a "pillar of stability" during elections and traditions between administrations. Decision-makers should heed their warning on climate change, now and throughout the coming decades. Otherwise, this world of "unpredictable instability" will get even more unpredictable, and more unstable.

Links

• U.S. Intel Chief: Climate Change Is Adding Fuel to the World's Extremist Fires
• Third annual Intelligence & National Security Summit
• Pentagon Report: U.S. Military Considers Climate Change a 'Threat Multiplier' That Could Exacerbate Terrorism
• Martin O'Malley's Link Between Climate Change and ISIS Isn't Crazy At All
• As Debate Goes On, the Military Prepares for Climate Change
• Worldwide Threat Assessment: Climate Magnifying Instability
• Climate in the U.S. 2014 National Intelligence Strategy
• Director of National Intelligence: Climate Change in the Worldwide Threat Assessment

Climate Change Authority's Move To Canberra Raises Independence Concerns

The Guardian - Michael Slezak

Exclusive: Department of Environment confirms agency's 'mid-September' move from Melbourne 'to improve operating efficiency'

The move comes after members David Karoly, left, and Clive Hamilton refused to endorse the Climate Change Authority's report. Photograph: Alan Porritt/AAP

The Climate Change Authority will be moved from Melbourne to Canberra within the next fortnight, putting its independence from government under the spotlight.
A spokesperson for the Department of Environment has confirmed the move in "mid-September" to Guardian Australia, and said it was being done "in order to improve its operating efficiency".
Guardian Australia understands none of the authority's staff, besides the chief executive, will stay with it after the move, which has been known about in relevant circles for some time.
The move has raised concerns it will bring the authority, which was set up in 2011 in Melbourne as an independent statutory agency, closer to government and limit its independence.
The Department of Environment spokesperson said the authority would continue to have "its own staff". But whether those staff would be on secondment from the department is not yet known.
Several people close to the authority warned that since the expert staff of the authority did much of the agency's work – including writing the reports that are directed and signed off by the board members – how close they were to government could affect the degree of independence it maintained.
Bernie Fraser, former chair of the Climate Change Authority and former chair of the Reserve Bank of Australia, told Guardian Australia that "the independence is one of the great features of bodies like the Climate Change Authority".
Fraser said the personnel – both the staff and the board – need to work to uphold the independence of the authority. He said when he was head of the authority, the staff were "tremendously impressive".
"Unfortunately that started to erode, after the change of government, and the talk of abolishing the authority – those good people thought the government isn't going to listen and is going to get rid of the authority at the first opportunity," Fraser said.
He said there was "something to" the concerns about independence if it was moved to Canberra, and particularly if the staffing turned out to be seconded from the department rather than hired independently.
Ian Chubb, a former member of the authority and the former chief scientist of Australia, said if the board was expert enough, then the independence of the staff shouldn't impact the independence of the authority itself.
"I don't think moving the secretariat to Canberra is moving the authority closer to government, other than literally," he told Guardian Australia. "There are lots of organisations in Canberra at arm's length from government. The independent board ought to have enough knowledge collectively not to let the wool get pulled over their eyes."
The Coalition attempted to abolish the Climate Change Authority in its last term in government but failed to get the legislation through the Senate, and continues to maintain its policy that it should be abolished.
In the Coalition's 2016-17 budget, the Climate Change Authority was provided with an operating budget from existing Department of Environment funds until the end of 2016 only.
The move follows a dispute between members of the authority over a report on whether Australia should have an emissions trading scheme, leading to two members releasing a "minority report" and receiving a sharp rebuke from the authority's chair, Wendy Craik.
Craik released a statement saying their report was "misleading". She said while it "purports to be a minority report to the authority's third and final report of its special review", it "was not released or endorsed by the authority, and has no status as an authority report".
Asked about whether the two dissenting members would continue on the board of the authority, a spokeswoman for the Climate Change Authority told Guardian Australia: "Whether the two members who wrote the dissenting report continue as members of the authority is a matter for them."
Both dissenting members, the economist Clive Hamilton and the climate scientist David Karoly, said they would not resign over the matter, and they didn't believe there were any grounds for them to be dismissed.
Fraser said he had read both the majority report and the minority report. "I thought the points in the minority point were very well made and deserve serious consideration, he told Guardian Australia.
Asked about the dispute and the future of the organisation, the environment and energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, said the disagreement was a matter for the authority but the government had no plans to commission any further reports from it.
The authority is still required to complete two more reports: a review of the carbon farming initiative legislation and a review of the national greenhouse and energy reporting legislation.

Links

• Climate Change Authority's plan is 'a dog's breakfast', say dissenting members
• 'We're not going anywhere,' say Climate Change Authority dissenters
• Australia needs two emissions trading schemes, Climate Change Authority says
• Climate authority split is no surprise – Australia has fought the same battle for 10 years
• Climate Change Authority splits over ETS report commissioned by Coalition
• Letter signed by 154 Australian experts demands climate policy match the science
• Coalition climate plan 'assumes emissions trading', says government modeller
• Malcolm Turnbull: Labor's climate targets will destroy Australia's bargaining power
• Why Coalition climate scare campaign is not credible and makes no sense