It’s six years since NIWA published their Report on the Review of NIWA’s ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series (pdf, 8.5 MB), the latest version of the national temperature record. It’s six years, too, since NIWA promised the people of New Zealand (in Parliament) they would publish the methodology in that report in a peer-reviewed journal. But they haven’t done so—maybe they aren’t too pleased with it.
Last year, three scientists associated with the NZ Climate Science Coalition published a peer-reviewed paper concluding the New Zealand temperature rise over the last hundred years was only 0.28°C, much lower than the last NIWA effort, which claimed it was 0.91°C. Though I notice just now when checking the NIWA website they’re claiming 0.92°C.
Kenneth Richard has just posted an article on the de Freitas et al. paper at NoTricksZone – h/t Maggy Wassilieff. He describes the paper thus:
According to scientists de Freitas, Dedekind, and Brill (2015), removing “contaminated data” from New Zealand’s nation-wide temperature record — and using updated measurement techniques rather than error-ridden outdated ones — reduces the long-term (1909 to 2009) New Zealand warming trend from today’s +0.91°C to +0.28°C, a 325% change.
NIWA still have made no reply to the de Freitas et al. paper. I’m sure they would have if they had disagreed with it; they obviously recognise its value.
If NIWA haven’t published their own methodology they can scarcely claim their method superior, as they did during the application for judicial review in 2012. It also means they cannot reasonably argue with the amount of long-term warming in New Zealand — 0.28°C. Regardless of the global warming hypothesis, science shows there’s been no significant warming in New Zealand.
Mr Richard concludes by putting the de Freitas et al. paper in a stunning global context:
A few days ago, a compilation of over 50 temperature graphs from peer-reviewed scientific papers revealed that large regions of the Earth have not been warming in recent decades, and that modern temperatures are still some of the coldest of the last 10,000 years. Apparently the nation of New Zealand can now be added to this list as a region where no significant changes in temperature have taken place within the last 150 years.
Views: 611
Richard C (NZ)
You can repeat whatever you like as often as you like, it won’t make pearls from anodised sheep droppings.
We know what the result of the experiment is. We released a lot of CO2 into the air and the temperatures went up. A lot. The ice is melting. A lot.
All you do is pick nits and chew gnats.
The so-called “warm periods”were internal variability, the evidence is there was NO global warming.
What evidence?
Andy.
If you were interested you’d look for evidence yourself. Not that you’d believe anything that challenged your silly anti-science religion.
Richard C (NZ)
Sea Ice. Here is the reality:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/its-the-ice-stupid/#more-8766
See how’s it’s disappearing?
Not that you’d believe anything that challenged your silly anti-science religion.
What anti-science religion?
Dennis, you claim that the concept of mean is irrelevant because some areas get warm and some cool. How is this different from the MWP which according to you is not “global” ?
Andy
In what context did I claim the concept of mean is irrelevant? Irrelevant to what?
You claimed I didn’t understand mean, that I am a moron and that I belong to an anti-science religious cult.
>”We know what the result of the experiment is.”
Yes, CO2 forcing theory is a BUST. It does NOT cause the TOA energy imbalance to “change” as posited. By IPCC definition – NO climate “change” this century, when atm CO2 levels are increasing at the highest rate in the industrial era. The latest record rate being naturally driven by El Nino, not by industrial growth which is flat.
>”We released a lot of CO2 into the air and the temperatures went up. A lot.”
Yes it did. But not this Century Dennis, only the CO2-forced model temperatures went up a lot (except for 3 of 114). Obviously no CO2-Temp cause-and-effect. Theoretical CO2 forcing is totally ineffective.
Correlation does not necessarily equate to causation. And there is no correlation between TOA energy balance and theoretical CO2 forcing anyway.
You will NEVER grasp this Dennis, no matter how many times I repeat it. It is beyond your comprehension.
>”Sea Ice. Here is the reality: [Link] See how’s it’s disappearing?”
Out of date. Only to 2015.
But what do you think 10.5 million square kilometers of SIE means Dennis?
That 10.5 “Wadhams” BTW.
>”That 10.5 “Wadhams” BTW.”
2012 got down to about 4 Wadhams. 2007 to about 4.8. 2016 only down to about 5 Wadhams.
EUMETSAT Arctic SIE
http://osisaf.met.no/quicklooks/sie_graphs/nh/en/osisaf_nh_iceextent_daily_2016.png
Both 2012 and 2016 (2) were subject to Arctic storms i.e. wind dispersal. As soon as cold returned this year SIE hiked up about 1.5 Wadhams.
Dennis,
You’re absolutely right, there is a massive consensus amongst all the scientists – sorry my mistake. The Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences agree with the empirical data in the IPCC as well:
‘The most noticeable differences are in the tropical troposphere, where MODELS CURRENTLY SHOW MORE WARMING THAN HAS BEEN OBSERVED’.
source: chapter 5, page 8, http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf
Now, what was it that the IPCC said was evidence of positive feedback from water vapour again?:
‘Under such a response, for uniform warming, the largest fractional change in water vapour, and thus the largest contribution to the feedback, occurs in the upper troposphere. In addition, GCMs find ENHANCED WARMING IN THE TROPICAL UPPER TROPOSPHERE, due to changes in the lapse rate (see Section 9.4.4)’.
source: Box 8.1, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html
Now that’s truly hilarious Dennis dear boy, you’re at odds with the IPCC, the Royal Society, & the US National Academy of Sciences! Now, which don’t you agree with, the IPCC’s definition of evidence of positive feedback from water vapour, or the IPCC’s empirical data that the Royal Society, & the US National Academy of Sciences agree with?
Take your time dear boy, don’t strain yourself – maybe you could quote the falsified theory again, see if that changes the empirical evidence.
>”You will NEVER grasp this Dennis, no matter how many times I repeat it. It is beyond your comprehension.”
Or your willingness to comprehend. I’m inclined to think the latter i.e. you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
@Richard C (NZ)
@Magoon
The RS and NAS consider CO2 to be the primary forcing and water vapour the dominant amplifying feedback.
That makes sense to me but then I am a sensible person.
One of you says CO2 is not important and the other says WV is not important. (In this context.)
So we’re living on Snowball Earth.
Or not.
Look out the window.
When I look out of my window, I see snow
But not snowballs
>”The RS and NAS consider CO2 to be the primary forcing and water vapour the dominant amplifying feedback.”
So what?
TOA energy balance hasn’t budged as posited. That’s the primary climate change criteria.
And from FofS:
Optical Optical depth is a measure of how opaque the atmosphere is to long-wave radiation, and so is a measure of the strength of the greenhouse effect. Miskolczi computed the optical depth from 1948 to 2008 using the measured CO2 content at Mauna Loa, Hawaii and the global average water vapour content from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. The resulting optical depth curve is a measure of the total greenhouse gases by effect over the last 61 years. The result is given below.
Optical Depth
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Optical%20Depth2008.jpg
The blue line of the graph shows the optical depth of the atmosphere with changing CO2 and water vapour content. The green line is the linear trend of this data which indicates an insignificant trend. The pink line is the effect of increasing CO2 with water vapour held constant. It shows a small upward trend. The difference of these trends is the negative water vapour feedback. The changing water vapour offsets almost all of the warming effect of CO2.
The results show that the total effective amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has not significantly increased over the last 60 years.
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/09/niwa-scientists-agree-de-freitas-climate-paper-streets-ahead/comment-page-2/#comment-1517435
This time, note the word EFFECTIVE.
Game over.
No empirical evidence of positive feedback from water vapour – IPCC, Royal Society, U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Professor Dennis – disagrees with IPCC, Royal Society, U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Big call disagreeing with the consensus there professor. That’s fine though if you can prove it – do you have any empirical data to support your stance dear boy? Do you disagree with the IPCC definition or the empirical data they published that the Royal Society and the NAS agree with? Psst – (motto voce) quoting the falsified theory isn’t empirical evidence.
‘In God we Trust, all others bring data’ – W. Edwards Deming
>”Optical Depth” [tau CO2 % Water]
I would add that a linear trend through tau doesn’t represent the data anyway. There is no linear characteristic in tau. Probably more like a couple of concave curves – 1948 to 1990 and 1990 to 2008.
Dennis
“maybe you could quote the falsified theory again, see if that changes the empirical evidence” – Magoo.
Too funny.
@Dennis,
You say this so often I had become inured to it. But you’ve provided no evidence for it. I think you should because I think you cannot. If you can, I’ll have to change my mind. Not such a big thing, I do it all the time. Toast for breakfast, no, porridge, no, bacon and eggs, look at that, it’s lunchtime. But stop simply asserting whatever you like; cite the science. Thanks.
@Dennis,
I agree that the concept of a mean global temperature is empty, its only use to show whether the earth is warming or cooling. But please justify your repeated statement that Bob Carter ‘abandoned science,’ as I can’t imagine why you think so.
THE STABLE STATIONARY VALUE OF THE EARTH’S GLOBAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC PLANCK-WEIGHTED GREENHOUSE-GAS OPTICAL THICKNESS
Ferenc M. Miskolczi (2010)
ABSTRACT
By the line-by-line method, a computer program is used to analyze Earth atmospheric radiosonde data from hundreds of weather balloon observations. In terms of a quasi-all-sky protocol, fundamental infrared atmospheric radiative flux components are calculated: at the top boundary, the outgoing long wave radiation, the surface transmitted radiation, and the upward atmospheric emittance; at the
bottom boundary, the downward atmospheric emittance. The partition of the outgoing long wave radiation into upward atmospheric emittance and surface transmitted radiation components is based on the accurate computation of the true greenhouse-gas optical thickness for the radiosonde data. New relationships among the flux components have been found and are used to construct a quasi-allsky
model of the earth’s atmospheric energy transfer process. In the 1948-2008 time period the global average annual mean true greenhouse-gas optical thickness is found to be time-stationary. Simulated radiative no-feedback effects of measured actual CO2 change over the 61 years were calculated and found to be of magnitude easily detectable by the empirical data and analytical methods used.
The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
# # #
This paper was of course pre-bunked before it was even written. As was his preceding 2007 paper.
And because 2010 was published in E&E it is of no account anyway. “Fossil Fuel Fingerprints” apparently.
When Dennis means “abandon science”, he probably means “didn’t become one of the prostitutes offering their services to the climate change industry”
I’m not releasing personal emails with Bob Carter on this site. He sincerely believed he was the messiah; everybody else had abandoned science. Some of what he said was so silly even I was taken aback. He died three or so weeks later, so perhaps he was already ill.
Anyone who hasn’t seen seen various graphs showing the temperature soaring then is not so much blinkered as blind.
I am quite happy to follow the Royal Society and National Academy of Sciences. I know all the bones Magoon and Richard C pick over have been well and truly debunked by experts.
Why does no climate scientist debate with weirdos?
Oh I know. It’s all part of the grand conspiracy to impose a new world order. Where scientists rule.
Yippee.
Dennis has emails, shouldn’t these be deleted ? I’m sure someone in the DNC can help
I think the main reason I don’t trust mainstream climate science is because its proponents are all so uniformly obnoxious
>”I know all the bones Magoon and Richard C pick over have been well and truly debunked by experts.”
Appears you are not able to distinguish between theory (using the term loosely) and real-world stuff Dennis.
And would you be so kind as to present said “debunked by experts” stuff rather than just wave your hands around like Marcel Marceau?
We are forever being bombarded by all the anthro theory tripe but never the observations in respect to critical theory. James Renwick cannot even get the cumulative energy generated by theory right. IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution skipped critical TOA theory vs observations and went straight to surface temperature – a secondary consideration that can only be an issue AFTER the TOA hurdle has been successfully cleared by anthro theory (it wasn’t) but Chapter 10 didn’t even address the TOA issue.
If WMGHG forcing theory doesn’t clear the TOA hurdle, surface temperature is moot in terms of WMGHG forcing theory.
And the IPCC threw out ‘surface forcing’ in AR4 so the surface imbalance observations don’t get addressed either. Yes presented, no not addressed in terms of attribution. IPCC surface attribution (OHC) is merely speculation.
Where does WMGHG forcing fit between surface imbalance (0.6 W.m-2) and TOA imbalance (0.6 W.m-2)?
It doesn’t obviously i.e. theoretical WMGHG forcing is completely ineffective. Any theoretical enhanced greenhouse effect (eGHE) has not materialized in reality
‘UAH Global Temperature Update for September 2016: +0.44 deg. C’
October 3rd, 2016
September Temperature Unchanged from August
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 21 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
[…]
2016 02 +0.83 +1.17 +0.50 +0.99
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.09
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.94
2016 05 +0.55 +0.65 +0.44 +0.72
2016 06 +0.34 +0.51 +0.17 +0.38
2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.30 +0.48
2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.32 +0.50
2016 09 +0.44 +0.50 +0.39 +0.37
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2016-0-44-deg-c/
# # #
NHEM and TROPICS are exactly the same as June (08). SHEM is up +0.22 since June. GISTEMP had an Antarctic and southern sub-polar spike last month (August). Seems to have been the factor this month (September) in UAH. Will be interesting now to see the GISTEMP Zonal Means for September when they come out
Thing is: What happens when the Antarctic spike dissipates as the Arctic spike did?
UAH
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2016_v6.gif
What I’m getting at is, follow the red running average for 1998 vs 2016. The September +0.44 anomaly is only just below the red line peak and there is still some downside to go. +0.44 is only 0.24 above 2014, 2005 and 2002 and 0.3 above 2013. +0.2 is pause/hiatus territory again.
Next 2 or 3 years are going to be very interesting in this respect.
>”We are forever being bombarded by all the anthro theory tripe but never the observations in respect to critical theory”
Not critical but where on NIWA’s website (or MFE) is their IPCC-based regional “projections” plotted against any of their observational datasets – VCS, 7SS, or 11SS?
Or sea level observations vs predictions?
Nowhere. Always separate never together. This should be real-time monthly updates so the public can track projection vs actual. Elsewhere, this is a corporate matter-of-course.
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): Budget vs. actual. Planning vs. actual. Forecasts vs actual.
Why are the climate forecasters so adverse to this?
Is it because they don’t want the public scrutiny?
They’re just not confident in their predictions i.e. they are worthless?
Or is it just that they know they are on a loser so there’s no way they’re going there?
Satellite measurements are not surface temperatures. Says the man himself.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203356
It’s going to get warmer and warmer and the fools are not going to keep denying it.
Taking the Fingerprints of Global Sea Level Rise. Jerry Mitrovica, Harvard University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD3-XCJATTU
“Jerry Mitrovica: Current Sea Level Rise is Anomalous. We’ve Seen Nothing Like it for the Last 10,000 Years”
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
RSS shows warming trend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MISe_8RAUsw
Prof J Kroth: The Coming Disaster – November 17, 2015
Well the sea level rise guys seem to have achieved their goals.
It is becoming very hard if not impossible to rebuild a house on the coast in Christchurch now.
Mind you, sea levels have risen to a catastphophic 1.9mm a year from a modest 1.9mm a year 100 years ago, and all the experts are predicting this to treble overnight and then rapidly accelerate after that.
>”‘all the experts are predicting this to treble overnight”
Probably explains why we don’t see predictions plotted against observations on the MfE and NIWA websites.
They’d be laughed out of town.
Environment Commissioner Dr Jan Wright’s SLR prediction applied to Wellington:
Wright SLR prediction vs PSMSL Wellington
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/pics/pce-wgtn-sl-1945-2014-wright-projection-1505.png
The base should be 1990 according to the IPCC but Wright didn’t stipulate that for some inexplicable reason..
>”RSS shows warming trend.”
Toggle to ‘Recent’ and not so much
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.short.png
Don’t get fizzed up about the last little uptick Dennis. It’s just a transient spike in the Antarctic. It will be gone soon like the Arctic spike.
>”‘all the experts are predicting this to treble overnight”
Of course they are not actually saying that explicitly, but by fitting a second order polynomial to the 0.4 and 1.0 metre sea level assumptions, this is what you get.
From Stuff:
Victoria University recently released this underwater image showing Wellington at 2C warmer than pre-industrial levels. The latest science says that by the year 2100, the sea level is projected to be as much as 1.5 metres higher than it is now.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/c/o/r/e/t/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620×349.1elja1.png/1475645793718.jpg
Scary.
Bennett in the article
“A significant benefit of the Government ratifying early is that it guarantees New Zealand a seat at the decision-making table on matters that affect the Paris Agreement at the next United Nations climate change meeting in Marrakesh in November.”
At which there will be more Trade and Industry wonks than Environment wonks, as usual.
Have you watched the video?
Taking the Fingerprints of Global Sea Level Rise. Jerry Mitrovica, Harvard University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD3-XCJATTU
“Jerry Mitrovica: Current Sea Level Rise is Anomalous. We’ve Seen Nothing Like it for the Last 10,000 Years”
SLR has been accelerating. Fact.
Richard C (NZ)
Every month is warmer. Every year is warmer.
It’s getting warmer.
With more CO2. And CH4. (And water vapour (dear boy)
>”Richard C (NZ) Every month is warmer. Every year is warmer. It’s getting warmer.”
WARMER WARMER WARMER ……….Stamps foot petulently.
‘Is anthropogenic sea level fingerprint already detectable in the Pacific Ocean?’
H Palanisamy, B Meyssignac, A Cazenave and T Delcroix (2015)
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084024
No.
WARMER WARMER WARMER ……….Stamps foot petulently.
DENIER!
(petulantly)
>”Every month is warmer. Every year is warmer. It’s getting warmer.”
‘Record low temps in New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Labrador and Prince Edward Island’
https://iceagenow.info/record-low-temps-new-brunswick-newfoundland-labrador-pei/
So fucking what? [Knock it off, Dennis, or I’ll knock you off. Stop behaving like an idiot, and answer my questions. – RT]
FOOL!
Interesting off-topic dissection of the SA balackout:
SA Blackout: Three towers, six windfarms and 12 seconds to disaster
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/10/sa-blackout-three-towers-six-windfarms-and-12-seconds/
DENIER SITE!
Watch the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MISe_8RAUsw
Prof J Kroth: The Coming Disaster – November 17, 2015
SLR has been accelerating. Fact.
Local research suggests otherwise
https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/handle/10523/628
New Zealand drops to 20C below freezing
June 23 2015
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/69617329/new-zealand-drops-to-22c-below-freezing
Auckland’s temperature plummets to record 64-year low
12 Jul 2015
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/auckland-s-temperature-plummets-to-record-64-year-low-q01177
Have you watched the video?
I started but the sound is terrible and it is over an hour long.
Adelaide wakes to its coldest August morning in 126 years
4 Aug 2014
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-04/adelaide-coldest-august-morning-126-years/5645414
Record low Perth and South West WA winter temperatures hit power bills
August 28, 2016
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/record-low-perth-and-south-west-wa-winter-temperatures-hit-power-bills/news-story/250d77bfca0e7ffebbf2c6544960cc96
‘Climate zealots exposed as the Arctic ice fails to melt away’
Written by Christopher Booker, Telegraph on October 4, 2016.
The Danish Meteorological Institute reports that Arctic sea ice has been refreezing at its fastest rate since daily records began in 1987.
I know it is only two weeks since I last reported on Arctic ice, but the latest news from that front is even more remarkable. My theme then was those sad climate activists who regularly venture into the polar regions because they have been fooled into thinking that the ice is vanishing but find it so thick that they have to be rushed back to safety. But this week’s focus is on those responsible for fooling them.
For nine years, two professors – Wieslaw Maslowski from California and Peter Wadhams from Cambridge – have been in the forefront of warning that, thanks to runaway global warming, the Arctic will soon be “ice-free”. Their every dire prediction has been eagerly reported by the warmist media, led by the BBC, In 2007 they said this would happen “by 2013”.
In July 2008 The Independent even devoted its entire front page to announcing that the ice could have gone by that September, only to find that it had by then begun a marked recovery. By 2012, when this dreadful event still hadn’t happened, Wadhams was making headlines by predicting that it would all be gone “by 2016” (only for its thickness to increase in 2013 and 2014 by 33 per cent). By June 2016, with Wadhams due to publish a book called Farewell To Ice, he was being quoted, under such headlines as “Arctic could be ice-free for first time in 100,000 years claims leading scientist”, again predicting that by this September it could have shrunk to “an area less than one million square kilometres” and by next year could be all gone.
So, with September now over, what happened? By Sept 10 the ice had reached its lowest extent, 4.1 million sq km, four times more than Wadhams predicted. But this was its earliest date of refreezing for 19 years. And what has happened since, is even more startling, The Danish Meteorological Institute reports that, since that date, it has been refreezing at its fastest rate since daily records began in 1987.
In a note for the Global Warming Policy Forum, Dr David Whitehouse, formerly science editor for the BBC website, shows how, ever since those scary predictions began in 2007, the trend of summer melting has been completely flat. Shouldn’t all those climate zealots be wondering whether Prof Wadhams is really the most reliable “leading scientist” they should be quoting on this particular story?
http://climatechangedispatch.com/climate-zealots-exposed-as-the-arctic-ice-fails-to-melt-away/
Top Environmentalists Aghast As Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ Turns Into A Green Dystopia!
http://climatechangedispatch.com/top-environmentalists-aghast-as-germanys-energiewende-turns-into-a-green-dystopia/
I count 33 SA windfarm transmission towers that were damaged. Looks like they went for low-cost option otherwise the already dodgy economics would blow out.
But they will have to pay now.And that wasn’t even an extreme storm. Doesn’t rate.
JoNova – Frequency hell
To give you some idea of how important frequency is and how fast it falls over, here’s a couple of paragraphs from the AEMO report. At the Heywood interconnector, the extreme frequency limits appear to be 4Hz for a “quarter of a second”:
This is the real story of dire problems with a wind dominated grid. Even if it was transmission towers that crashed the system, and even if the auto-shut-off stupidity could be managed away, that still leaves the grid very fragile because of the frequency dilemma. A stable grid needs “synchronous inertia” — big reliable turbines that drive at near constant speeds. Coal turbines are 600 tons and spin at 3000 rpm. That’s inertia.
A bit of a dilemma for TrustPower. They sold Snowtown, one of the Adelaide disasters, so that was a good move.But they want to use the proceeds for more wind projects:
‘Snowtown wind project sale likely to fund more Australian projects’
May 19, 2015
https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/snowtown-wind-project-sale-likely-fund-more-australian-projects-trustpower-b-172941
And so gung-ho and ebullient on wind they plan a company split:
‘Wind of change as Trustpower plans a split’
Dec 20, 2015
Chief executive Vince Hawksworth said the proposal had been under consideration for some months and reflected the potential it saw in the Australian renewable market.
“It is pretty clear the opportunity in Australia is going to be real,” he added.
Trustpower is already the biggest wind power generator in South Australia and has a significant pipeline across the Tasman.
Mr Hawksworth said there had been several positive recent signs regarding its Australian renewables policy, including a more supportive political climate towards clean energy under new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11563647
‘Trustpower split frees new entity to chase wind power, independent adviser says’
August 18, 2016
Trustpower’s plans to carve out its windfarms and renewable development pipeline into Tilt Renewables will give the new entity freedom to chase opportunities and should outweigh the cost of the transaction, according to an independent adviser’s report on the deal.
The Tauranga-based electricity generator and retailer released its scheme booklet on the transaction today, with directors unanimously backing a plan to create two separately listed companies. Trustpower would keep the transtasman generation assets while Tilt will get the wind projects that are either in development or planning stages and are situated mainly in Australia.
Shareholders will vote on the proposal on September 9 in Tauranga, and if the resolutions are passed, will receive one share in each of the companies for every existing share they own in a court-approved scheme of arrangement. The companies would then start trading on the ASX and NZX in October.
https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/trustpower-split-frees-new-entity-chase-wind-power-independent-adviser-says-b-193116
# # #
Then just after the shareholder vote, fate dealt a blow.
What now?
Dennis,
‘DENIER SITE!’
Coming from you, who denies the empirical data published by the IPCC, data that is also accepted by the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences, I’d say you’re hardly in a position to be calling anyone a denier dear boy.
Now dear boy, you still haven’t explained whether you disagree with the IPCC’s definition of positive feedback from water vapour, or the empirical evidence they’ve published that falsifies it. C’mon dear boy, if you believe in positive feedback from water vapour surely you must have some scientific data to base your beliefs on. Well dear boy, where is it?
‘In God we trust, all else bring data’.
>”Trustpower’s plans to carve out its windfarms and renewable development pipeline into Tilt Renewables”
Tilt Renewables Ltd
1389234D:NZ
NZX
Pending Listing
1389234D:NZ is pending listing
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/1389234D:NZ
Watch this space.
>”Watch this space”
Trustpower Limited Ordinary Shares (TPW)
TPW 28 $7.580 ▼-$0.020 / -0.26%
52 Week Change: ▲$0.596 / 8.553%
30 day graph
https://www.nzx.com/markets/NZSX/securities/TPW
# # #
SA blackout was 28 Sep 2016. TPW dropped from 29 Sep to 6 Oct.
Eligible shareholders are to receive one share in each of Tilt Renewables and New Trustpower for every share held in Trustpower
$7.580 / 2 = $3.79 each
What will be the value the market places on New TPW and Tilt Renewables when trading begins?
I can’t see Tilt Renewables holding up at $3.79 after the SA debacle.
I suppose Trustpower might think that “Tilt Renewables” might go “Tilt up” or people might start “tilting at windmills”, so best keep the “Trust in Trustpower”.
Demerger of TrustPower Limited
Last date on which Trustpower Shares will trade on the NZX Main Board – 5pm on 11 October 2016
Intended date New Trustpower Shares begin trading on the NZX Main Board on a conditional settlement basis – 13 October 2016
Intended date Tilt Renewables Shares begin trading on the NZX Main Board on a conditional settlement basis and on ASX on a deferred settlement basis – 13 October 2016
https://www.trustpower.co.nz/~/media/files/demerger/trustpower%20demerger%20presentation.pdf
Thursday next week.
>so best keep the “Trust in Trustpower”.
Go with New TrustPower Andy. That’s where the hydro is. Don’t go tilting at Tilt. Their generators go off-grid in too much wind, stuff up the system frequency, their flimsy towers collapse, and they take down the system. In SA anyway.
It is going to be horrendously confusing. There’s a TPW company named Bay Energy Ltd (TPW160) that deals in TPW bonds. That is due to be renamed TrustPower.
New Truspower will get 89% of revenue from retail. Only 95 from generation. Only 2% from generation in Australia. Projected net profit before tax FY2016 $116.4 million.
Shows how much the NZ electricity consumer has been screwed since corporatisation of electricity distribution.
Retail was non-profit in the previous Power Boards. Management overhead cost minimal.
Should be – “Only [9%] from generation”
>”Shows how much the NZ electricity consumer has been screwed since corporatisation of electricity distribution. Retail was non-profit in the previous Power Boards. Management overhead cost minimal.”
New TrustPower retail is power broadband phone and gas so that’s a biy unfair. Don’t know what the profit breakdown of that is but I suspect retail power is the big earner.
>”Don’t know what the profit breakdown of that is but I suspect retail power is the big earner”
As an indication:
New Trustpower will provide electricity to around 280,000 homes and businesses, supply gas to around 31,500 customer connections and provide telephone and broadband services to around 65,000 customer connections
Watch the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MISe_8RAUsw
Prof J Kroth: The Coming Disaster – November 17, 2015
Psychologist explains your mental illness.
Die a Denier!
Psychologist explains your mental illness.
Oh Kay ….
Magoo
The science is quite clear to me. There is a lot to learn and the interactions make it complex but each piece fits together nicely. All points at global warming caused by more GHGs.
I must confess I haven’t even looked at your problem. Since you can’t persuade any of the scientists who write/edit/review the IPCC chapters I’m sure it’s all in your head. So not worth bothering about.
Psychologist says you are mentally ill:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MISe_8RAUsw
Sensible people all accept that the Earth is doomed and we all need to kill ourselves.
PS This is called “projection”
It’s funny how this guy talks about delusions and the Iraq war. he is correct to a point, but doesn’t take it far enough. The USA and the UK went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq (which were pre-planned before 9/11 ) based on the delusion that 18 or so pretty crap Cessna pilots managed to hijack 4 American passenger jets and crash them into buildings, which required several laws of physics to be broken in the process.
Yet, this delusion is the one promulgated by the US Govt and the mainstream media
The Russians played the “mental illness” card when they were pushing Lysenkoism
Sound familiar?
Tilt Renewables – financial summary and capital structure
Capital structure
Tilt Renewables has received legally binding commitments (subject to conditions precedent) from a syndicate of bank lenders to provide approximately A$715 million of new A$ and NZ$ bank facilities
Tilt Renewables will have approximately A$100 million of committed debt facilities available for future development, acquisitions or expansion of solar or wind assets, and A$15 million for working capital requirements
Tilt Renewables will announce its expected opening net debt position prior to its intended listing
https://www.trustpower.co.nz/~/media/files/demerger/trustpower%20demerger%20presentation.pdf
*************************************************************************************
Trustpower – Audited Historical Consolidated Financial Information
The tables below present the split of the FY2014, FY2015 and FY2016 Trustpower audited
consolidated financial statements into the New Trustpower Group and Tilt Renewables Group.
Note that the financial information below is presented in New Zealand dollars and prior to pro
forma adjustments (see page 8 for pro forma adjustments). Refer to the commentary on page 5
for details of how the audited Trustpower consolidated financial information was split into the two
groups.
Financial year ended 31 March 2016
$000s New Trustpower Tilt Renewables Trustpower
Income Statement
Electricity Revenue 806,274 127,621 933,895
Telecommunications Revenue 50,792 – 50,792
Gas Revenue 27,255 – 27,255
Other Operating Revenue 24,820 (222) 24,598
Operating Revenue 909,141 127,399 1,036,540
Line Costs (289,750) – (289,750)
Energy Costs1 (192,596) 48,833 (143,763)
Generation Production Costs (38,905) (29,988) (68,893)
Telecommunications Cost of Sales (38,188) – (38,188)
Gas Cost of Sales (20,000) – (20,000)
Other Operating Expenses (137,440) (9,492) (146,932)
Operating Expenses (716,879) 9,353 (707,526)
EBITDAF 192,262 136,752 329,014
Depreciation and Amortisation (42,546) (74,492) (117,038)
Net Financing Costs (43,671) (37,407) (81,078)
Other (11,842) 4,019 (7,823)
Profit Before Tax 94,203 28,872 123,075
Taxation (35,365) 2,135 (33,230)
Profit After Tax Attributable to Shareholders 58,838 31,007 89,845
Balance Sheet
Cash 7,642 5,702 13,344
Other Current Assets 117,843 29,300 147,143
Non-Current Assets 2,367,917 1,288,057 3,655,974
Total Assets 2,493,402 1,323,059 3,816,461
Current Bank Debt (180,200) (28,865) (209,065)
Current Retail Bonds (65,000) – (65,000)
Other Current Liabilities (102,298) (13,384) (115,682)
Bank Debt (104,591) (640,035) (744,626)
Retail Bonds (317,773) – (317,773)
Other Non-Current Liabilities (300,097) (175,574) (475,671)
Total Liabilities (1,069,959) (857,858) (1,927,817)
Net Assets 1,423,443 465,201 1,888,644
Equity 1,423,443 465,201 1,888,644
Appendix
Reconciliation of split of Trustpower audited consolidated financial statements to pro forma financial statements for New Trustpower
https://www.trustpower.co.nz/~/media/files/demerger/bonds/8%20pro%20forma%20historic%20information%20for%20fy2014%20fy2015%20and%20fy2016.pdf
# # #
Bank Debt: New TrustPower (104,591,000) vs Tilt Renewables (640,035,000)
Net Assets: New TrustPower 1,423,443,000 vs Tilt Renewables 465,201,000
Go figure
[Richard C, please stop posting long lists without proper sentences; they would take hours to digest. Just summarise them in your own words and leave a link to them. A list or table without clear columns is impossible to understand. It really must stop now. – RT]
Ah Dennis dear boy, you even openly admit to your willful ignorance. If you haven’t examined the empirical evidence how do you know there’s positive feedback from water vapour?
Why do the scientists need to rewrite the IPCC chapters for me? I’m quoting the IPCC and you’re the one ignoring them dear boy – why don’t you agree with them Dennis?
‘Mentally ill’ – calling people names or quoting falsified theory over & over won’t change the empirical evidence dear boy. Are the IPCC mentally ill because you disagree with them as well?
Delusion can be a dangerous thing dear boy – get some help before you hurt yourself or someone else.
>”Since you can’t persuade any of the scientists who write/edit/review the IPCC chapter”
You need to seperate write/edit from review Dennis:
John McLean’s Chapter 10 Expert Review comment 10-234
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/Ch10_WG1AR5SOD_RevCommResponses_Final.pdf
10-234 This claim is unsustainable. Downwelling radiation from CO2 penetrates only a few
microns at the ocean surface and rapidly disappears in evaporation and convection. Not only
is there no method by which anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions can cause dep ocean
warming, but also chapter 3 failed to describe any physical process by which heat could sink.
Remove the statement. [John McLean, Australia]
Response: Rejected. The assessment of chapter 3 shows robust evidence for ocean warming
and sea level rise from observations and section 10.4 shows robust evidence for this warming
being anthropogenic.
# # #
Except section 10.4 provides no physical proof.
Hence: Scientific Fraud by the IPCC.
It seems like a peculiarly American thing to refer to your opponents as mentally ill/deplorable/ etc.
It doesn’t seem like a great strategy for winning people over to your argument. Presumably that isn’t the purpose.
Andy,
‘The Russians played the “mental illness” card when they were pushing Lysenkoism
Sound familiar?’
Yes, it’s poor Dennis’ last stand as his lack of evidence leaves him with no alternative, just desperate name calling in lieu of any evidence.
Andy,
Yeah, nicely said. He just wants us to shut up, which means he doesn’t want to listen to us, so why he visits here is a mystery.
Magoo
The problem you have is the global community of scientists has declared man-made global warming/climate change due to our GHGs is a fact and the professional psychologists call those who deny it mentally ill.
I’m just following the facts.
Declaring a fact and being a fact are not one and the same Dennis.
The Vatican declared the Earth was flat and that was a fact.
@Dennis,
But not presenting any. Answer my questions.
>” A list or table without clear columns is impossible to understand”
Huh?
The columns were headed:
$000s New Trustpower Tilt Renewables Trustpower
What is not possible to understand about that?
Different lecture, better sound.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdY-ZezK7w
Sea level. Jerry Mitrovica, Harvard University
Don’t watch. Don’t learn. Don’t know.
@Dennis,
Yep. No argument there. Don’t know anyone who would argue with that. If you’re just looking for a fight, pick something we disagree on.
It is not a fact by the IPCC’s own definition, who use terms like “very likely”
If I say it is “very likely” that the plane you are travelling in will not crash, it is not then a correct statement to say “It is a fact that your plane will not crash”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
So the MMGW hypothesis is not a fact, as defined by Wikipedia
Andy. Watch the videos and stop yapping.
Book review of Popper’s “Conjectures and Refutations”
RC,
It’s nothing to do with the headings, or I would have mentioned the headings. Note that I said: “without clear columns.” You must have noticed, unless you have one amazing browser, that removing the spacing from columns of figures renders them gibberish. Please stop doing it.
Note that the headings on this particular table are nonsensical without the spacing. In apparent explanation, you’ve just written:
“$000s New Trustpower Tilt Renewables Trustpower”
But the difference between a word space and a new column is indistinguishable. Is this first heading “$000s”, “$000s New”, “$000s New Trustpower” or what? Of course, by now everyone has lost interest. So just summarise. Thanks.
I have watched most of the Mitrovica video on sea levels
However, due to my mental illness, I am unable to report on the conclusions and observations that I have made
Time is running out
We have only one month/ 4 weeks/30 days to stop irreversible climate change:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions?CMP=share_btn_fb
(Article dated 99 months ago )
Andy: “Time is running out”
Indeed it is but due to your mental illness you think it’s funny.
Dennis,
‘The problem you have is the global community of scientists has declared man-made global warming/climate change due to our GHGs is a fact and the professional psychologists call those who deny it mentally ill. I’m just following the facts.’
You won’t see me disagreeing with the global community of scientists, I agree with them – CO2 warms 1.2C per doubling of total atmospheric CO2 levels & has been warming the atmosphere. You’re the one denying either the IPCC’s definition of positive feedback from water vapour or their empirical data that falsifies it. Get some help dear boy, trolling won’t help to justify your deep seated doubts, it’ll only lead to more frustrated delusion as your cognitive dissonance clashes with the empirical data. Projecting your frustrated delusions onto others only makes the problem worse dear boy – embrace the IPCC’s empirical evidence, don’t you trust it?
I always thought the guy on the street corner ranting about a delusional doomsday with the sandwich board that says ‘The end is nigh’ was the one with the mental illness, not those who compare empirical evidence to theoretical prediction.
Indeed, the quote in the graphic at the top of this page sums it up well
RC,
So right. You should hear Bryan Leyland on the subject. Even better, I could ask him for a post, so I shall.
Magoof
Not only am I happy to share my delusions with — to all intents and purposes — all the climate scientists and their institutions and scientific societies on the planet, but I am relieved the governments of the world are also suffering the same delusion: Man-made global warming is real as predicted and the resulting climate change will be extraordinarily disruptive to human societies.
Naturally, just as I have changed my mind once, I could change it again. Should the theory be falsified. As you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You seem more concerned with definitions than reality.
So you talk in riddles, dear boy, because finding some inconsistency — real or imagined — in the great narrative, born of Fourier in 1824 and now brought to parturition by a vast array of scientists with impressive credentials and wide experience, publishing in pre-eminent journals, while you languish here receiving acclaim only from cranks, is your problem not mine.
You are like the creationist who demands to see the missing link, while those with more agile brains see the consilience.
But please feel free to make your comments as long and convoluted or tortured as you like. I don’t read them.
I note, however, that with your water vapour-is-weak theory and Richard C’s CO2-is-weak theory we would be on Snowball Earth, and we are not.
Are we.
It seems we are already over the 1.2C you mumble about on land, and we haven’t doubled the level of CO2 in the atmosphere yet, with about 90% of the “extra” energy retained by the eGHE ending up in the oceans.
Should the theory be falsified.
which it already has been, according to Richard C
Does he have a red clown nose to wear to Stockholm?
We don’t expect anyone to “disprove” the AGW conjecture, such as it is
There is too much invested in the narrative.
Eventually, the world will either warm, or it won’t
If the world cools, then the narrative will change a little, but no one will notice
Except nerds like us
The mistake that most people make is to assume that “climate change” has anything to do with science
Dennis is either a liar or seriously deluded
The IPCC lower limit for ECS is now 1.5 degrees C which is 0.3 degree higher than the theoretical “no feedback” value for CO2 forcing, under the that paradigm
There are several papers in this area with sensitivity in the low 1s
I don’t really care what the RS and “all the scientific institutions ” all agree on,
The facts speak for themselves as my illustrious colleagues here state on many occasions
By the way I am just reading a book called “SJWs always lie” by Vox Day
It is based on the Gamergate issue but has crossovers to the climate message.
It is quite an interesting perspective on the modus operandi and mindset of the politically correct Social Justice Warriors, of which climate activists are a sub-species
I agree that Gamergate has parallels with climate change debate but I suspect my interpretation is rather different from yours. Do you approve of the tactics employed by the Gamergate crowd on the individuals that were targeted?
I’m not that familiar with Gamergate so I can’t comment on the specifics
The book refers to a general Leftist takeover of the SciFi review community that shunned authors that didn’t fit the Leftist PC narrative.
I am more familiar with the SJW attacks on Sir Tim Hunt and Brendan Eich which are covered in the book, and I felt quite queasy about these both before I read the book.
Maybe Simon can fill me in on the details that I am oblivious to
Bear in mind that I am coloured by the view that “SJWs always lie”.
“Do you approve of the tactics….”
Sounds terribly SJW speak to me
Assumes a default moral high ground that I am somehow supposed to breach, without specifying anything
What is this madness, I fear
creeping through the blogosphere?
Is it something to do with CO2
turning our brains askew?
Or is it our denialism
of climate psychobabblism?
I’m not that familiar with Gamergate either but I always thought that it was about concerted online attacks on female game designers. Many of the tactics employed are not dissimilar to those aimed at certain prominent climate scientists.
Like I said, your take on these issues tend to be very different from mine. Hopefully we both agree though that there is a lot of unnecessary anger out there, on both sides. I also agree that the reaction to Sir Tim Hunt’s silly comments were over the top.
Tim Hunt’s comments. Not as silly as his naivety in saying them. (1) He married a girl in his lab. (2) He should have known it was much easier to be rid of an old white gentleman than an obstreperous black liar — whose CV was quietly removed from City University’s webpage (due to “inaccuracies”).
I completely agree
Crikey, stop the blog. Dennis, Simon and I are in agreement on something!
UnhingedGate
What is this madness I do hear
Creeping in the blogosphere
Spreading thinly like CO2
Sticking just like dog poo
To ExxonMobil their puppeteer
OK start the blog again, Dennis has re-entered retard mode
“OK start the blog again”
Bother. There I was, just reaching for the big red stop button — never been used, probably doesn’t work, but it does boast zero emissions.
On a serious note, I enjoy reading these conversations and I learn quite a lot without going overboard. Not that if I did I’d have any trouble swimming to safety. Sorry, I said I’d be serious. I mean to say that I’m not surprised when occasional points of agreement emerge. Pleased, certainly, as I’m sure we all are, but not a bit surprised. Lengthy, relatively well-informed discussions on almost any topic, even if contentious, would surely be impossible without occasionally stumbling over elements of common agreement. I’m reliably informed they provide the key to dissolving disagreement.
@Andy,
I feel indecently proud to know what SJW means. I learnt it recently from reading Dellers. I think I had to look it up but I’m still proud to be so modern I’m almost cool. It’s great to be me.
@Dennis,
You spoil (though cleverly) Maggy’s fine original work.
Now answer my questions.
RSS including September data.
TLT Trends (K/decade) from January 1978:
(-ve)0.008 South Polar
0.072 Southern Mid Latitudes
0.088 Southern Hemisphere
0.022 Tropics
0.181 Northern Hemisphere
0.191 Norhthern Mid Latitudes
0.342 North Polar
0.135 Global
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
From 2013 (‘Recent’):
Southern Mid Latitudes (dead flat trend)
Current anomaly less than several since early 2000s
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Southern%20Mid%20Latitudes_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.short.png
Data: Region = Southern Mid Latitudes
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Southern%20Mid%20Latitudes_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.txt
Northern Mid Latitudes (a fraction more than dead flat trend)
Current anomaly less than several since early 2000s
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Northern%20Mid%20Latitudes_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.short.png
Data: Region = Northern Mid Latitudes
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Northern%20Mid%20Latitudes_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.txt
# # #
Whatever warmer temperatures are not “global” and now confined to north of 60N. The “hiatus” has not changed in the Southern Hemisphere this century.
CO2 theory is a BUST at TOA and TLT.
>”Of course, by now everyone has lost interest. So just summarise. Thanks.”
Plenty of people with a vested interest in the TrustPower share split RT, either directly or indirectly e.g. fund investment in Infratil (maybe you too but you don’t know it, depending on investment funds)
Shares And Voting Rights – Company Stock Allotment- Trustpower
Major shareholders. Trustpower has around 315 million shares on issue on the New Zealand Stock Exchange (NZX). We have two cornerstone shareholders, Infratil Limited and TECT, plus over 12,000 small parcel shareholders and 12,000 bond holders. Infratil Limited: 51.1% of voting shares.
I get a payout from TECT every year and probably indirect investment in TPW too via fund, I have no idea from the fund.
As previous:
SA blackout was 28 Sep 2016. TPW dropped from 29 Sep to 6 Oct. 6 Oct price $7.580.
Eligible shareholders are to receive one share in each of Tilt Renewables and New Trustpower for every share held in Trustpower
$7.580 / 2 = $3.79 each
What will be the value the market places on New TPW and Tilt Renewables when trading begins?
I can’t see Tilt Renewables holding up at $3.79 after the SA debacle.
I’m guessing on Thursday this coming week we might get a small gain on New Truspower (i.e. price rise from $3.79) and a loss on Tilt Renewables (i.e. price fall from $3.79). Given the SA debacle (wind has been ordered to reduce generation) and the reversal of sentiment on wind power in Germany and that Tilt has a massive debt burdon over shaky assets, Tilt could plumment.
Watch the NSX on Thursday.