International
New Research Further Demonstrates Problems with Surface Temperature Records and Models
From Heartland Daily News
It is not just that the Earth has warmed less than biased temperature measurements indicate, it has also warmed less than climate models have said it should for the amount of CO2 humans have emitted into the atmosphere.
Climate Change Weekly has long detailed the severe problems with surface temperature records, driven largely by the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect compromising the integrity of the vast majority of temperature stations.
In two studies for The Heartland Institute, meteorologist Anthony Watts detailed the extent to which the surface station record in the United States is compromised by station siting that violates the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) own standards for the proper, unbiased, siting of surface stations. Watts’ initial 2009 study found that 89 percent of the surface stations in NOAA’s and the National Weather Service’s (NWS) system were poorly sited and biased. After the study, NOAA/NWS closed some of the most severely compromised, ridiculously sited stations highlighted in report. Indeed, NOAA had already recognized the problem and had prior to the first study’s release established the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), consisting of 137 climate observing stations with the best equipment, existing in stable locations unlikely to ever be compromised by nearby development. At the same time, however, NOAA also added thousands of previously unregulated stations established and maintained by others to its system.
The larger system provides more comprehensive coverage, but the vast majority of the stations are, unsurprisingly, poorly sited. As a result, Watts’ follow up survey of NOAA’s surface station network found 96 percent of the stations used to determine U.S. average temperatures are biased upward due to poor siting. The UHI has compromised them.
How bad is the problem? As explained in an article in The Epoch Times, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that “daytime temperatures in urban areas are 1–7 degrees Fahrenheit higher than temperatures in outlying areas, and nighttime temperatures are about 2–5 degrees Fahrenheit higher.” Whereas the temperature record from the USCRN indicates little or no temperature change during its 18 years of existence, the broader network supports claims that the U.S. is warming. By the way, as detailed in previous Climate Change Weekly posts, what’s true for the United States is also true for the global surface station network and, since 2015, for the ocean temperature measurement system. Both are biased by poor siting compromising the validity of the temperatures measured.
A new report from the Heritage Foundation by Roy Spencer, Ph.D., a long-time friend of The Heartland Institute, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and currently a visiting fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, looks at a slightly different problem with temperatures: the difference between measured warming and climate model temperature projections. It is not just that the Earth has warmed less than biased temperature measurements indicate, it has also warmed less than climate models have said it should for the amount of CO2 humans have emitted into the atmosphere.
Spencer’s research found recent warming is likely not due solely to human greenhouse gas emissions, and the warming experienced is substantially less than climate models have predicted—43 percent less, in fact. And that’s even when readings from the UHI-biased stations are included.
Spencer examined summertime temperature readings for 12 Corn Belt states in the United States. Each of the 36 models he compared to measured warming by surface stations, weather balloons, and global satellites overstated the amount of warming experienced, with most of the models off by 100 percent or more. (See the graphic, below)
Spencer is also working on a large-scale study to explain the discrepancy between urban and rural temperature stations globally, and how that plays into recent claims temperatures are setting all-time records. His preliminary data suggests measured warming is strongly correlated to population density. As cities grow, and populations increase and become more densely packed, temperatures in urban and suburban areas rise faster than in the surrounding countryside, once again confirming Watts’ conclusion that the temperature record is compromised by UHI.
If Watts’ and Spencer’s research are correct, not only do climate models “run too hot,” as even some of their proponents have been forced to admit, but the regularly reported surface station record is running too hot as well.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
The U.S. is reportedly planning to send troops and intelligence officers into Mexico to target drug cartels, former and current U.S. officials told NBC News Monday.
Training has reportedly already begun for such a mission, two current U.S. officials told NBC News, though no deployment to Mexico is imminent. The plan would deploy both U.S. military and CIA personnel on the ground in Mexico and include drone strikes on cartel targets, according to the report. If put into action, it would be a significant escalation in President Donald Trump’s ongoing campaign against Latin American drug cartels.
“The Trump administration is committed to utilizing an all-of-government approach to address the threats cartels pose to American citizens,” a senior administration official told NBC in response to the news.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
If the mission is approved, the administration reportedly plans to keep the operation secret and not publicize any strikes, unlike the video-documented attacks on cartel boats in the Caribbean and Pacific that Trump has highlighted in the past, according to the report.
The plan calls for drone strikes against drug labs in Mexico as well as top cartel leaders, the officials told NBC News, and is not intended to undermine the Mexican government.
The U.S. troops will reportedly mostly be Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) members, who operate under the authority of the intelligence community, two current officials told NBC News. Pat administrations have deployed the CIA to aid in missions against cartels from the Mexican government, but have never gotten involved directly as the reported plan prescribes.
The CIA and the White House did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Mark Simon
The APEC Summit in Korea last week marked a pivotal moment for U.S. trade policy, delivering tangible wins for American interests. Solid deals were struck with South Korea, while the U.S. and China de-escalated their long-simmering trade war—a clear positive for President Trump. In the chaotic world of Donald Trump, such normalcy disappointed the news media and foreign policy pundits, who grumbled that the event lacked the drama of a disaster.
Yet, as Trump departed Busan, a deeper transformation unfolded, largely overlooked by observers. In just two days, President Trump orchestrated the most significant shift in U.S. trade strategy since China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The real triumph? Widespread acceptance by Asian trading partners of U.S. tariffs as a cornerstone of a reimagined American economic model. This acceptance dismantles nearly a century of unwavering belief in low tariffs as the unassailable path to global prosperity.
Trump’s tariff approach disrupts the post-World War II global trading system, particularly the U.S.-championed free-trade orthodoxy embraced by both parties for over 50 years. By wielding tariffs effectively, Trump challenges the free-market gospel enshrined in the WTO and echoed by World Economic Forum elites and corporate-sponsored Washington think tanks like AEI and CATO, which decry tariffs as heresy.
At APEC, there was no fiery backlash—only quiet nods to moderate tariffs as fixtures in the evolving economic order. Leaders from across the Asia-Pacific assessed the tariffs’ impacts and moved forward without spectacle, signaling a pragmatic pivot toward Trump’s view of international commerce.
Historically, tariff reductions in Asia stemmed from U.S. pressure to open markets. Mercantilist instincts run deep in most Asian governments—except in freewheeling Hong Kong and Singapore. These nations, built on exports inside protected markets, grasp how tariffs can revitalize U.S. manufacturing and bolster federal revenue. Unlike America’s one-sided openness to Asian imports, Trump’s reciprocity feels like overdue fairness.
As a former free-market purist who once decried tariffs, I initially missed their nuance in Trump’s arsenal. Tariffs impose costs, but the genius lies in offsetting them strategically. Trump’s aggressive deregulation, sweeping tax reforms, and drive for rock-bottom domestic energy prices mitigate burdens and generate a net economic surge—one that Asian leaders implicitly endorsed.
This “internal free-market trio” forms the bedrock of the new U.S. paradigm: moderate tariffs generate revenue and incentivize factory repatriation; deregulation slashes red tape; tax cuts keep capital flowing competitively; and abundant, cheap energy undercuts foreign advantages.
Together, they magnetize global investment, upending a century of free-trade dogma. Energy dominance is key. Through promotion of domestic oil, gas, and renewables, Trump has driven U.S. energy costs 30–50% below those in Europe or much of Asia. For capital-intensive sectors like steel, semiconductors, and electric vehicles, this is structural superiority, not subsidy. Layer on the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act—slashing the corporate rate to 21% and allowing immediate capital expensing—and the math tilts toward U.S. production. Tariffs may raise import prices by 20–30%, but deregulation accelerates cost-cutting, while energy savings absorb part of the hit.
Critics claim tariffs ravaged the economy post-2018, but COVID-19, not tariffs, triggered the downturn. Trump’s initial round was a successful pilot, extended by Biden—yet without Trump’s deregulation and energy surge, the tariffs became un-offset weight. Blanket cost hikes under Biden stifled growth; Trump’s selective offsets ensure expansion.
America’s edge sharpens as rivals falter. Europe, shackled by leftist policies, environmental mandates, and the Ukraine quagmire, hemorrhages capital to the U.S. In North Asia—China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan—demographic headwinds make investments unappealing compared to North America’s burgeoning market. Aging populations and shrinking workforces amplify this disparity.
APEC underscored America as a vibrant, tariff-protected haven primed for onshoring. Amid Asia’s labor crunch, nations view the U.S. as an investment beacon, mirroring Japan’s model: a high-value exporter offloading low-end manufacturing while retaining competitiveness. Summit chatter revealed minimal tariff gripes. China voiced tepid concerns over escalations, but these seemed rhetorical—testing boundaries rather than igniting conflict.
To free-trade zealots, Trump’s heresy is demolishing sacred economic theory. Past protectionists erred by isolating tariffs without cost-lowering measures. Trump integrates them: selective duties paired with deregulation, technological leaps, and economic decentralization beyond urban centers.
In equilibrium, tariffs harvest revenue and reclaim jobs, capitalizing on America’s fiscal and regulatory advantages. Trump’s blueprint restores balance to free trade, honoring national sovereignty while exposing borderless markets’ perils. It proves moderated protectionism can ignite growth, spur innovation, and draw capital—heralding a bolder, self-reliant American century.
Mark Simon is former group director for Next Digital, parent company for Apple Daily, the leading pro-democracy newspaper in Hong Kong until it was forced to close in 2021.
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
In his own words: Stunning Climate Change pivot from Bill Gates. Poverty and disease should be top concern.
Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
The painful return of food inflation exposes Canada’s trade failures
-
International2 days agoBiden’s Autopen Orders declared “null and void”
-
MAiD2 days agoStudy promotes liver transplants from Canadian euthanasia victims
-
Business2 days agoCanada has given $109 million to Communist China for ‘sustainable development’ since 2015
-
Business2 days agoYou Won’t Believe What Canada’s Embassy in Brazil Has Been Up To
-
Crime1 day agoPublic Execution of Anti-Cartel Mayor in Michoacán Prompts U.S. Offer to Intervene Against Cartels
-
Automotive2 days agoCarney’s Budget Risks Another Costly EV Bet
-
Environment2 days ago
The era of Climate Change Alarmism is over
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoSenate Grills Meta and Google Over Biden Administration’s Role in COVID-Era Content Censorship