Month: July 2025

Tropical timings – Kepler’s ‘trigon’ motion of Jupiter and Saturn


At the time of publishing previous ‘tropical timings’ posts I hadn’t seen this classic effort from planetary theory pioneer Johannes Kepler, published over 400 years ago, so here it is. Let’s have a closer look.

He described a 40 conjunction model of the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn with the Sun in the diagram shown above. The position of each conjunction is numbered and linked to the next one (1 is mid-right, 2 lower left, 3 upper left, 4 next to 1 and so on), indicating a near triangular movement of the axis for every 3 conjunctions, which he called a trigon.

Our post linking those orbit periods to Earth’s rotating reference frame (link here) described how such a system works, with screenshot examples from Arnholm’s solar simulator (link here).

As noted before (see here), there are 15 solar barycentric orbits (SBO) every 179 years, or per 9 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions (ref. J. Blizard in that link).

This is the basis of the movement of both these planets and the Sun itself, sometimes described as a tri-lobed epitrochoid. A simple example might look like the animation here [credit: mathcurve.com].

The difference between that and the solar barycentric motion is that the SBO has all sorts of variations in length, time and relative position to the actual barycentre. These variations are mainly due to the combined effects of Jupiter and Saturn, but those of Uranus and Neptune also play a lesser part.

The Sun also returns to, or close to, the barycentre occasionally, typically at intervals of 9 J-S, or twice per 9 J-S (e.g. 7 and 2 J-S). Examples occur in 1632, 1811 and 1990 (179~ year intervals).

The ratio of the mean SBO to mean solar cycle length is very close to 13:14. However both have significant variations in individual period length.

In conclusion, Kepler looks about right as far as the diagram goes. It shows the need for three occurrences of its total period (i.e. 120 J-S conjunctions) to reach a whole number of solar barycentric orbits, since 1 trigon = 5 barycentric orbits (again, using mean values) and 40 J-S isn’t a whole number of trigons of 3 J-S each. Hence number 40 is next to number 3, for example. We can also note in 120 J-S that J = 201 orbits and S = 81 orbits (201-81=120), so this is the period when both planets exceed the imaginary 5:2 ratio (times 40 = 200:80) by exactly one orbit.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/uECleA4

July 10, 2025 at 09:19AM

ABC News’ Claim that Climate Change Is Causing Sleep Apnea Is Absurd

In a recent article titled “Climate change making it harder for us to sleep, study says,” ABC News claimed that climate change is now not just responsible for hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding—it’s also robbing us of our sleep. This evidence for this is at best scientifically flimsy and at worst flatly false. Data does not show that heat waves or nighttime temperatures are increasing globally in a way that would significantly disrupt human sleep patterns.

“If temperature keeps rising the way they project it to, the burden and prevalence of sleep apnea may double, increasing by 20-100%, depending on greenhouse gas emission reduction,” Bastien Lechat, the lead author of the study that ABC News based its story on, told the news service.

First, it’s important to note that a large portion of the measured temperature rise in cities is due to the well-known Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, not long-term climate change. Studies show that local temperatures, particularly nighttime temperatures, are elevated in urban areas because of concrete, asphalt, and heat retention from human activity. This effect can easily be mistaken for broader climate warming if not properly controlled for in studies. As noted by Climate Realism, the UHI effect significantly skews local temperature readings and has not been adequately accounted for in many of the studies used to bolster claims of increasing nighttime heat waves.

The article’s alarm about rising nighttime temperatures is further undermined by the fact that global average temperatures have risen by mere tenths of a degree over the past several decades. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), global nighttime minimum temperatures have increased by only about 0.15°C per decade since 1950. Even if this rate continued, the changes would be too small to create the sort of sweeping health crisis ABC is forecasting.

Most of the year is well below the extreme nighttime temperature pegged by the authors of the Nature study as leading to increasing incidences of sleep apnea. Winter nighttime lows could rise from 30℉ to even 50℉ and not have an impact. During the summer, average nighttime low temperatures across the U.S. and China, for example, even in July, are in the 60s and 70s. So temperatures there would have to rise regularly by more than 10 degrees, to meet or exceed 81.4℉ temperature cited in the study as problematic, but temperatures have only risen less than 2℉ since 1950. ABC missed this fact entirely.

Attributing the rise in sleep apnea to climate change is a medical misdiagnosis. The primary causes of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are well-known and have nothing to do with ambient temperatures. According to the Mayo Clinic, the main risk factors for sleep apnea include obesity, thick neck circumference, narrowed airways, family history, use of alcohol or sedatives, smoking, nasal congestion, and certain medical conditions such as high blood pressure. Nowhere in this list does “climate change” appear. And nowhere in the study does it indicate that it controlled for these known risk factors to tease out any additional suffering from warming.

Additionally, a systematic review in the journal Sleep Medicine Reviews confirmed that weight gain and anatomical factors are the dominant contributors to sleep apnea worldwide. It is simply not credible for ABC to suggest that a few tenths of a degree in nighttime temperature could double sleep apnea cases globally.

ABC also misses the mark when it tries to link restless nights to warmer temperatures. According to Harvard Medical School, the most common contributors to insomnia and poor sleep include stress, anxiety, depression, irregular sleep schedules, and lifestyle factors such as caffeine or alcohol use. Temperature can play a role, but as a relatively minor factor when compared to these well-documented causes.

Even studies that explore the relationship between temperature and sleep quality, including the one cited by ABC, acknowledge that the observed changes in sleep duration and quality are often minimal—sometimes amounting to a few minutes per night. These small statistical changes are hardly the public health emergency ABC is suggesting.

Furthermore, the claim that a 40 to 45 percent increase in sleep apnea episodes on hot days is contextually void. This claim, that ABC News pulled from the Nature Communications study, is based on comparing extreme heat days to cooler ones, but this does not establish a causal relationship over time. It also does not account for confounding variables like UHI effects, indoor climate control (air conditioning is common in most of the developed world), and individual health status.

On top of this, the article’s sweeping predictions rely heavily on speculative future warming scenarios, specifically the high-emission RCP8.5 pathway, which is now widely regarded by climate scientists as implausible. Basing health projections on worst-case emissions scenarios that climate science itself has walked back is scientifically suspect if not invalid.

Also, global access to air conditioning is increasing steadily, particularly in regions where warmer nighttime temperatures might otherwise cause discomfort. If temperature impacts sleep apnea, indoor air temperatures are what matters, not outdoor air, and with air conditioning indoor air can be controlled. A report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) highlights that the growing adoption of air conditioning will continue to mitigate heat-related health risks, including poor sleep. Ignoring this technological adaptation is yet another oversight in the ABC article.

To summarize: urban heat islands skew local temperature readings, medical literature firmly identifies lifestyle and anatomical factors as the primary causes of sleep apnea, and modern adaptation technologies like air conditioning can mitigate heat impacts. The global warming trend, when properly accounted for, is insufficient to explain any significant increase in sleep apnea cases or widespread sleep deprivation.

In the end, ABC has cobbled together a tenuous connection between climate change and a growing health concern—sleep apnea—while ignoring the substantial medical and social factors that contribute to the problem and technological factors that could mitigate or reduce it regardless of outside temperatures.

ABC News should be embarrassed by this piece that borders on the absurd. Climate change is causing sleep apnea. Really? Next, they’ll tell us climate change is making our toast burn in the morning.

Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.

Originally posted at ClimateREALISM


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/vSNd7T1

July 10, 2025 at 08:01AM

The economic imperative for nuclear power

The urgent need for reliable electricity.

via CFACT

https://ift.tt/odU1SVf

July 10, 2025 at 05:08AM

Winchcombe, Sudeley Castle DCNN 4978 – A case of Horrible History.

51.94800 1.95401 Met Office Assessed CIMO Class 4 Installed 1922,Temperature records from 1/3/2001

Winchcombe is a small Cotswold town with a railway station on the preserved Gloucester Warwickshire Steam Railway which has the very impressive Stanway Viaduct. Sudeley Castle itself is a Grade 1 listed Castle with extensive gardens that is now a major event centre and tourist attraction. These types of stately homes were often the sites of weather stations in the earlier days of modern meteorology and while the Met Office quotes a “start date” of 1922 there are records of a recording site here in the 19th century. It is the modern historic use of this site that is of concern.

The Met Office assesses this site as Class 4 (additional estimated uncertainty added by siting up to 2 °C) though this acknowledged “uncertainty” does not make them reticent to make this site a regular star performer in their Daily Extremes page as the regional and national hot spot.

Cheltenham is just two stops down the line and was the 1990 national record breaker of the 79 year standing 1911 record. The Montpelier Park manual reading was, however, highly questionable given the urban location and the packed audience for the concert taking place at the time.

To confirm the issues downgrading the site the 10 metre circled area for Class 3 below indicates the problems with tree growth to the south west of the screen acting as a wind break and creating shade problems.

Noting these trees, as ever, I consulted historic aerial imagery to see any changes over time particularly as the archived temperature records only started from the 1st March 2001. The image below is from 2003.

So no weather station at the current site and no trees either. Time to start searching…..yet again.

Again from deep in the archives that very few people would ever bother to examine, (after all why bother simply “trust” the Met Office) came this first note:

STATION HAD BEEN CLOSED FROM 31/12/1945 UNTIL REOPENING ON 01/03/2001

There is no explanation as to why this weather station had been “closed” and indeed exactly what “closed” means is somewhat obscure. Was the site taken away or was it just left there unused or what? This is very reminiscent of Faversham were the site stopped being regarded as a functioning unit in 1990 only to be “re-opened” in 1998. I assume these sites continue to exist but either nobody takes observations or if they do these observations are not recorded. All of this comes into question with the Wattisham/Wethersfield site example where otherwise unrecorded data was brought into use when convenient.

A further archive note revealed this even more confusing aspect.

2001-04-27 2009-04-01 SITE INFORMATION SITE WAS AT NGR 4031 2276 ELEV 109

This gives the coordinates of a different site suggesting operational dates from the beginning of the temperature archived period to the date when the station stopped giving manual observations. So what does the digital readings archive tell us? Despite giving coordinates of the current site (they always seem to do that despite the known former location) the manual readings stop on the 5th april 2009.

And then the next archived readings from the automated site start from 19th March 2010 presumably from the new location. NO overlap period data to verify correlation between the two sites exists. This is almost certainly because the very last thing the Met Office wanted was any evidence to demonstrate that they were in no way at all well correlated – the agenda to “prove” warming overrides all other considerations, scientific credibility just gets in the way.

So where was this former site? Well those given coordinates are very different to the current site but not fully detailed enough to get a precise identified location. UK National Grid Reference finder gives me this below when I round the eastings and northing to ending with an additional “00”

This equates to digital grid referencing of 51.946888 -1.9563069 but I cannot so far visually identify the old screen from available historic imagery – if anyone can find it within the likely local vicinity I would be very appreciative if they can let me know.

This is a summary of the situation. There was a very long standing (possibly Victorian) weather station at this site. This former manual reporting site was “closed down” between 31/12/1945 and ‘”reopened” as manual reporting presumably at the same site 1/3/2001. This site was then finally shuttered 5/4/2009. A new automatic site opened at a different location 18/3/2010 with no overlapping period data available to ascertain whether or not the two sites readings showed any correlation. There are no readily available public notes to indicate the changes. The new site appears to have had new trees planted close by on its installation that have subsequently degraded a generally poor site. A wide angle view indicates there was no shortage of space to adequately site a good quality weather station.

A near neighbour takes an interest in my work and often proof reads reviews for me. Initially he was sceptical of my work but as time has gone on he has objectively considered my posts and come around to my view. Reading this one and some recent works he asked me for that BBC report into increasing temperatures. where it stated “The number of days we see over 30C during summer has vastly increased in recent decades compared with the early 20th Century as a result of climate change.”

He commented “They {the Met Office} are just like kids playing with this aren’t they. They are getting kicks out of messing up the system to prove their phoney argument” I did not argue the point with him.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/L2C0TPX

July 10, 2025 at 04:11AM