Summer 2025 will have three of the shortest days on record
Our pale blue dot's daily rotation is normally equivalent to about 86,400 seconds — or 24 hours — but three days this summer will see as much as 1.51 milliseconds shaved off the clock, according to a report from Popular Mechanics.
The International Rotation and Reference Systems Service found that July 9, July 22, and Aug. 5 will be victims of the time-slicing, putting them among the shortest since 2020.
Scientists said these dates will be when the Moon is furthest from the equator which will impact the rate of the Earth's rotation, the report stated.
The shortest day recorded since 2020 was July 5, 2024, which was a full 1.66 milliseconds shorter than average — with experts unable to pin down the reason for the increased acceleration.
'Nobody expected this,' Leonic Zotov, Earth rotation expert from Moscow State University, told TimeandDate.com regarding the quickening trend.
'The cause of this acceleration is not explained. Most scientists believe it is something inside the Earth. Ocean and atmospheric models don't explain this huge acceleration,' Zotov added.
Earth's official timekeepers may need to take a first-ever drastic measure to keep up with the new pace — instating a 'negative leap second' in 2029, according to a study published in Nature last year.
'This is an unprecedented situation and a big deal,' study lead author and geophysicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California Duncan Agnew said at the time.
'It's not a huge change in the Earth's rotation that's going to lead to some catastrophe or anything, but it is something notable. It's yet another indication that we're in a very unusual time.'
Days on Earth have not always been 24-hours long, with rotations during the Bronze Age clocking in at roughly 23 hours.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
‘Catastrophic' reality exposed by terrifying nuclear simulation
A terrifying simulation has revealed the extent of devastation the world would suffer in the event of a nuclear war between two nations. The simulation comes as a warning at a time when the world stands closer to a nuclear war than ever before since the Cold War – and it could destroy the atmosphere and cause widespread famine, The Sun reported. With the advancement of technology and modern weaponry, a nuclear conflict in this day and age could be the deadliest of all in the history of mankind. We could see unparalleled levels of suffering, the displacement of millions, severe food insecurity, and disruption to essential services. It is predicted that in the event of a nuclear war between the US and Russia, an estimated 99 per cent of the population in both countries, as well as Europe and China, would die. Other attacks across the globe could result in catastrophic events – upending the structure of society completely. A new study by Pennsylvania State University simulated the effects a nuclear winter would have, and found a large-scale global nuclear war could inject 150 million tonnes of ash into the atmosphere. This could act as a catalyst to damage the protective layer of the atmosphere – the Ozone – as well as block sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. And this could in turn affect global food production and push millions of people into starvation. The simulation found that a nuclear war in such an event would last for almost a decade – causing widespread famine for those who survive the devastating bombings. The UV-B would peak between six and eight years after a nuclear war, and the global temperatures would sharply drop, stopping almost all agricultural activities. Scientists used corn – one of the most widely grown grains in the world – as their test subject and found that a wider nuclear war could lead to an 80 per cent drop in annual corn yields. 'We simulated corn production in 38,572 locations under the six nuclear war scenarios of increasing severity – with soot injections ranging from 4.5 million to 150 million tonnes,' plant scientist and meteorologist at Penn State, Yuning Shi, said. 'The blast and fireball of atomic explosions produce nitrogen oxides in the stratosphere. 'The presence of both nitrogen oxides and heating from absorptive soot could rapidly destroy ozone, increasing UV-B radiation levels at the Earth's surface. 'This would damage plant tissue and further limit global food production.' The simulations suggest that it could take between 7 and 12 years for global corn production to recover from nuclear winter. It is understood that most countries have contingency plans to prepare for the worst. Robust food circulation and modern logistics systems are at the top of the list to ensure essential items can reach people whenever there is a need. It all comes at a time when the world is increasingly witnessing more conflicts. Just a few months ago, India launched military strikes targeting what it claimed was terror infrastructure in Pakistan. Islamabad retaliated by launching its own wave of strikes against its arch-enemy New Delhi. While a ceasefire was soon agreed upon between both countries, an all-out conflict could have resulted in a nuclear war, experts feared. India as well as Pakistan are equipped with enough nuclear warheads to cause utter devastation in the region. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has also pushed the world into a dangerous place. Moscow has been preparing its citizens for a nuclear war with the West in the near future. Several media outlets in Moscow – part of President Vladimir Putin's propaganda machine – have been actively publishing articles discussing a nuclear armageddon between Russia and the West. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has said that the US is 'totally prepared' for a nuclear war following a slew of threats against America from the Kremlin. In an extraordinary escalation, the US President ordered that two nuclear submarines be positioned near Russia. The nuclear sabre-rattling comes after Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia's security council, made an ominous threat and warned that the US is taking drastic steps towards war with Moscow.
ABC News
5 days ago
- ABC News
US Antarctic science is under threat, and that could create a void for China and Russia to fill
Under one of the most successful treaties in the world, Antarctica has been dedicated to peace and science for more than 60 years. And for nations operating on the icy continent, science often equals influence. But what happens if the world leader in science there, is no longer world leader? Antarctica is not a battleground, but as the US cuts key science programs there are concerns a quiet shift in dominance in the region could begin. China and even Russia have increased their investment in the rapidly warming frozen continent. China now has five permanent research stations and plans for a sixth, and for the first time ever has overtaken the US in the number of research papers published in the past year. For the 60 Australian scientists aboard the RSV Nuyina icebreaker, which recently zigzagged through sea ice towards the Denman Glacier, their sense of being somewhere special was coupled with concerns about the future of global Antarctic research. "We know that we're in a region that is pristine and that we need to protect," Professor Delphine Lannuzel, program leader at the Australian Antarctic Program Partnership said. "The beauty of Antarctica is really it's often seen as the bottom of the world, but it's really the centre of the world. "It's one continent surrounded by an ocean that is connecting all the other oceans together." Their two-month marine voyage is now over and the scientists are back on land processing and analysing what they gathered, in the hope of shedding some light on why the Denman Glacier in East Antarctica is melting so fast, and what that means for Australia and the rest of the world. Their work, and that of other nations in Antarctica, is critical to what we know about climate change and what we do about it. The Antarctic's sea ice is shrinking and its ice shelves thinning. At a time when research from the continent is crucial, less is being produced. A study published through the University of the Arctic, involving scientists from Umea University in Sweden and the University of Tasmania, found that globally the number of Antarctic and Southern Ocean publications peaked in 2021, then fell every year to 2024. Matt King is one of the study authors and the director of the Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science. "I think you can tie the slowdown in outputs to an increase in costs of working in Antarctica, declines in budgets being made available to national Antarctic programmes and the universities," Professor King said. "And for those [countries] seeing reduced outputs ... it could be read as 'we're not taking Antarctica as seriously as we did in the past'." One of those countries seeing a decline in publications was Australia, along with the US, which has been overtaken by China as the leader in published papers for the first time. "A lot of nations are sort of going backwards just at a time when we really need to advance our understanding of Antarctica," Professor King said. In the US things could be about to get worse. The United States' Antarctic program is run by the National Science Foundation, whose funding is set to be cut by 55 per cent in the 2026 fiscal year under the Trump administration. There are also cuts being finalised for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which leads US Antarctic fisheries science, and the lease on the US icebreaker Nathaniel B. Palmer is also set to be terminated. There are serious concerns about what that means for science in Antarctica, but also, influence. Antarctica is governed by a treaty system, originally signed in 1959 by 12 countries, including Australia, to promote peace and science in the region. Today, 58 countries are party to the Antarctic Treaty System, but only 29 can make binding decisions. When it comes to the treaty, science is the true currency. Jeff McGee is a professor of international law at the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies. He said when Antarctic Treaty meetings occurred, the countries that did the most science and had the strongest Antarctic logistics generally had the most weight. Former US diplomat Evan Bloom said the US had historically been the biggest player — with the largest research station, the most scientists, the most tourists and often the largest investments. "With the US pulling back on science, it will have long-term implications for US leadership and influence when it comes to governance on the continent," Mr Bloom said. Professor McGee said if there were a dwindling of Antarctic science and logistics capacity from the US, other countries may try to fill the void. "The most obvious countries that might do that are countries like China and perhaps even Russia," he told 7.30. Russia has been increasing its presence in Antarctica, upgrading and reopening stations and building a runway. Both China and Russia are signatories to the treaty system, which has traditionally been seen as one of the most successful treaties in international law. But recently China and Russia have been accused of undermining conservation efforts in Antarctica, by blocking consensus on new marine parks and krill fisheries management. Some academics have also raised concerns about "dual use technologies" on the continent. "This is largely equipment relating to space research in Antarctica — telescopes and ground station receivers that can communicate with satellites," Professor McGee said. The Antarctic treaty prohibits military activity. Mr Bloom said dual use technologies needed to be watched. "But at the same time, China are, like Russia, conducting legitimate science in Antarctica and they have a right to conduct that, that science," he said. "So there are certainly areas where cooperation is possible, but it's also necessary when it comes to strategic rivals to keep an eye on what's going on in the national interests of countries like the US and Australia." 7.30 has contacted both the Chinese and Russian embassies. Previously, China has said there were no geopolitical motives behind its Antarctic expansion and that its operations were "purely for scientific purposes". Collaboration is key to Australia's engagement in Antarctica, and partnerships with a well-resourced US make field work and logistics easier. Professor McGee said if the US were to pull back and the void to be filled by China or Russia, Australia would be concerned. "We've worked very well with the Americans," he said. "They're a close partner of ours in Antarctica, both in a logistics and science sense and also a diplomatic sense. While the Trump administration hasn't made any official changes to Antarctic policy, Mr Bloom said the US recently sent a smaller-than-usual delegation to an Antarctic diplomatic meeting in Milan and contributed only a single paper. "There wasn't a lot of change in terms of the basics of Antarctic policy — support for science or support for marine protection or concern about issues related to tourism," Mr Bloom said. "But I think that's because it takes a long time, especially in the US, for a new administration to develop the details of its policy and developing Antarctic policy is not, I think, a real priority for the White House." He said that meant there was still a window for other countries to nudge the US in the right direction. "I think the Trump administration is not known for necessarily listening well to other countries, but I think that there are opportunities at this point to influence where it will land on a number of these policies. "So I think it's important for Australia and other friends of the US to be talking to their counterparts and through diplomatic channels to try to explain the important role the Antarctic Treaty plays now, not just with respect to science, but with respect to ensuring that the region continues to be peaceful." Watch 7.30, Mondays to Thursdays 7:30pm on ABC iview and ABC TV Do you know more about this story? Get in touch with 7.30 here.
The Advertiser
07-08-2025
- The Advertiser
Over half of US calories are from ultra-processed foods
Most Americans get more than half their calories from ultra-processed foods, those super-tasty, energy-dense foods typically full of sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, according to a new report. Nutrition research has shown for years that ultra-processed foods make up a big chunk of the US diet, especially for kids and teens. For the first time, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed those high levels of consumption, using dietary data collected from August 2021 to August 2023. Overall, about 55 per cent of total calories consumed by Americans age one and older came from ultra-processed foods during that period, according to the report. For adults, ultra-processed foods made up about 53 per cent of total calories consumed, but for kids through age 18, it was nearly 62 per cent. The top sources included burgers and sandwiches, sweet baked goods, savory snacks, pizza and sweetened drinks. Young children consumed fewer calories from ultra-processed foods than older kids, the report found. Adults 60 and older consumed fewer calories from those sources than younger adults. Low-income adults consumed more ultra-processed foods than those with higher incomes. The results were not surprising, said co-author Anne Williams, a CDC nutrition expert. What was surprising was that consumption of ultra-processed foods appeared to dip slightly over the past decade. Among adults, total calories from those sources fell from about 56 per cent in 2013-2014 and from nearly 66 per cent for kids in 2017-2018. Williams said she couldn't speculate about the reason for the decline or whether consumption of less processed foods increased. Concern over ultra-processed foods' health effects has been growing for years, but finding solutions has been difficult. Many studies have linked them to obesity, diabetes and heart disease, but they haven't been able to prove that the foods directly cause those chronic health problems. One small but influential study found that even when diets were matched for calories, sugar, fat, fibre and micronutrients, people consumed more calories and gained more weight when they ate ultra-processed foods than when they ate minimally processed foods. Research published this week in the journal Nature found that participants in a clinical trial lost twice as much weight when they ate minimally processed foods - such as pasta, chicken, fruits and vegetables - than ultra-processed foods. Part of the problem is simply defining ultra-processed foods. The new CDC report used the most common definition based on the four-tier Nova system developed by Brazilian researchers that classifies foods according to the amount of processing they undergo. Such foods tend to be "hyperpalatable, energy-dense, low in dietary fibre and contain little or no whole foods, while having high amounts of salt, sweeteners and unhealthy fats," the CDC report said. US health officials recently said there are concerns over whether current definitions "accurately capture" the range of foods that may affect health. The US Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department recently issued a request for information to develop a new, uniform definition of ultra-processed foods for products in the US food supply. Most Americans get more than half their calories from ultra-processed foods, those super-tasty, energy-dense foods typically full of sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, according to a new report. Nutrition research has shown for years that ultra-processed foods make up a big chunk of the US diet, especially for kids and teens. For the first time, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed those high levels of consumption, using dietary data collected from August 2021 to August 2023. Overall, about 55 per cent of total calories consumed by Americans age one and older came from ultra-processed foods during that period, according to the report. For adults, ultra-processed foods made up about 53 per cent of total calories consumed, but for kids through age 18, it was nearly 62 per cent. The top sources included burgers and sandwiches, sweet baked goods, savory snacks, pizza and sweetened drinks. Young children consumed fewer calories from ultra-processed foods than older kids, the report found. Adults 60 and older consumed fewer calories from those sources than younger adults. Low-income adults consumed more ultra-processed foods than those with higher incomes. The results were not surprising, said co-author Anne Williams, a CDC nutrition expert. What was surprising was that consumption of ultra-processed foods appeared to dip slightly over the past decade. Among adults, total calories from those sources fell from about 56 per cent in 2013-2014 and from nearly 66 per cent for kids in 2017-2018. Williams said she couldn't speculate about the reason for the decline or whether consumption of less processed foods increased. Concern over ultra-processed foods' health effects has been growing for years, but finding solutions has been difficult. Many studies have linked them to obesity, diabetes and heart disease, but they haven't been able to prove that the foods directly cause those chronic health problems. One small but influential study found that even when diets were matched for calories, sugar, fat, fibre and micronutrients, people consumed more calories and gained more weight when they ate ultra-processed foods than when they ate minimally processed foods. Research published this week in the journal Nature found that participants in a clinical trial lost twice as much weight when they ate minimally processed foods - such as pasta, chicken, fruits and vegetables - than ultra-processed foods. Part of the problem is simply defining ultra-processed foods. The new CDC report used the most common definition based on the four-tier Nova system developed by Brazilian researchers that classifies foods according to the amount of processing they undergo. Such foods tend to be "hyperpalatable, energy-dense, low in dietary fibre and contain little or no whole foods, while having high amounts of salt, sweeteners and unhealthy fats," the CDC report said. US health officials recently said there are concerns over whether current definitions "accurately capture" the range of foods that may affect health. The US Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department recently issued a request for information to develop a new, uniform definition of ultra-processed foods for products in the US food supply. Most Americans get more than half their calories from ultra-processed foods, those super-tasty, energy-dense foods typically full of sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, according to a new report. Nutrition research has shown for years that ultra-processed foods make up a big chunk of the US diet, especially for kids and teens. For the first time, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed those high levels of consumption, using dietary data collected from August 2021 to August 2023. Overall, about 55 per cent of total calories consumed by Americans age one and older came from ultra-processed foods during that period, according to the report. For adults, ultra-processed foods made up about 53 per cent of total calories consumed, but for kids through age 18, it was nearly 62 per cent. The top sources included burgers and sandwiches, sweet baked goods, savory snacks, pizza and sweetened drinks. Young children consumed fewer calories from ultra-processed foods than older kids, the report found. Adults 60 and older consumed fewer calories from those sources than younger adults. Low-income adults consumed more ultra-processed foods than those with higher incomes. The results were not surprising, said co-author Anne Williams, a CDC nutrition expert. What was surprising was that consumption of ultra-processed foods appeared to dip slightly over the past decade. Among adults, total calories from those sources fell from about 56 per cent in 2013-2014 and from nearly 66 per cent for kids in 2017-2018. Williams said she couldn't speculate about the reason for the decline or whether consumption of less processed foods increased. Concern over ultra-processed foods' health effects has been growing for years, but finding solutions has been difficult. Many studies have linked them to obesity, diabetes and heart disease, but they haven't been able to prove that the foods directly cause those chronic health problems. One small but influential study found that even when diets were matched for calories, sugar, fat, fibre and micronutrients, people consumed more calories and gained more weight when they ate ultra-processed foods than when they ate minimally processed foods. Research published this week in the journal Nature found that participants in a clinical trial lost twice as much weight when they ate minimally processed foods - such as pasta, chicken, fruits and vegetables - than ultra-processed foods. Part of the problem is simply defining ultra-processed foods. The new CDC report used the most common definition based on the four-tier Nova system developed by Brazilian researchers that classifies foods according to the amount of processing they undergo. Such foods tend to be "hyperpalatable, energy-dense, low in dietary fibre and contain little or no whole foods, while having high amounts of salt, sweeteners and unhealthy fats," the CDC report said. US health officials recently said there are concerns over whether current definitions "accurately capture" the range of foods that may affect health. The US Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department recently issued a request for information to develop a new, uniform definition of ultra-processed foods for products in the US food supply. Most Americans get more than half their calories from ultra-processed foods, those super-tasty, energy-dense foods typically full of sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, according to a new report. Nutrition research has shown for years that ultra-processed foods make up a big chunk of the US diet, especially for kids and teens. For the first time, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed those high levels of consumption, using dietary data collected from August 2021 to August 2023. Overall, about 55 per cent of total calories consumed by Americans age one and older came from ultra-processed foods during that period, according to the report. For adults, ultra-processed foods made up about 53 per cent of total calories consumed, but for kids through age 18, it was nearly 62 per cent. The top sources included burgers and sandwiches, sweet baked goods, savory snacks, pizza and sweetened drinks. Young children consumed fewer calories from ultra-processed foods than older kids, the report found. Adults 60 and older consumed fewer calories from those sources than younger adults. Low-income adults consumed more ultra-processed foods than those with higher incomes. The results were not surprising, said co-author Anne Williams, a CDC nutrition expert. What was surprising was that consumption of ultra-processed foods appeared to dip slightly over the past decade. Among adults, total calories from those sources fell from about 56 per cent in 2013-2014 and from nearly 66 per cent for kids in 2017-2018. Williams said she couldn't speculate about the reason for the decline or whether consumption of less processed foods increased. Concern over ultra-processed foods' health effects has been growing for years, but finding solutions has been difficult. Many studies have linked them to obesity, diabetes and heart disease, but they haven't been able to prove that the foods directly cause those chronic health problems. One small but influential study found that even when diets were matched for calories, sugar, fat, fibre and micronutrients, people consumed more calories and gained more weight when they ate ultra-processed foods than when they ate minimally processed foods. Research published this week in the journal Nature found that participants in a clinical trial lost twice as much weight when they ate minimally processed foods - such as pasta, chicken, fruits and vegetables - than ultra-processed foods. Part of the problem is simply defining ultra-processed foods. The new CDC report used the most common definition based on the four-tier Nova system developed by Brazilian researchers that classifies foods according to the amount of processing they undergo. Such foods tend to be "hyperpalatable, energy-dense, low in dietary fibre and contain little or no whole foods, while having high amounts of salt, sweeteners and unhealthy fats," the CDC report said. US health officials recently said there are concerns over whether current definitions "accurately capture" the range of foods that may affect health. The US Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department recently issued a request for information to develop a new, uniform definition of ultra-processed foods for products in the US food supply.
