New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

As Earth's Spin Slows, Clocks Get Another Leap Second

The history of the leap second reveals a curious pattern of decreasing frequency since its adoption 43 years ago

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Due to a complex interplay of Earth’s and the moon’s gravitational fields, our planet’s rotation has gradually slowed over the millennia. It hasn’t been the designated length of one solar day—the time it takes Earth to make a full rotation, or slightly more than 86,400 seconds—since about 1820.

As a result, our global standard of time, known as Coordinated Universal Time, or UTC, occasionally becomes misaligned with UT1—the marker used to measure the actual length of one mean solar day. UT1 is determined using very long baseline interferometry (VLBI), a technique that relies on signals from extremely distant quasars to measure Earth’s precise orientation in space. In 1972 a policy to add a small unit of time, called a leap second, to UTC was implemented to correct the minute discrepancies found using such precise measurements.

For reasons that are not entirely clear to scientists, however, the rate at which Earth’s rotation slows is variable, so leap seconds must be added with unpredictable frequency. In the first few decades following the adoption of the leap second approach, UTC adjustments were made about once a year, but today’s leap second is only the fourth since 1999.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Amanda Montañez is senior graphics editor and been at Scientific American since 2015. She produces and art directs information graphics for the Scientific American website and print magazine. Montañez has a bachelor's degree in studio art from Smith College and a master's in biomedical communications from the University of Toronto. Before starting in journalism, she worked as a freelance medical illustrator. Follow her on Bluesky @unamandita.bsky.social

More by Amanda Montañez

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe