[LEAPSECS] What's the point?

Mark Calabretta mcalabre at atnf.csiro.au
Mon Feb 14 19:41:57 EST 2011

On Mon 2011/02/14 18:00:02 -0000, Tony Finch wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List <leapsecs at leapsecond.com>

>Rob frequently argues that we can't use a pure atomic timescale as the

>basis of civil time because of the quadratically increasing offset between

>UT1 and TAI. You yourself made the same argument in your previous message.


The quadratic calamity is one of the few concrete arguments given by
the proponents of dropping leap seconds (viz the GPS World article).
It continues to surface over a decade later.

I have been saying that, as a reason for changing UTC today, it is
a specious argument that should be rejected. The solution, in the
distant future when it does start to bite, will be to measure the
length of day properly - finally admit that there are more than 86400
SI seconds in it.

Mark Calabretta

More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list