The science of leap day

Feb 29, 2024

3 min

John Gizis


The arrival of a leap year brings with it myths, legends and superstitions about its origin. John Gizis, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Delaware, takes part in a Q&A to share the truth and science behind this “extra” day added to the Gregorian calendar every four years.


Why do we have leap day?

Unfortunately, the amount of time the earth takes to go around the sun is not exactly 365 days. It’s off by about ¼ of a day each year.


It would be hard to have a calendar for 365 ¼ days. When was the extra day added to the calendar?

Julius Caesar introduced the Julian calendar in 46 B.C., which added one extra day every four years. Of course, the year is not exactly 365 ¼ days either, so after a while, that extra time built up. Pope Gregory XIII established the Gregorian calendar [the current calendar] in 1582 to correct the fact that the calendar had gotten off by about 12 days, enough that it was noticeable.


How was it noticeable?

The seasons were gradually shifting, so that what we think of as summertime in the northern hemisphere had gradually become more like autumn. The shortest day of the year is Dec. 21. Basically, the shortest day of the year drifted and eventually was in early December.


How did they institute the reforms?

First, they skipped a couple of weeks, so they returned to the original calendar lining up with the sun and stars as it’s supposed to. Then they instituted a couple of rules to keep this from happening again. Leap year happens in years divisible by four, but every 100 years, there is not a leap year. However, every 400 years, you do have a leap year. This happened in the year 2000. And the next time it will happen most of us won’t be around — 2100 will not be a leap year.


What would happen if the extra day had not been introduced?

If we didn’t have it at all, we would be off by ¼ of a day every year. The seasons would completely shift through the calendar and anything that ties to the seasons would be affected, like farming. It would create havoc with the time to plant and to harvest crops, for example. You also would lose the meaning behind sayings such as “April showers bring May flowers.”


Multiply the 2,000 years since it was introduced by ¼ day per year, and that would be 500 days we would have shifted over history. In the northern hemisphere January would have become summer, then gone back to being winter, then shifted off again.


Does adding the extra day make up the difference exactly and keep the astral year in sync with the calendar year?

Yes, but this relates to a bigger issue. Astronomers want time to match up so that the positions of the stars match up year after year. Because the length of day changes slightly over time, astronomers sometimes would like to add an extra “leap second” to keep the stars in sync with our time system. But adding a second is an annoyance for computer and tech systems.


Did you know that people born on leap day are sometimes called “leaplings?” According to Google, in 2020, there were about 5 million people with Feb. 29 birthdays. Do you think they have any advantages or disadvantages to being born on this day?

No, I didn’t know that, and I know someone who refused to be induced on that day because she didn’t want confusion for her child, although I think it might be cool. After all, in this day and age, everyone always knows how old they are.


To set up an interview with Gizis, visit his profile and click on the contact button.

Connect with:
John Gizis

John Gizis

Professor, Physics and Astronomy

Prof. Gizis focuses his research on improving the understanding of stars and brown dwarfs (failed stars).

Brown Dwarfs and BinariesCool StarsStarsSolar SystemCosmology

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from University of Delaware

6 min

A look at raw milk's health risks and potential benefits as Trump administration hints at law changes

More than half of U.S. states allow the sale of raw milk directly from farms to consumers, a number that would likely increase if Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – a raw milk advocate – is confirmed to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Kali Kniel, a professor of microbial food safety at the University of Delaware, can discuss the dangers and potential benefits of drinking raw milk. Some have celebrated the legalization of raw milk around the country, claiming it tastes better and has some nutritional benefits. Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, one of the DHHS agencies Kennedy would lead, cautions against drinking raw milk, which comes directly from cows, sheep or goats and has been banned from being sold across state lines since the 1980s. Concerns regarding raw milk have been elevated as a deadly strain of bird flu is infecting dairy farms around the country. In the following Q&A, Kniel talks about the pathogens that may be present in raw milk, ways to communicate food safety to the public and other topics. Milk and other dairy products that sit on shelves at the grocery store are pasteurized. What does this process involve and why is it important for dairy products? Pasteurization of milk is a process of heating milk and passing it between heated stainless steel plates until it reaches 161 degrees Fahrenheit. It is held at that temperature for around 15 seconds before it is quickly cooled to 39 degrees Fahrenheit. This process is intended to kill the pathogenic bacteria that could make a person sick. How does this process affect milk’s quality and nutritional value? Scientific studies have shown that pasteurization does not significantly change the nutritional value of milk. Unpasteurized milk may have more vitamin C, which does not survive the pasteurization process, but milk is not considered a good source of vitamin C, as it contains less than 10% of the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), the average amount of nutrients it takes to meet a healthy person’s needs. There are no beneficial bacteria in raw milk. Milk (pasteurized or raw) is not a good source of probiotic or potentially beneficial bacteria, so for that consumers should choose yogurt and other fermented dairy products as well as other fermented products. Scientific studies using animal models have shown no difference in how calcium in raw milk and pasteurized milk is absorbed by the human body. Popularity in drinking raw milk is increasing, despite the U.S. Food and Drug Administration advising that it’s not safe to drink. What are the health risks that come with drinking raw milk? Raw milk may contain pathogenic bacteria, including Campylobacter, Salmonella, pathogenic types of E. coli, Listeria and Brucella, as well as the protozoan parasite Cryptosporidium. These are all zoonotic microbes, which means they can be transmitted from animals to humans. Often the animal does not appear ill, so it is not possible to determine if an ill animal is shedding these pathogens in its feces that can contaminate milk. Microbial testing of the finished product and environmental monitoring programs may be helpful, but do not guarantee that the raw milk is absent of these pathogens. Milk can be contaminated with these pathogens from direct contamination with feces or from environmental conditions. Cross-contamination from dairy workers can also happen, even when people are trying their best to reduce the risk of cross-contamination. The likelihood of a disease outbreak occurring associated with a person consuming raw milk is relatively high given that others may also be exposed. Unpasteurized milk will have a relatively short shelf life and may not be available for testing. Following good hygiene practices on the farm and during milking such as biosecurity around the farm, appropriately sanitizing equipment and monitoring the health of animals can reduce the chance of milk contamination, but not eliminate it. There have been numerous outbreaks of illness associated with raw milk as well as cheese made from raw milk. Persons most at risk of illness associated with drinking raw milk include children, in particular 5 years of age and under, individuals aged 65 and over, pregnant women and immunocompromised individuals. It should be noted that all outbreaks of illness associated with raw milk have included individuals under 19 years of age. Children may be most vulnerable, as they cannot voice an opinion on consumption and risk of raw milk if it is in their household. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collects data on foodborne disease outbreaks voluntarily reported by state, local or territorial health departments. According to the CDC from 2013 to 2018 there were 75 outbreaks of illness linked to raw milk consumption. These outbreaks include 675 illnesses and 98 hospitalizations. Most of these illnesses were caused by Campylobacter, shiga-toxigenic E. coli, or Salmonella. An increase in outbreaks has been correlated with changes in the availability of raw milk. For example, between 2009 and 2023, there were 25 documented outbreaks in the state of Utah, which has 16 raw milk retailers licensed by the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food. In all of these outbreaks, the raw milk was contaminated with the bacteria Campylobacter, which typically causes gastroenteritis symptoms like diarrhea and nausea, but may also cause chronic illness, including Guillain-Barré syndrome which can cause paralysis. How likely are these illnesses to happen from drinking raw milk? It is difficult to say. Foodborne illness is often underreported, depending on how severe people’s symptoms are. According to one study, only about 3.2% of the U.S. population drinks raw milk, while about 1.6% eats cheese made from raw milk. But compared with consumers of pasteurized dairy products, they are 840 times more likely to experience an illness and 45 times more likely to be hospitalized. The authors of this work used the CDC’s national reporting system to analyze data from 2009 to 2014. Despite health risks, why do some people still drink raw milk? Some people feel a nostalgic connection to raw milk, and others may feel that foods that are not treated with heat retain certain nutrients and enzymatic activity. I am not aware of any peer-reviewed rigorous scientific studies that indicate the nutritional benefits of consuming raw milk over time, given the risks of potential for illness, combined with a well balanced diet full of healthful food choices. It remains that raw milk is particularly risky for children to consume, as children can get sick from consuming fewer bacterial cells compared to adults. More than 900 cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza — the disease commonly known as bird flu — have been detected in dairy cattle across 16 states, and at least 40 people have been infected with the disease from close contact with dairy cows. Raw milk is being tested for the virus. With raw milk gaining interest among consumers, what are the possible consequences? Does it elevate the risk of bird flu spreading further to people? There remain clear risks of transmission of pathogenic bacteria through consumption of raw milk, and now with the potential for contamination of raw milk with avian influenza, it is even more important that consumers protect themselves by drinking pasteurized milk. The people most at risk right now are those involved with the milking process and in the handling of dairy cattle. So it is important that those individuals be aware of the risks and take appropriate precautions, including hand washing and wearing appropriate personal protective equipment like protective clothing, gloves, face shields and eye protection. As of December, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is requiring 13 states to share raw milk samples so the agency can test for bird flu viruses. How could this testing better help us understand the virus? I think it is very smart that USDA is leading the National Milk Testing Strategy, which will help us understand the extent of infected herds. Surveillance of microorganisms is an important way to assess risk so we can develop appropriate strategies to reduce and control these risks.

1 min

Los Angeles wildfires: Experts address health concerns and evacuation strategies

Major wildfires are once again raging in California, this time in Los Angeles County. According to news reports, they have so far been responsible for two deaths, 1,000 damaged structures and the evacuation of more than 30,000 residents. Experts from the University of Delaware's Disaster Research Center can comment on health impacts, evacuation strategies and how to manage pets and animals during disasters. Below are three of the Disaster Research Center core faculty and the topics they can discuss related to the current wildfires: Jennifer Horney, founding director of UD’s epidemiology program: Health impacts of disasters (mental and physical) as well as evacuation. Additionally, exposure to wildfire smoke which increases risk of respiratory infections; the scale of these fires during a very high period for these infectious diseases (flu, RSV, COVID) may also put pressure on public health and health care systems. Tricia Wachtendorf, co-director of the Disaster Research Center and professor of sociology and criminal justice: Disaster donations, social vulnerability and evacuation. Sarah DeYoung, associate professor of sociology and criminal justice: Pets and animals during evacuations.

1 min

Expert: Meta ditches fact checking, a major loss for the American people

Meta moving away from fact-checking towards a "community notes" model is the equivalent of crowd-sourcing truth, says the University of Delaware's Dannagal Young. This shift in policy is a victory for intuition, common sense and lived experience over data, expertise and evidence. It also stands as another example of media institutions acting preemptively to avoid political and economic fallout under the incoming administration. Young, director of UD's Center for Political Communication and professor of communication, can talk about epistemology (how people understand the world) and how it relates to populism and populist leaders like incoming President Donald Trump. Young can also discuss the following: • The contents of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's announcement video, in which he explains that recent elections mark a "cultural tipping point" in the direction of "free speech." "He's acknowledging that this policy change isn't a principled stance Meta is now taking, as much as a response to what he thinks the public is calling for (a dubious conclusion to draw from a narrow electoral victory)," Young said. • Zuckerberg's new stance, and how it will allow him to curry favor with the incoming administration because it allows Meta to avoid having to moderate Trump-friendly content. • Why content moderation and fact checking are expensive, and how moving away from that model is a "WIN-WIN-WIN for Meta: politically, culturally, and economically. And a LOSE LOSE LOSE for the American people: socially, culturally, and democratically," Young said.

View all posts