Daylight Changes in Moscow: February Hours, Sun Altitude, and Related Calendar Debates

No time to read?
Get a summary

In February, daylight hours at Moscow’s latitude will grow by a little over two hours, reaching 10 hours and 38 minutes. This marks a gain of about 4.5 minutes compared with last year, a change explained by the calendar’s leap-year adjustment and the extra day it brings, according to Lyudmila Koshman, head of the methodological support department at the Moscow Planetarium, speaking to TASS.

The Moscow Planetarium notes that by the end of January, daylight lasts 8 hours and 32 minutes. In February, this total rises further to 10 hours and 38 minutes. Additionally, the Sun’s noon altitude at Moscow’s latitude will climb from 17 degrees to 26 degrees, and the Sun will visit the signs of Capricorn through mid-February before moving into Aquarius. These shifts are a natural consequence of Earth’s orbit and the tilt of its axis, affecting how long the day feels and where the Sun sits in the sky at solar noon. (Source: Moscow Planetarium, as reported by the agency.)

For observers and anyone using optical instruments to study the Sun, the planetarium reminds that a proper protective filter is essential to shield the eyes from burns. Safe practice is to avoid direct solar viewing without certified solar filters, and to follow established guidelines when conducting any solar observations. (Attribution: Moscow Planetarium.)

Meanwhile, discussion continues in Russia’s legislature about calendar-related holidays. A proposal in the State Duma suggested making September 1 a day off. Lawmakers described this date as a real relay race for families, with parents preparing children for school and commuting to work on the same day. The idea reflects concerns about balancing educational rhythms with working life and the practical realities many families face at the start of the school year. (Attribution: State Duma proceedings.)

Elsewhere in historical discourse, some archaeologists have questioned the calendar role attributed to Stonehenge. They argue that certain calendar-related interpretations may reflect modern scientific frameworks rather than an accurate, singular ancient function. Such debates highlight how scholars continually reassess how ancient sites align with timekeeping and seasonal cycles. (Attribution: archaeological discourse.)

No time to read?
Get a summary
Previous Article

Oldest Players in the Russian Premier League Highlight Veteran Presence

Next Article

H2: Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza: ICRC Warning on Escalating Needs and Health System Strain