I realize this might seem unimportant to some, but I find many of those who are starting out on Linux run into this issue and hope this post, not only help verify what I've found, but also the new users who are attempting to sync both clocks.
Initially, like many Windows users, I began my journey with a dual boot system. The offset clocks conflict is a known issue between Windows and Linux because UTC is the Linux default and Windows is not. However, after leaving Windows behind I found my BIOS clock and system clock were continually offset, which bothered me.
I read up on the hwclock and datetimectl commands and synchronized my clocks, and still the Local time and RTC time were off. This led me to set rtc to 1 with the timedatectl set-local-rtc 1 to correct the issue between the two, but the returned warning began to both me.
"Warning: The system is configured to read the RTC time in the local time zone.
This mode can not be fully supported. It will create various problems
with time zone changes and daylight saving time adjustments. The RTC
time is never updated, it relies on external facilities to maintain it.
If at all possible, use RTC in UTC by calling
'timedatectl set-local-rtc 0'."
I began more thorough research on the matter, but every Linux tutorial I read on the subject stated I had synchronized my clocks correctly. So why were my hardware and system clocks off if that was the case? I was missing it some where, so I looked up what UTC time actually is. This is when the light bulb went on. Linux assumes the BIOS on any system is set to UTC, so depending on your timezone, the hardware clock in your BIOS will be offset depending on your relation to GMT. This means if you are on the east coast of the US your BIOS clock will be 4 hours ahead of your system time. If you are on the west coast your BIOS will be 7 hours ahead of your system clock.
Am I correct in my assessment of this issue? I realize this is truly nub territory, but it is something that has bugged me for awhile and felt posting a comment on such a trivial matter would receive some brutal dialog...