![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The source for:
is http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf, page SPM-14. 2050 is read off fig 7b. I think that is worth doing, as AR5 has (or has attempted to) significantly improve its estimate over AR4 William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
hello user:Prokaryotes, you reverted my edits a few minutes ago. i was hoping we could discuss the reasoning behind this. GoGatorMeds ( talk) 17:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The whole section is speculative to begin with, but if we are going to tolerate speculation then we must do so in an WP:NPOV. Deletions without respecting that is contrary to our policy. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should reliably-sourced predictions of people debating predicted effects climate change be included in the article? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
As sea ice shrinks to record lows, Prof Peter Wadhams warns a 'global disaster' is now unfolding in northern latitudes http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice SaintAviator lets talk 23:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Skeptic2 has added a primary source and claims it shows "recovery" since 2012. The source itself makes no such claim, and it shows 2013 and 2014 sea ice extend nearly exactly identical (in fact, the lines indicating ice extend overlap and cross multiple times). This does not show a trend, and it certainly does not suggest (to anyone with basic scientific understanding) that "these predictions [of a nearly ice-free arctic in the 2030s] are too pessimistic". 2012 was an extreme outlier. 2013 and 2014 are reverting to the bleak "normality" of the downward trend. In other words, this edit introduces misleading WP:OR. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 15:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The article makes no mention of these figures. Consequently this article is entirely superficial. I am sure NASA has the figures hidden away someplace, so if any experts are able, please help make this article more real. 103.227.170.9 ( talk) 05:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Guys talk here. SaintAviator lets talk 05:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed:
because Screen says nothing about economic impacts, and does say the changes he finds from models are smaller than interannual variability; so that's SYN at best. http://billmoyers.com/2013/12/09/climate-change-opens-the-arctic-to-shipping-drilling-militarization/ doesn't say anything about "dramatically improve the economies", and the stuff ending "driving global growth well through the current century" just looks like it was made up William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
References
Screen 2013
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The part about wheat needs to go. The reference only mentions early settlers remarking that they couldn't plant wheat in permafrost. It doesn't necessarily follow that if the permafrost melted, they'd be able to grow wheat in Siberia. (For a start the precip in much of Siberia is far too low.) I've made a quick check of the literature for papers on the potential for expanding wheat production in Siberia with warming but came up empty. Of course the fact that I couldn't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist so if anyone knows otherwise please give pointers. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 04:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
P added a new section, called "Mechanism", as follows:
The heading is wrong, because this section is not discussing the mechanism of ice decline. Its addressing something quite different, whether there is an irreversible "tipping point". The paper underlying the press release (Till J. W. Wagner and Ian Eisenman, 2015: How Climate Model Complexity Influences Sea Ice Stability. J. Climate, 28, 3998–4014. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00654.1) may or may not be sensible, but its only just published William M. Connolley ( talk) 06:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
References
After removal the same nonsense was added again without any proper justification. I have no objection against the use of the source as such. However describing it as record is plain wrong and hence it has no place in the article in that form. Whoever wants to use the source, is responsible for doing so in an appropriate fashion and providing a correct description.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 03:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Prokaryotes:
Well arguing that record refers to recording volume doesn't change that picking "records" as the section title will appear rather misleading to many readers (and imho it that case the title should be singular as in (ice) record rather than the plural records).
In any case even independent of the section title William is also correct is pointing out it seems a like a somewhat random piece of recent and incomplete information added to the article that isn't really helpful nor is it really connected to the rest of the article. If you intend to have a meaningful "record" (as you indicate above), then you need at least some series of measurements over time (covering the last few decades for instance). But simply adding a simple recent data point without any reference frame and not really connected to the rest of the of the article text either is at best superfluous and at worst irritating or misleading. So all in all in this form it anything but an article improvement and the deletion was/is justified.
Having said that if you actually want to add the data for a times series over a sufficiently large interval then I don't think anybody has an objection. Note however that the graphic in the top right of the article already serves that purpose.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 12:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Prokaryotes:
I'm getting lost on what you are actually trying to achieve.
Now you seem to want list actual records rather the record of the ice development? Now if you include the real records that might justify the original section title. However I'm still what the purpose of the whole thing is supposed to and whether it actually will provide meaningful information to readers.
If you just want to update the article with the latest 2015 data, it seems a much better idea to me to replace the current graphic ending at 2013 with new ones that end at 2015 (something like this [11] for instance, note that the graphic is much more informative than listing one or few individual "record" figures").
If you want an actual record of the seas ice in text form in addition to existing graphics, then I'd say it needs to comprise at least 2 decades (better 3 or more).
If you want to list the 5 or 10 lowest amounts in a ranking, than that might justify your original section title, but in that case I'm not fully convinced of the usefulness of such a section. This article is about a decline or more generally a potential trend in a process, so data should come in form of a time series or an aggregation over several time spans. Having a few individual record figures however usually carries little meaningful information, so I don't quite see what is achieved by adding them to the article. On exception might be though if the lowest figures tend to cluster along the time line, that might a meanigful addition to the normal time series. Note that even the source you've originally quoted ( [12]) albeit using "4th lowest" as headline primarily deals with comparing the 2015 figure to an timespan average, how it places within a cluster and how its fits into a trend since 1996. Exactly those three things are the important/relevant content of that source rather than just "4th lowest" bit. Now if you want add any of those 3 aspects into the article I don't think there will be any objections, but note that this information is partially already contained in the article.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 16:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Arctic sea ice decline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
May be worth following up this source to update the dates in the article:
A study published Monday said if the world warms 7.2 degrees this century, the Arctic will likely have a three-month, ice-free period each summer by 2050. It would be a worst-case scenario never seen in recorded human history.
By the end of the century, the ice-free summer could jump to five months a year, the study said.
If there are no comments here I'll follow this up when I have time.
Robert Walker ( talk) 04:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It has been suggested to merge Arctic sea ice decline with Antarctic sea ice decline, and move this article to Sea ice decline. Google News offers currently 27,200 results for Antarctic sea ice decline vs 31,000 for Arctic sea ice decline. Google web search is 5.470.000 results for Arctic vs 1.460.000 for the Antarctic, and Google Scholar gives 89,900 results for the Antarctic vs 204,000 results for the Arctic region. While the Antarctic results often include the Arctic, it would make sense to merge these topics because they are often discussed together. I don't think the article would become too large with adding the south pole. Some recent related news, Sea Ice Extent Sinks to Record Lows at Both Poles (NASA 2017), or ..Antarctica's sea ice is at the lowest January levels since detailed observations began in 1979.. (CNN 2019).
Proposer's !vote
Other !votes and discussion
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
You link to me, so I guess I should respond. I didn't suggest merger, and I didn't necessarily suggest doing anything now. And I don't think you actually mean "merge" anyway. My suggestion was that when there was a reasonable weight of sources for Antarctic trends, then the existing Arctic sea ice decline could be moved to Sea ice decline and have the Antarctic stuff added. NAEG reasonably points out the existing Antarctic sea ice and Arctic ice pack (aside: why do they have different forms for their names? I hate that when it happens). Looking at those articles, it isn't even clear why there isn't just one Sea ice article, since both articles are fairly short (especially if you strip out the GW stuff, which really belongs in the _decline_ article(s). And oh, there is a sea ice article. It's all a bit of a mess William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Overall this article was good. it wasn't persuading its readers, all links work and most have up to date information on their sites, the images on the page are relevant, and follow the copyright regulations. The conversations on the talk page are all relevant to the problems in the article. TyBrown06 ( talk) 03:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
My edit removing the false claim that a paper proved that the Arctic region was at its warmest in 4000y was reverted.
Apparently some want to discuss whether a paper studying melt rates can be rewritten to be studying temperature and whether a small number of Canadain sites in the study correctly constitute "the region" , in an article about the Arctic as a whole.
Several edits combining any number of different edits some adding some removing do not help discussion. So keep it to one issue.
So does someone want to correctly surmise the contents of that paper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.218.206.61 ( talk) 16:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Just removed a reference to "ice caps" used synonymously with sea ice. An ice cap is a piece of land-ice that has outgrown its topography, but is not big enough to qualify as an ice sheet. Because it floats on the ocean, sea ice cannot form an ice cap, so this term should not be used in reference to it.
Al Gore has made this mistake in quotes within this article, but I think these instances should be left to stand.
Robbie Mallett ( talk) 13:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion of loss of multiyear ice is from the Guardian.
The source could be updated to a more direct one (the Arctic Report Card 2019) which also has more recent stats on multiyear ice.
-- MacKenzieEJewell ( talk) 23:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I have three small suggestions for improvements. I see there is a student editor here now ( User:Xmckinney) so perhaps this editor wants to consider this. Firstly, I think there are too many images in the lead. I would cull that down so that we don't overload the reader at the start. See also WP:MOSLEAD. Secondly, I think these two section headings need to be placed below a Level-1 heading called "potential implications" or alike (or move into the existing section called "implications"?): tipping point, ice free summer. Thirdly, the lead should be improved to be a true summary of the entire article. It should also be longer: 4 full paragraphs would be good. EMsmile ( talk) 06:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Note https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.163.188 ( talk) 16:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 9 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Anne.rachael.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Brunette2k16.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The source for:
is http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf, page SPM-14. 2050 is read off fig 7b. I think that is worth doing, as AR5 has (or has attempted to) significantly improve its estimate over AR4 William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
hello user:Prokaryotes, you reverted my edits a few minutes ago. i was hoping we could discuss the reasoning behind this. GoGatorMeds ( talk) 17:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The whole section is speculative to begin with, but if we are going to tolerate speculation then we must do so in an WP:NPOV. Deletions without respecting that is contrary to our policy. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should reliably-sourced predictions of people debating predicted effects climate change be included in the article? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
As sea ice shrinks to record lows, Prof Peter Wadhams warns a 'global disaster' is now unfolding in northern latitudes http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice SaintAviator lets talk 23:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Skeptic2 has added a primary source and claims it shows "recovery" since 2012. The source itself makes no such claim, and it shows 2013 and 2014 sea ice extend nearly exactly identical (in fact, the lines indicating ice extend overlap and cross multiple times). This does not show a trend, and it certainly does not suggest (to anyone with basic scientific understanding) that "these predictions [of a nearly ice-free arctic in the 2030s] are too pessimistic". 2012 was an extreme outlier. 2013 and 2014 are reverting to the bleak "normality" of the downward trend. In other words, this edit introduces misleading WP:OR. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 15:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The article makes no mention of these figures. Consequently this article is entirely superficial. I am sure NASA has the figures hidden away someplace, so if any experts are able, please help make this article more real. 103.227.170.9 ( talk) 05:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Guys talk here. SaintAviator lets talk 05:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed:
because Screen says nothing about economic impacts, and does say the changes he finds from models are smaller than interannual variability; so that's SYN at best. http://billmoyers.com/2013/12/09/climate-change-opens-the-arctic-to-shipping-drilling-militarization/ doesn't say anything about "dramatically improve the economies", and the stuff ending "driving global growth well through the current century" just looks like it was made up William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
References
Screen 2013
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The part about wheat needs to go. The reference only mentions early settlers remarking that they couldn't plant wheat in permafrost. It doesn't necessarily follow that if the permafrost melted, they'd be able to grow wheat in Siberia. (For a start the precip in much of Siberia is far too low.) I've made a quick check of the literature for papers on the potential for expanding wheat production in Siberia with warming but came up empty. Of course the fact that I couldn't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist so if anyone knows otherwise please give pointers. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 04:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
P added a new section, called "Mechanism", as follows:
The heading is wrong, because this section is not discussing the mechanism of ice decline. Its addressing something quite different, whether there is an irreversible "tipping point". The paper underlying the press release (Till J. W. Wagner and Ian Eisenman, 2015: How Climate Model Complexity Influences Sea Ice Stability. J. Climate, 28, 3998–4014. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00654.1) may or may not be sensible, but its only just published William M. Connolley ( talk) 06:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
References
After removal the same nonsense was added again without any proper justification. I have no objection against the use of the source as such. However describing it as record is plain wrong and hence it has no place in the article in that form. Whoever wants to use the source, is responsible for doing so in an appropriate fashion and providing a correct description.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 03:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Prokaryotes:
Well arguing that record refers to recording volume doesn't change that picking "records" as the section title will appear rather misleading to many readers (and imho it that case the title should be singular as in (ice) record rather than the plural records).
In any case even independent of the section title William is also correct is pointing out it seems a like a somewhat random piece of recent and incomplete information added to the article that isn't really helpful nor is it really connected to the rest of the article. If you intend to have a meaningful "record" (as you indicate above), then you need at least some series of measurements over time (covering the last few decades for instance). But simply adding a simple recent data point without any reference frame and not really connected to the rest of the of the article text either is at best superfluous and at worst irritating or misleading. So all in all in this form it anything but an article improvement and the deletion was/is justified.
Having said that if you actually want to add the data for a times series over a sufficiently large interval then I don't think anybody has an objection. Note however that the graphic in the top right of the article already serves that purpose.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 12:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Prokaryotes:
I'm getting lost on what you are actually trying to achieve.
Now you seem to want list actual records rather the record of the ice development? Now if you include the real records that might justify the original section title. However I'm still what the purpose of the whole thing is supposed to and whether it actually will provide meaningful information to readers.
If you just want to update the article with the latest 2015 data, it seems a much better idea to me to replace the current graphic ending at 2013 with new ones that end at 2015 (something like this [11] for instance, note that the graphic is much more informative than listing one or few individual "record" figures").
If you want an actual record of the seas ice in text form in addition to existing graphics, then I'd say it needs to comprise at least 2 decades (better 3 or more).
If you want to list the 5 or 10 lowest amounts in a ranking, than that might justify your original section title, but in that case I'm not fully convinced of the usefulness of such a section. This article is about a decline or more generally a potential trend in a process, so data should come in form of a time series or an aggregation over several time spans. Having a few individual record figures however usually carries little meaningful information, so I don't quite see what is achieved by adding them to the article. On exception might be though if the lowest figures tend to cluster along the time line, that might a meanigful addition to the normal time series. Note that even the source you've originally quoted ( [12]) albeit using "4th lowest" as headline primarily deals with comparing the 2015 figure to an timespan average, how it places within a cluster and how its fits into a trend since 1996. Exactly those three things are the important/relevant content of that source rather than just "4th lowest" bit. Now if you want add any of those 3 aspects into the article I don't think there will be any objections, but note that this information is partially already contained in the article.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 16:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Arctic sea ice decline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
May be worth following up this source to update the dates in the article:
A study published Monday said if the world warms 7.2 degrees this century, the Arctic will likely have a three-month, ice-free period each summer by 2050. It would be a worst-case scenario never seen in recorded human history.
By the end of the century, the ice-free summer could jump to five months a year, the study said.
If there are no comments here I'll follow this up when I have time.
Robert Walker ( talk) 04:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It has been suggested to merge Arctic sea ice decline with Antarctic sea ice decline, and move this article to Sea ice decline. Google News offers currently 27,200 results for Antarctic sea ice decline vs 31,000 for Arctic sea ice decline. Google web search is 5.470.000 results for Arctic vs 1.460.000 for the Antarctic, and Google Scholar gives 89,900 results for the Antarctic vs 204,000 results for the Arctic region. While the Antarctic results often include the Arctic, it would make sense to merge these topics because they are often discussed together. I don't think the article would become too large with adding the south pole. Some recent related news, Sea Ice Extent Sinks to Record Lows at Both Poles (NASA 2017), or ..Antarctica's sea ice is at the lowest January levels since detailed observations began in 1979.. (CNN 2019).
Proposer's !vote
Other !votes and discussion
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
You link to me, so I guess I should respond. I didn't suggest merger, and I didn't necessarily suggest doing anything now. And I don't think you actually mean "merge" anyway. My suggestion was that when there was a reasonable weight of sources for Antarctic trends, then the existing Arctic sea ice decline could be moved to Sea ice decline and have the Antarctic stuff added. NAEG reasonably points out the existing Antarctic sea ice and Arctic ice pack (aside: why do they have different forms for their names? I hate that when it happens). Looking at those articles, it isn't even clear why there isn't just one Sea ice article, since both articles are fairly short (especially if you strip out the GW stuff, which really belongs in the _decline_ article(s). And oh, there is a sea ice article. It's all a bit of a mess William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Overall this article was good. it wasn't persuading its readers, all links work and most have up to date information on their sites, the images on the page are relevant, and follow the copyright regulations. The conversations on the talk page are all relevant to the problems in the article. TyBrown06 ( talk) 03:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
My edit removing the false claim that a paper proved that the Arctic region was at its warmest in 4000y was reverted.
Apparently some want to discuss whether a paper studying melt rates can be rewritten to be studying temperature and whether a small number of Canadain sites in the study correctly constitute "the region" , in an article about the Arctic as a whole.
Several edits combining any number of different edits some adding some removing do not help discussion. So keep it to one issue.
So does someone want to correctly surmise the contents of that paper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.218.206.61 ( talk) 16:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Just removed a reference to "ice caps" used synonymously with sea ice. An ice cap is a piece of land-ice that has outgrown its topography, but is not big enough to qualify as an ice sheet. Because it floats on the ocean, sea ice cannot form an ice cap, so this term should not be used in reference to it.
Al Gore has made this mistake in quotes within this article, but I think these instances should be left to stand.
Robbie Mallett ( talk) 13:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion of loss of multiyear ice is from the Guardian.
The source could be updated to a more direct one (the Arctic Report Card 2019) which also has more recent stats on multiyear ice.
-- MacKenzieEJewell ( talk) 23:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I have three small suggestions for improvements. I see there is a student editor here now ( User:Xmckinney) so perhaps this editor wants to consider this. Firstly, I think there are too many images in the lead. I would cull that down so that we don't overload the reader at the start. See also WP:MOSLEAD. Secondly, I think these two section headings need to be placed below a Level-1 heading called "potential implications" or alike (or move into the existing section called "implications"?): tipping point, ice free summer. Thirdly, the lead should be improved to be a true summary of the entire article. It should also be longer: 4 full paragraphs would be good. EMsmile ( talk) 06:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Note https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.163.188 ( talk) 16:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 9 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Anne.rachael.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Brunette2k16.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)