 Other people will join us soon. So first of all, welcome everybody. It's very nice to see all of you here around and to see a very nice familiar face after a long break. We have to go on Zoom, Zoom. OK, I'll start again. Morning, everybody. And thanks to be with us, also for the online participant. So we start this workshop with just a brief introduction of who we are. And then there will be also an introduction for you this afternoon. There will be time for you to introduce yourself just after lunch. So I am Marika Coppola. I am a research scientist here in ICTP. I'm working here since many years. And I mainly work in the Earth System Physics section. And I work with regional climate modeling, mainly coupled with impact model, like water resource modeling. We also work with a lot of stakeholders, like energy company and insurance. And so we cover this part of the section. In this workshop was organized, as you know, many of you know already before the COVID, but it was canceled twice. Unfortunately, due to COVID. But finally, we made it. And in this afternoon, we will go more deeply into the aim of the workshop, what we expect, what it will be there. I just give you, give the floor to the other director of the workshop, the organizer. The first one is Professor Rosha Rasinger. Please introduce yourself. Good morning. My name is Rosha Rasinger. I'm from ICT and Delta Alice in the Netherlands. So I had the pleasure of working with Erica and Alexia and Robert, who is not here. And a lot of others on Chapter 12 of the AR6 Working Group 1 Report, which Alex will talk a lot about in the next presentation. So yeah, by profession, I'm a coastal engineer. I focus a lot on climate change impacts on coast. And I've been trying to develop efficient models that can project how coastlines will respond to climate change over 100-year timescales. I think that's enough for now, so I'll pass it on to Alex. Thank you. So good morning, everybody, and welcome from especially those who have traveled long distances to be here. My name is Alex Rewain. I am the co-director of the Climate Impacts Group at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. And like many of us up here, actually all of us are part of the IPCC Working Group 1. You'll learn all about these acronyms and what they all mean in a moment here. My own personal work is especially on applying climate information for agricultural applications. So you'll hear a lot about agriculture on Friday and looking forward to getting to know all of you here. Let me pass it over to Anna now. Actually, Robert? Oh, actually, Robert, are you first, please? Well, thank you, my apologies for not being here today. I will join with pleasure Wednesday. So I'm Robert Votard from IPSL in Paris. So I work with my colleagues, Alex and Rush and Erica and Anna at the IPCC level. And my specialty is attribution of extreme events, especially related to heat and impacts. So we'll have a session on heat and health effects. Thank you. Hello. So I've finished the introductions. I'm Anna Pirani. I am the head of the Technical Support Unit for IPCC Working Group 1. So it was a very privileged role to have had to sort of coordinate the implementation of the assessment of the physical science basis of climate change. And I'm based here, well, hosted by ICTP. I'm very lucky they give me an office. So the team was in Paris. And now I'm working for the Euromediterranean Center on Climate Change, which is an Italian research institute on climate risk assessment and adaptation strategies. So we're very happy to see you all together, because one of the very stimulating aspects of the IPCC is the intersections between different parts of the world, communities, different scientists coming together. And we had the privilege of having this chapter, chapter 12, which Rush, Alex, Robert, and Erica were working on, that interfaced with Working Group 2 on the assessment of impact, vulnerability, and adaptation. And so we thought, this is a perfect time. Now the assessment finished to bring together these two parts of the world of climate science together and really dig into more this interface between climate information and going further in adaptation information. So thank you very much for my side. And I hand over to the speakers. And I think it's Rush first of all. OK. So just a few hints and welcome information for all of you. And then we will start the official program. So just to give you a bit of background, what is ICTP, where you are now. So ICTP is an institute that has been founded by Nobel laureate, Abdul Salam. And we try to combine world-class research here with the mission to build science and capacity in the developing world. We are under the UNESCO governance together with the atomic agency and the Italian government. So we are under the tripartite agreement. And what we do is in our everyday life, we do our research. As you have heard before, we have an education mission and also cooperation with all the country around the world. Now just moving to something more practical. So we are here in the campus. This is where you are. Some of you will need to go later on up to the building number four. That is the finance office. So if you need to go there, you can go today on Wednesday and Friday in the morning and the afternoon. And there is a lunch break in the between. If you want to know more, you can ask Victoria that is just outside here. She will help you during all the week. So the program you can find online. So this is the link probably you have seen already. For every day you have a program. If we have a change of anything, the change will be reflected over there. The slide of the presentation would be also loaded where the program is. So you will see at the end a link for each of the presentation for the people that want to share it. And then one last thing. So tomorrow we will have social events in the afternoon. So there will be an occasion for us just to cheat chats, pick each other, try to know each other, and have a bit of social events. And then this is the forecast for the week. Unfortunately, it's not a very nice week. It's a very typical week in Trieste. You see that today it's rainy, mostly of the day. Then maybe tomorrow a little bit better, but it's improving. You see the temperature is rising. We are actually a little bit below the seasonal average as a maximum temperature, but we will recover by Wednesday. So do not worry. You will see some sunshine during the week. If you have anything to ask or any problem, please write the usual SMR. This is the usual email you have used during all these months to interact with the registration and the conference support. So anything you need, please write to them. And now I leave the floor to Roche for the first talk, and then we'll move. Does it work? OK, how does this work? So good morning again, and welcome to this workshop. So first of all, we thought we'll introduce you about how IPCC actually operates. People read about the IPCC. People use the report a lot, but some people have come to me many years ago and said, where is the IPCC located? Like there's a physical location for it where every one of us are working together. But that is really not the case. So it's a very complicated process. So this first presentation is about how the IPCC process worked in the AR6, at least for working group one, which is what the working group that we were all part of. OK, sorry, not me. There are also working group two people. But I was in working group one. Yeah, but I want to go to the next one. Oh, OK, right. So in this presentation, I will go through these things. What is the IPCC and what does it do? The brief history of IPCC, its mission and assessment cycles and the processes and timelines of the working group reports, and also what's new in AR6, working group one. A lot of people ask that question. So why another assessment? So what is IPCC and what does it do? It stands for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That's what IPCC stands for. It's a United Nations body for assessing the science. I will come back to this word assessing. It's an important distinction between assessing and reviving. So assessment science related to climate change. It was created by WMO and UNAP in 1988. So it's been around for quite some time now. It's basically an organization of governments that are all members of the UN. So roughly about 195 countries. And it provides regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change. Its impacts and future is spread in several working groups and also adaptation and mitigation. So the main objective of IPCC is to provide governments with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies, climate adaptation strategies, mitigation targets, things like that. They are also key input into the COP, the Conference of Parties. That happens almost every year now. So that's where governments agree to various greenhouse gas emission mitigation targets and things like that. The mission, I won't read this. But well, that's the stated mission of IPCC that you will see on the website. It's, again, assessing scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information. So coming to this word assessment, we really have to distinguish ourselves as not a review. We do not express summaries or opinions, things like that. We assess all the peer reviewed, as far as possible, peer reviewed scientific information that's available at the time of an assessment. We have a cutoff date. And so everything published before that cutoff date is assessed. And based on that assessment, we will then assign certain likelihoods and confidence levels on how certain climate change drivers, indicators, adaptation measures, things like that, how they will be affected, how they will progress in the future. So we provide confidence statements and likelihoods. I will get into that a bit later. But we really are assessment. It does not do original research. So whatever graphs and things like maps you see in IPCC report, they are not our original research. We are, in fact, not allowed to present original research. We can bring together things from different papers, different studies, and make a cohesive, bigger picture. And we also do not express opinions. That's a big no. Our reports, through a cycle of three drafts, are reviewed by thousands of experts and governments. So at the end of the day, we are compelled to respond to every review comment that we get. I think we got something like 70,000 comments over the process. I think I can't remember now. So we have to respond to every comment. There's a huge Excel sheet that we have to deal with. With colors. Yeah, it's quite a nightmare, actually, practically, to deal with that. And so IPCC reports are policy-relevant, but are not policy prescriptive. What that means is the findings in the IPCC report are expected to be useful to develop policies or update policies, but IPCC does not prescribe policies. You should do this, or you should do that. The reports present projections of future climate change and also associated risk and discuss the implications of response options, but they do not tell policymakers what actions to take. So why all this interesting climate change? Someone could ask. And so this graph just shows the temperature change, measured temperature change from the pre-industrial time. So it's from about 1850 to 2010. And you can see here, 1850. So up to about the 1940s, it's going up and down, but pretty stable. But after that, it's really going up. And so that's why there is such a lot of interest. And also, this is a nice graphic. Actually, I got it off Twitter some time ago, which shows in probability density functions. I think I can assume that people here know what probability density functions are. So it shows the temperature change globally over land and over ocean in decades from the 1880s to 2010. So you can see clearly globally over land and in the ocean, the temperature is clearly changing. The PDFs are moving to the right. So not only temperature, but also sea level has been rising. And in our assessment, we have this result that concludes with a high confidence that the sea level has risen faster since 1900 than over any prior century in at least the last 3,000 years. So that's quite a strong conclusion. And that's based on a lot of evidence at the tide gauges around the world. So here, again, you see a graph of sea level change over the last 2,500 years. And you can see, again, it goes up and down. But since about here, since about 1900, I think, it really goes up very fast. But the measured global mean sea level rise from the start of 1900s to almost now, 2018, is about 20 centimeters. What is in gray is the confidence limits. It doesn't sound like a lot. But it's accelerating. So if you look at the sea level rise, this is the global mean sea level rise, so averaging all over the world. If you look at the 70 years from 1900 to 1971, the rate of increase is 1.3 millimeters per year. If you compare that to the rate of increase of sea level from 2006 till now, it's almost triple. So it's really accelerating. Now I earlier mentioned that we use confidence and likelihood in IPCC assessment. There's a lot of meaning to it. It's not just some term that we put out of there. It's done after a lot of consideration. There's a method to that madness, so to speak. So first of all, on a certain topic, we will look at all the peer review literature. We will look at data sets that are available. So we have this thing called lines of evidence. We will look at observations, experiments, process understanding, statistics, and models, projections. So we will look at all of those things, and then we will first make a call whether there's sufficient evidence and agreement to evaluate confidence. Sometimes there isn't. So if the literature is all over the place, then we don't have a lot of confidence. We don't have enough material to make a statement on confidence, then we don't. But if we do have observations, attributions, attribution studies, and projections that are kind of going in the same direction, then we can go a little bit further and we can evaluate confidence based on this metric structure. So we look at then on the y-axis agreement and on the x-axis evidence. And if, for example, there's a lot of evidence and a lot of agreement in observations, attributions, and projections, then we can say we have high confidence. So these colors indicate the level of confidence we will assign. On the other hand, if we have low agreement and very limited evidence, then we have low confidence. So that's what these confidence statements mean. We have a lot of arguments in the process coming to a confidence statement to put in writing. A lot of discussions sometimes, a three, four-hour discussion on one confidence statement. Then if we have high confidence, then only we can go into likelihood statements. And that's, again, if we have some kind of probabilistic results or ensemble results, we need to have something quantitative to go by. It cannot be done by one single data point. So if we have probabilistic results, projections, then we can go into talking about likelihoods. Then you would have seen in the reports we have things like this, virtually certain, likely. So they all mean something statistically. I will not dwell further on that except, yeah, just to make sure that you understand there's a lot of meaning behind confidence and likelihood statements. Next, about IPCC history. It started in 1988 when it was formed. And the first assessment report came out in 1980. And now we have just finished the AR6 cycle and the AR7 cycle is starting, I think, this month or next month. So the IPCC tries to then align the time in which these reports come out with certain other global activities. For example, the second assessment report was timed so that it could feed into the Kyoto protocol. And AR5 fed into the Paris Agreement, which was very important in establishing mitigation targets. And our assessment, AR6, feeds into the UNF CCC global stock take, which is expected to happen this year. So the steps in creating IPCC reports, these go through many different steps. So it starts with the scoping of the report. So we get, first of all, the bureau and nominated experts and observe organizations create a scoping document. And then that outline is approved by the bureau and I think also the UN, actually. And then comes the stage where the authors are nominated. And that is done by these IPCC focal points in each country. Some authors are invited, some other people can put their hands up. And then the authors are selected based on set criteria. And then the process is established. In that, then we all call together, we have four lead author meetings that happen during the process. So just after the first lead author meeting, that we create a first draft that's very fast, like three months, really a raw draft. And that goes out to review the expert review of the first order draft. So that gives us then pointers on how to progress further. Then we build on that, make a second order draft. And that is then sent out to review by governments and experts. And based on the comments that we get, we improve it. And then it goes to the final draft. And then at that stage, we also draft the summary of policymakers, which finally goes to government review. All governments review this, the final draft of the SPM. And then we have this approval and acceptance of the report that is also done by all the member state governments. So that's a very long and arduous process. Basically, every sentence in the summary of policymakers, one by one, has to be approved. Finally, then we publish the report. So this whole thing takes about three and a half years. I think I have to finish up soon. So maybe I will stop after this slide. Just to explain to you the structure of the IPCC teams. So the whole IPCC, the main IPCC assessment report, we also have special reports. But this is the main assessment report that I'm talking about. We will usually have three working groups, working group one, which deals more with the physical sciences, working group two, which focuses more on adaptation, and working group three, which is on mitigation. And in each of these working groups, there will be a number of chapters, 12, 13 like that. In working group one, we had 12 chapters and the IPCC atlas, which Richard sitting here led with some other colleagues. And in each of these working groups, we have chairs, we have a bureau, and we have a technical support unit. They are the management team that really manages how the process works. And then we have, in the science part, we have the coordinating lead authors, usually two to three per chapter. And we have lead authors, about 10 to 15 per chapter. And then we have a very key group of people here called chapter scientists who do really a lot of work. These are usually postdoc level people. Maybe some of you can end up in such positions. They really help us with getting all the figures together and making sure we stay on time and we really owe a lot to them, these young people. And then as the process goes through, we also call out to some number of contributing authors to contribute in specific parts of the chapter. So that could lead up, that could end up easily 30 to 50 contributing authors per chapter, sometimes even more. So shall I stop there, Erika? Well, it's 10.30. OK, thank you. We will open for question at the end of the three of us before breaking for coffee. So keep your question before coffee.