 Before we start, the first part of the morning session, you will be all from the speaker online. Do not destroy my notes. Thank you. And then the second part after the coffee break, we will have one more online and then your presentation, the participant presentation. So can you please upload the presentation during the coffee break so that we are ready to start when we come back for those of you that have to upload? Okay, so these are just the housekeeping announcements. So now maybe we can start. So this morning, the first session will be ecosystem and biodiversity. You will be chaired by Elvira and Andras. They are both colleagues from the Elvira you know already. Andras just arrived. They are both colleagues from working group two and they will drive you all through the session. Maybe if you want to introduce yourself, because we did already. Thank you. Yes, thank you very much. So hi everyone. It's a nice sunny day here in Trieste. I'm happy to be just sharing this session today. So my name is Andres Alegria. I'm the graphics and data officer from working group two in the IPCC. And yeah, and I'll be introducing the speakers and helping to share the questions and answers part. And I think you all know me actually after the last couple of days, so I'll pass it back to Andres. All right, so again, thank you very much to all of those joining us here in the room and those joining us here online. So for the people joining us online, we have about 35 or 40 or so participants here in the room. And we have the, sorry, I'm like back and forth because I don't know where the camera is here. So we have three speakers joining us today virtually and this first session will focus on projections and risk assessments for biodiversity and ecosystems. Our three participants here today online will share with us case studies on how climate data is being used to and collected with a focus on marine biodiversity. So we're going to have Elizabeth Heather Kington from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Then we'll listen to Kathy Smith from the Marine Biological Association in the UK and Chaya Shoudhadi from the Alfred Benjamin Institute. So welcome to our participants and are we all online here? Can you say hello? Hi. Hello, that's Elizabeth. Hi, Chaya. Good morning. Hello. Hi. All right. Yes. So thank you so much for joining us here today. It's really nice to hear about this different case studies on marine biodiversity aspects and their relationship to the IPCC assessments. So with no further delay, let's begin with Elizabeth's presentation. You're welcome to start sharing your screen and get the show going. Thank you very much. And just for the presenters, just a few notes, we're going to have a short question and answer sessions in between the presentations. Thank you. Okay, I am just getting ready to share my screen. And hopefully you all can see that. Okay. Hi, everyone. My name is Liz Heatherington and I'm a researcher at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California. And with the time difference, I'm not used to giving talks at this time. But hopefully I'm coherent and I'm really happy to be with you all today. So today I wanted to talk about some work I'm doing with DEWS, which is the deep ocean observing strategy and a project I'm working on with a large group at DEWS where we're collecting deep ocean science gaps. And analyzing them to inform our understanding and monitoring of climate change in the deep ocean. As I said, our work is focused on identifying gaps in our understanding of climate change in the deep ocean. And we're doing that. By looking at and reading and examining the IPCC AR6 or six assessment reports. And we're doing this because really our, these most recent reports are best estimates and projections of how climate change will impact the deep ocean. And I'm assuming that all of you are familiar with the IPCC reports, but maybe you're not as familiar with the designations of confidence in these reports. So with each statement of something related to climate change, there is a parenthetical statement that says what the confident, what our confidence level is in that statement. And there's a really specific process for characterizing both our understanding and our uncertainty. And this figure here is from figure one in AR6, chapter one, showing that we have these different types of observations that we use to evaluate different types of evidence. And the types of evidence are used to then make some sort of designation of our confidence in the statement. So this relies on the type of data, the quantity. So not only the quality of the data, but also, you know, the quantity, how many studies do we have, how much data do we have on this subject. And then out of those studies, how consistent are the results or are there major disagreements in the findings and conclusions of studies on similar topics. So this information is used to evaluate the confidence in different statements. And we were interested in examining some of these confidence statements and trying to get a better idea of where climate gaps exist for the deep sea, and how we can potentially fill some of those gaps and have a more coordinated effort to improve confidence for AR7. So our primary objective was to identify and characterize deep ocean climate gaps to inform AR7 and future observing systems. And as I mentioned in the beginning, I'm an early career researcher with DEWS, which is the Deep Ocean Observing Strategy. Again, in DEWS is this international community-based group that coordinates deep ocean observing. And the main goals of DEWS are to understand the state of the global deep ocean, its response to climate change and other human disturbances. So it's a UN Ocean Decade Program and a goose project. And I'm mentioning this because just keep in mind that everything we're talking about in this project is specifically related to the deep ocean, which is defined roughly as 200 meters and deeper in the global ocean. So our approach to assessing these reports since DEWS is this large international community was to get a team of volunteers to help us assess the reports. So we assessed working groups one, two and three, the AR6 synthesis report, and then the special report on the ocean and cryosphere and global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. And what we did was we created a prompt for volunteers to all sign up for to evaluate at least one chapter of these reports. And then we had two assessors per chapter to make sure to basically have a quality control measure. And keep in mind that this project is ongoing. So we sent the initial, we were able to get DEWS volunteers in the last few months, but the final assessments aren't due until the end of June. So all of this is very much still in progress. And what we had these volunteers do was we had them search for low confidence in the reports that they in the chapters that they volunteered for. And then they assess whether the low confidence designation was directly related to the deep sea. So was this in a section where it was explicitly about the deep sea. And if not, is it something that is at least relevant to the deep sea? If so, we asked the volunteers or the assessors to include it in in their report. And what the assessors did. So this is just showing all of the instances of low confidence. So again, we're interested in those deep ocean climate gaps that we are defining by what has, what areas have the most low confidence designations. And then we have the volunteers fill out a data validated spreadsheet where they put some basic information about the report, the subsection title, the specific topic. And then if a stressor and an impact was mentioned, we had a list here of on the right hand side of all of the different stressors, for example, and they were categorized by biology, physics, biogeochemistry. And a stressor or an impact wasn't always mentioned in the report but if it was then they categorize them. And then the assessors designated or determine what the low confident confidence rationale or designation was cause was from. So, so this was a way for us to quantify where these low confidence assessments are coming from. And we're hoping that this project will reveal where major gaps in our observing system that can be extended or improved where models can be where there are gaps in models and we're using this to guide our a fall meeting for that we're having in the fall with do so we're hoping to have all these assessments in by the fall. As I mentioned this prompt was sent to the juice community in April 26 people volunteered. Our reviews are underway but I wanted to share some very preliminary findings with you today. So so far we have almost 200. No confidence designations and not all of the chapters of each report have been evaluated so far, but we're already starting to see some patterns emerge. So most of the designations here we have the IPCC report on the y axis and then the x axis has our different categories of what the low confidence rationale was. And we're seeing that most of the designations of low confidence are due to either a limited category of studies, low model confidence, or we had an other category. And those those three areas seem to be where a lot of the gaps are so this makes sense. It's focused on the deep sea which is compared to a lot of other ecosystems so it makes sense that there are limited studies, but we're finding that there's also just a lot of low confidence designations that aren't explained. And this is a graph and the other heat maps, I'm showing relative percentage. So here that means within a report, what percentage or of the low confidence designations had no explanation or were because of limited studies. And this is a figure that again is a heat map showing the relative percentage percentages, and this is broken down by our stressor categories in biogeochemical biology and physical our physical parameters. And we're seeing again a couple things emerge even though it's preliminary something that I thought was really interesting was that ocean based climate interventions is something that came up a lot with a lot. A lot of no confidence designations likely because this is such an emerging field and there's not a lot of data about that the the on how these stressors will impact the deep ocean. And then also in terms of physics the biggest stressor is ocean temperature heat content which makes sense. And then I also wanted to briefly present this as raw account since the previous figure showed relative percentages. So the most numerous stressor was rising ocean temperature heat content. And then this is a similar figure, but instead of grouping it by stressor we grouped it by impact. So, what, where would the impact be on in the deep ocean is it again, you know, biogeochemical biological or physical so where would we see these impacts and the most numerous impacts that we're seeing for these low confidence designations are on the ocean carbon cycle. And then, in terms of biology, a lot of low confidence in terms of ecosystem impacts. So while there were a lot of a lot more data, perhaps on specific components of the ecosystems larger ecosystem wide impacts food web impacts things like that had a lot of low confidence designations that had either were limited studies or had no explanation. And then, again, just showing the raw accounts here. No confidence designation for ecosystem impacts on ecosystems and then this the second most common one so far was how ocean circulation will be impacted by by climate change. So, again, I just wanted to emphasize that these are all very preliminary results. The final reviews are are at the end of June and then we'll take the full data set and do a similar analysis of these low confidence designations and see where the primary areas of low confidence are, and what the designations are and then digging into, if most of them like we're seeing so far are either we're not explained or we're in these other categories digging into that more to see if we can pinpoint some of some of these gaps. And then we're also having discussions about, you know, potential topics that aren't even covered in the reports. Because there's so little data on it, or it's it's such an emerging topic that it wasn't even highlighted or discussed in our six, but likely have low confidence designation so that's something we're, we're discussing and hoping to to integrate into into our report. And again, we're hoping that these analyses will be useful for AR seven and for the deuce community and the deep ocean observing community, and how we can improve our, our models and observing systems to better understand how climate impacts the deep ocean. And with that, I'd like to thank and acknowledge all of my collaborators on this project and the deuce community and volunteers who have contributed to the assessment so far. And of course, all of the IPCC authors and contributors who make all of this work possible and thank you all for having me today. Thank you very much, Elizabeth. That was great. Excellent. I think that's an excellent example of an assessment that will prove valuable for next cycle. It's timely and relevant. And I think the framework also allows itself to be applied to other topics of interest across the IPCC spectrum. And with that, I open the floor for one or two questions for Elizabeth. Yes. Good. Good morning. Oh, yes. Yeah, I would like to know when you say deep ocean would it be referred to the floor going up or is it sea level going down? What is the scope? Oh, yeah. So it's anything around 200 meters below the surface and down. So though that whole water column and also including the deep ocean floor below 200 meters. So essentially not shallow ocean, the top 200 meters or very coastal benthic ecosystems like coral, shallow coral reefs, but it does include deep sea corals. Yeah. So does this study includes coral bleaching or sea shell bleaching? No, it doesn't. So, and that's something that since we're specifically focused on the deep ocean, we only reviewed chapters that had some relevancy to the deep sea and also only quantified or had assessors report low confidence designations that were related to the deep sea. So this is something that for absolutely could be replicated and done for the epipelagic or the shallow ocean or specific ecosystems, but that wasn't included in this report. We have one more question here from the participants on site. Yeah. So this is Alex from NASA. I was just curious. This is an interesting approach. And of course you, I believe we're restricting your analysis of the low confidence statements to related to the deep ocean. It would be interesting to come up with a bunch of categories. This is beyond your scope. So I'm not trying to put it on your shoulders, but for the IPCC to do a bunch of categories and just characterize. I would imagine the deep ocean is one of those areas that has more low confidence statements than, you know, let's say agriculture or something that is, you know, much more at our fingertips, let's say. So I wonder if there's a kind of broader effort with induce or elsewhere to try to make that case. And in particular with the theme of this workshop. You know, are there pieces of climate information, you know, metrics that you've determined that that you can't really measure or get from climate models that that would be very helpful for your planning. Thanks. That's really interesting. And I completely agree with you. The deep ocean probably, or almost, I have high confidence that there's more low confidence designations, you know, for deep sea ecosystems. But I think that would be a really interesting approach to do something similar with different, whether it's ecosystem categories or, or however you would want to divide it to really do a quantitative assessment. In terms of our deuce efforts right now, there's not anything, you know, ongoing, but it's certainly something that, you know, that we could be involved with or, you know, like I said, other other groups could kind of replicate this or expand upon this approach. And then for your second question, the short answer is yes, I'm sure some of those things are emerging, we just have not really looked at the data enough yet, since it's all very preliminary still to know what some of those measurements or metrics might be but we did have, we did have people write comments and some detailed information about the different topics and, and to add more comments on where the designation came from. So we're hoping that once we dig into the data more some of those things will emerge as well. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. And Elizabeth, and thank you so much for sharing without your presentation and the effort despite the challenges of time zone difference. So thank you very much. And now we're moving up for the second presentation and let me introduce Kathy, Kathy Smith again from the Marine Biological Association in the UK. So Kathy over to you. Thank you very much. Good morning everyone. Hi, let me try and share my screen here hold on a second.