Contribuer aux rapports du GIEC Utiliser les rapports du GIEC pour l’éducation et la formation
1. Valérie Masson-Delmotte
Groupe de travail I
Contribuer aux rapports du GIEC
Utiliser les rapports du GIEC
pour l’éducation et la formation
2. Co-construction des rapports
Choix des rapports spéciaux
Consultations de pré-cadrage
Réunions de cadrage des rapports
Travail des auteurs
sur la base de la littérature scientifique :
rigueur, robustesse, transparence, exhaustivité
Plusieurs étapes de relecture - révisions
Approbation des résumés pour décideurs
3. Préparation du rapport spécial 1,5°C
Scoping of Outline of Assessment
IPCC 44 - Approval of Outline
Nomination and Selection of Experts
Preliminary Draft
Expert Review First Order Draft
IPCC 48 - Approval SPM, Acceptance of Report
Expert Review Government ReviewSecond Order Draft
Final Draft Government Review
Science Community GovernmentsAuthors of SR1.5
IPCC 43 - Decision to undertake SR1.5
2017
2018
Aug
2016
Sept
Oct
June
Jan
July
April
Literature to be assessed: submitted by October 2017 to be included in the
Second Order Draft for review, and accepted by April 2018 to be included in the
Final Draft review.
AcceptedApril
SubmittedOct
4. Global warming of 1.5°C
Chapter 1 : Framing and context
Chapter 2 : Mitigation pthways compatible with 1.5°C in the context of
sustainable development
Chapter 3 : Impacts of 1.5°C global warming on natural and uman
systems
Chapter 4 : Strengthening and implementing the global response to the
threat of climate change
Chapter 5 : Sustainable development, poverty eradication and reducing
inequalities
5. 2016-2017 : période clé dans la mise en route des
rapports du 6ème cycle
Réunions de cadrage
Appels à nominations (auteurs, éditeurs de relecture)
Premières réunions d’auteurs pour les 3 rapports spéciaux
Date limite de soumission pour les publications pouvant être citées
dans le rapport spécial sur 1,5°C : octobre 2017
6. Avancées scientifiques et publications
Réunions de cadrage : questionnaires de pré-consultations, experts participants
Participation aux ateliers et réunions d’experts du GIEC
Auteurs principaux (LA) – travaillent en équipes pour écrire les chapitres du rapport
Auteur principal coordonnateur (CLA) – coordonne le contenu d’un chapitre
Auteurs contributeurs (CA) – sollicités pour des contributions ponctuelles
Editeurs de relecture – assistent les groupes de travail dans l’identification d’experts
pour la relecture du rapport et le suivi de la réponse aux commentaires des relecteurs
Relecteurs (experts, relecture par les gouvernements)
Délégations nationales et représentants des organisations observatrices en session
plénière
De multiples options pour contribuer
7. Synthèse, résumés pour décideurs (6 langues dont arabe et français)
Chapitres détaillés (en anglais seulement)
Questions fréquentes (FAQs) et encadrés (Boxes)
Des ressources pour l’éducation et la formation
8. IPCC Expert Meeting on Communication (9-10 February 2016, Oslo,
Norway)
Projet du Groupe I : des outils pédagogiques pour expliquer les
notions clés en sciences du climat
En discussion : la possibilité de collaborer avec les Académies des
Sciences pour construire du matériel pédagogique à partir des
résumés pour décideurs des prochains rapports (2018, 2019, 2021-
2022)
Une réflexion sur la communication
https://www.youtube.com/user/IPCCGeneva
9. Le retour d’expérience des médiateurs des
« trains du climat »
Curiosité, envie de comprendre, d’être porteur de solutions
Initiation à la démarche scientifique
De nombreuses idées reçues fausses
Exemples : couche d’ozone – effet de serre – climat
tsunami – montée du niveau des mers
Le défi d’expliquer le travail de scénarios, modélisation et projections
L’intérêt de travailler de manière transverse aux disciplines scientifiques
10. Contacts
Site du GIEC : http://ipcc.ch/
Secrétariat : ipcc-sec@wmo.int
Presse : ipcc-media@wmo.int
Groupe 1 : http://wg1.ipcc.ch
tsu@ipcc-wg1.universite-paris-saclay.fr
Notes de l'éditeur
Key messages (highlight key phases of the IPCC reports cycle, including special reports):
IPCC reports are massive undertaking governed procedures for preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval, and publication – in which hundreds of volunteer scientists examine all of the available scientific literature on topics related to climate change and put that literature in context through a process of assessment.
Indicate stages where the scientific community is most likely to contribute.
Lead Authors (LA) work in teams to produce the content of the chapter on the basis of the best scientific, technical and socio-economic information available. In the course of the assessment process LAs may also enlist Contributing Authors who provide LAs more technical information on specific subjects covered by the chapter;
Coordinating Lead Authors (CLA) coordinate the content of the chapter they are responsible for. There are usually two CLAs per chapter;
Review Editors assist the Working Groups in identifying reviewers for the expert review process, ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate consideration, advise LAs on how to handle contentious/controversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately in the text of the Report.
There are four types of IPCC reports:
“Assessment Reports” are published materials composed of the full scientific and technical assessment of climate change, generally in three volumes, one for each of the Working Groups of the IPCC. Each of the volumes may be composed of two or more sections including: (a) a Summary for Policymakers (b) an optional technical summary and (c) individual chapters and their executive summaries.
“Special Report” is an assessment of a specific issue and generally follows the same structure as a volume of an Assessment Report.
“Methodology Reports” are published materials, which provide practical guidelines for the preparation of greenhouse gas inventories. Such reports may be composed of two or more sections including: (a) an Overview Chapter, which broadly describes the background, structure and major features of the report, (b) individual chapters and (c) technical Annexes. “Reports” refer to the main IPCC materials (including Assessments, Synthesis, Methodology and Special Reports and their Summaries for Policy Makers and Overview Chapters).
“Summary for Policymakers” is a component of a Report, such as an Assessment, Special or Synthesis Report, which provides a policy-relevant but policy-neutral summary of that Report.
All IPCC reports run through a similar cycle for scoping, review, publication, and include the following stages:
“Acceptance” of IPCC Reports at a Session of the Working Group or Panel signifies that the
material has not been subject to line by line discussion and agreement, but nevertheless presents a
comprehensive, objective and balanced view of the subject matter.
“Adoption” of IPCC Reports is a process of endorsement section by section (and not line by line)
used for the longer report of the Synthesis Report as described in section 4.4 and for Overview
Chapters of Methodology Reports.
“Approval” of IPCC Summaries for Policymakers signifies that the material has been subject to
detailed, line by line discussion and agreement.
The first component of an IPCC assessment is that all of the relevant literature is considered, whether or not it agrees with the dominant paradigms, and whether or not it has yet stood the test of time compared to other studies that have considered the topic. The second component is that the information from all of this literature is distilled into key messages that capture the state of knowledge at the time of the assessment. These key messages need not be known with 100% certainty, but the level of confidence must be carefully stated. A collection of pyramids might serve as a useful analogy for the structure of an IPCC assessment.
The integrity in the IPCC assessments and their fidelity to the underlying scientific information comes
from four main components, all thoroughly specified in the IPCC procedures. These are (1) broad,
balanced participation in the author teams, (2) emphasis on a comprehensive treatment of the
relevant scientific literature, (3) two stages of widely distributed, independently monitored review, and
(4) word-by-word, consensus approval, by governments, of the Summaries for Policymakers.
