Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
(2)
to provide an exchange of the respective scienti
c, technological, technical,
socio-economic, and juridical information to substantiate the strategies of
responding to climate change; and
(3)
to intensify measures on development of education, improvement of qualifi-
-
cation, and informing the population about climate change.
At the Intergovernmental meeting on WCP held in April 1993, a decision was
made on the expedience of complex development on climate problems which was
called Climate Agenda (CA) aimed at providing a more ef
cient coordination of
respective efforts. The CA supported by WMO, UNEP, ICSU, UNESCO, FAO,
WHO was concentrated on four directions:
(1) Prospects of development of science of climate, and weather forecast.
(2) Climate services needed to ensure sustainable development.
(3) Study of climatic forcings and development of strategies of responding to the
forcings to minimize their consequences.
(4) Adequately planned observations of the climate system.
For the organized realization of the CA, the Interdisciplinary Committee on
Climate Agenda (IACCA) was formed in March 1999 in Paris as a result of a
substantial reorganization of the Coordination Committee on CA.
According to the adopted agreement, scienti
c developments are the sphere of
responsibility of WCRP, whereas IPCC answers for negotiations and recommen-
dations of the needed environmental policy. Efforts have been performed on the
basis of a close cooperation between WCRP and IPCC, though not without some
problems consisting,
first of all, in underestimation by politicians of the signi
cance
of the problem of improving the observation means and in insuf
cient understanding
by scienti
c character of information needed for politicians.
As Bolin (1998, 1999) has noted, in the context of the latter, the most important
conclusion of the Second IPCC-1995 Report consisted in that
c community of speci
“
the balance of
evidence supposes a marked impact of man on global climate
”
, though on the other
hand, it was noted that
our ability to quantitatively estimate the impact of man on
global climate is now limited, since the expected signal appears just now at the
background of natural variability as well as in view of available uncertainties (in
estimates) of key factors
“
”
. Such conclusions have been mainly supported by sci-
enti
c community and stimulated further developments, the results of which have
been generalized in the Third IPCC-2001 Report.
In this connection, Bolin (1998, 1999) emphasized that
“
negotiations between
countries that have rati
ed the FCCC, have shown that substantial political actions are
scarcely probable, if the impact of humans
.
The absence of the needed understanding of the impact of climate on humans and
ecosystems has determined the resistance of some countries to measures on limitation
of the anthropogenic impact on climate. An important aspect of the problem is
groundless statements of the
'
activity on global climate is not proved
”
“
”
about the growth of the frequency of extreme
natural phenomena such as storms, tropical cyclones,
green
oods, and others. This question
requires, however, further thorough analysis (Grigoryev and Kondratyev 2001).
fl
Search WWH ::
Custom Search