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 |
Can we put the TOC back to the left and minimize it...it just appears to be too obtrusive.-- MONGO 07:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Please do it. I don't know how and that big "AfD" notice screws everything up. I was going to wait until the "AfD" notice was removed on April 9 and see what the article looked like afterwards. Richard 08:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, I think the problem is that the section titles are too long and therefore the TOC wants to use the whole width of the page. I'm not sure this can be fixed unless we shorten the titles. The biggest problems are sections 5.1-5.3. I'll think about ways to shorten those but I'm not convinced that this will solve the problem because the rest of the titles are also pretty long. Richard 08:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem is there's no introductory section, which goes above the TOC (it has no heading, and the TOC automatically goes below this, and above the first heading). The titles are also way too long, yes. Proto|| type 09:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have a section on paleo adaptation. After all, post ice age global warming has been occurring for thousands of years. I read recently that at the time of the Roman invasion of Britain, less that 2000 years ago, sea level was 3 to 4 meters higher than today. It might help give some perspective, to note that today we have far more technology and resources available for adapation than most have had during these millenia. Britain also went through notable warming and cold periods that had their impact on architecture and agriculture. This is just to give a sampling of the type of info that might be out there and appropriate for this possible section.-- Silverback 12:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree the article needs cleanup but it would be helpful to have specific comments on what needs cleanup rather than this general cleanup tag. If you see areas that need cleanup then please document them here. Or, better yet, Be bold! and do the cleanup yourself. -- Richard 06:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
this section of the page is based on a GW denial based aricle (reference 7) whose CO2 statistics are way off from mainstream references, tried cleaning it up a bit but needs much more work. sbandrews 17:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
"In 2003 the world net output of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, was about 25 billion metric tons annually.[10]
Even with the Kyoto Protocol, global emissions by 2015 will rise to perhaps 9 billion tons[citation needed], 50 percent higher than today's level. "The 9 billion tons seems to refer to US emissions ('course, the U.S. of A. is the world as far as some people are concerned), needs fixing. 213.139.161.102 ( talk) 17:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. Please forgive me for bringing up a topic that is only tangentially related to this page.
While looking for something else on the sea level rise article, I came accross this article and noticed that some authors had cited one of my early papers on the subject. EPA will be releasing a report with chapters about adaptation to sea level rise very soon, and I would be happy to supply some text for your consideration.
Anyway, the other thing I noticed is that someone added a redlink to my name. I asked the general village pump about whether I should write a short blurb so it is not totally blank, and the guidance I got was that instead of submitting text under that heading, I should vet it through the community, and put it forward as a "proposal". "The community" could mean many things, but since this page seems to have created the redlink, logically it is probably you. Please let me know what you think, either on this page or by sending a note. Best regards Jim Jimtitus ( talk) 00:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
From the article:
Stating that something "is a necessary strategy" is a very abstract way of saying that somebody ought to do that thing. (Indeed, in this case, that everybody ought to do it.) Wikipedia usually refrains from making "ought" claims, giving advice, or suggesting actions. For instance, our article on murder does not say that people ought not commit murder, and our article on democracy does not say that people should have democracy. Similarly, the "how-to" style of writing is discouraged.
More specifically, good articles don't make "ought" claims, or encourage courses of action, in Wikipedia's voice -- rather, they state that someone else has made those claims or suggestions. It would be more encyclopedic to refer to specific persons or sources who have counseled or proposed a course of action, rather than saying (in Wikipedia's voice) that this course of action is necessary.
Thoughts? -- FOo ( talk) 17:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Should this article discuss any potential technologies for adaptation to global warming? For example, vertical farms or arcologies may be available in the late 21st century to increase the ability of humans to adapt to even extreme global warming. 96.241.0.33 ( talk) 08:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added the tags to the section on "National Center for Policy Analysis." The source is of questionable reliability, and the arguments presented are not explained properly.
A study by the American National Center for Policy Analysis argues that adaptation is more cost-effective clarification needed (for whom?) than mitigation. dubious – discuss
"Cost-effective" – for whom is adaptation more cost-effective? The burdens of costs of mitigation are clearly placed on developed countries under the UNFCCC. It's difficult for me to see how developing countries lose out under mitigation policies. In terms of measuring costs, according to the IPCC report, adaptation costs are largely unknown. Climate change impact costs are also highly uncertain. Therefore it is difficult for me to see how you can be so confident about adaptation being cheap. It is also necessary to specify who is actually paying the costs of impacts, adaptation and mitigation.
1. By 2085, the contribution of (unmitigated) warming to the above listed problems specify is generally smaller than other factors unrelated to climate change.
What "problems" are these? They should be specified. What about a comparison of all "problems" (climate change impacts, presumably) against these "other factors"?
2. More important, these risks specify would be lowered much more effectively and economically vague by reducing current and future vulnerability to climate change rather than through its mitigation. dubious – discuss
Who is paying for these risks to be reduced? What risks are we talking about? The basis for the economic analysis should be explained – e.g., valuation of impacts over time and across regions, valuation of market and non-market impacts, sensitivity of the results to changes in assumptions, etc. Also the degree of consensus in the economics literature over these results should be specified.
3. Finally, adaptation would help developing countries cope with major problems now, and through 2085 and beyond, dubious – discuss whereas generations would pass before anything less than draconian mitigation clarification needed (define "draconian") would have a discernible effect. [1] dubious – discuss
What are these "major problems" developing countries face? What assumptions are being made in making the trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation? How much uncertainty is there in the calculation of this trade-off? "Draconian" means what exactly? What does "discernable" mean? Without specifying a particular mitigation policy, it is difficult to know what either of these terms mean. To sum up, I don't think this misleading, inaccurate and biased source deserves such a large amount space in this article. In my view, it probably deserves precisely zero space.
I've deleted this from the article:
Under the Kyoto Protocol, the United States would have agreed to cut greenhouse emissions by about 400 million tons per year by 2012. In 2003 the world net output of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, was about 25 billion metric tons annually.[12]
Even with the Kyoto Protocol, global emissions by 2015 will rise to perhaps 9 billion tons[citation needed], 50 percent higher than today's level. Such nearly-inevitable carbon buildup ought to tell us is that if greenhouse theory is right, a warming world is now unavoidable: at least through the next generation, until a renewable-fuels energy economy can be created.[13]
I don't see what any of this has to do with adaptation. The stuff about "proving" the existence of climate change is rubbish. See the main global warming article. I replaced it with information relevant to this article. Relevancy, in my opinion, should be based on the title of the article. The article's title is "adaptation to global warming", the article's title is not "US views on global warming, and whether or not some non-experts believe it's happening."
Since when has this been viewed as adaptation? The IPCC groups it with mitigation.
Some scientists, such as Ken Caldeira and Paul Crutzen,[32] suggest geoengineering techniques, which can be employed to change the climate deliberately and thus control some of the effects of global warming.
"Some scientists" – are we talking about social scientists, natural scientists here? How many scientists are "some scientists"?
Greenhouse gas remediation can be regarded as a mitigation of global warming. Techniques may include biomass energy with carbon capture and storage,[33] using lasers to break up CFCs in the atmosphere[34] and iron fertilisation of oceans to stimulate phytoplankton growth.
What's this doing in this article? This article's about adaptation, not mitigation. I've deleted it. Geoengineering should only be mentioned in this article if it is in some way related to adaptation. Enescot ( talk) 06:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Overshoot, adapt and recover: We will probably overshoot our current climate targets, so policies of adaptation and recovery need much more attention, say Martin Parry, Jason Lowe and Clair Hanson. 99.190.89.224 ( talk) 02:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
What I mean is, what is it trying to talk about? It wants to talk about five different subjects at once, and keeps going back and forth. I would have to say that if this article isn't fixed soon it should just be deleted. Hyblackeagle22 ( talk) 12:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Adaptation is important to climate change (increases and decreases in temperature) generally and not just global warming (increases in temperature). Some parts of the world may get colder before getting warming under current climate change projections. The article discusses warming and cooling, so a better title might be "Adaptation to climate change" or "Climate change adaptation," both of which redirect to this page. -- [Added on 24 October 2010 by User:Bacamat.]
Spin-off Adaptation to global warming in the United States, per Talk:Regional effects of global warming # Specific cities ? 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 23:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
James Titus who? identifies the following criteria [2] that policy makers should use in assessing responses to global warming: ...
216.250.156.66 ( talk) 17:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
From Oil chief: World will adapt to climate change June 28, 2012 ... " ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson says fears about climate change, drilling and energy dependence are overblown." cited in Exxon on climate change impacts: “Don’t worry, engineering will fix it” June 29, 2012 Skeptic (U.S. magazine)
108.73.113.185 ( talk) 04:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
In late June, the company publicly acknowledged that burning fossil fuels is warming the planet. Here's the statement by ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations: ...
99.112.212.152 ( talk) 08:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
99.181.142.117 ( talk) 07:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Where is this temperature that humans can't 'survive' in come from. What is meant by it? Is it the lowest temperature, highest temperature, average temperature, for what period does it refer to, etc? I find this claim dubious in the face of humans surviving in much hotter temperatures than 95°. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:A3C0:7:453C:D841:2FA8:A6B2 ( talk) 00:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Much of this article is using references that have since been updated. Specifically it cites the IPCC 3rd assessment report where the 5th report is in the process of being released. SWOldfield ( talk) 05:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Climate adaptation must have its own very specific definition so people know how to work about it - not just a whimsical one. Here is one article which could probably give light: http://blog.nature.org/science/2014/03/18/climate-adaptation-definition-as-transformation/ If adaptation has been done before the issue of climate change then today's definition must be something heavier and different and has sense and it is valued and practiced and has favorable results in tangent to life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.21.81 ( talk) 05:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Adaptation to global warming. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The phrase "global warming" is generally being replaced by "climate change" since the effects of climate change are not uniform across the globe and, indeed, some areas could actually cool under some scenarios. I propose changing the title of this page accordingly.
Enquire (
talk)
21:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, saying "climate change" instead of "global warming" could perhaps make the article more neutral, because "global warming" as a phrase has increasingly become associated with non-scientific controversies. I agree the name should be changed. User:Luke_Maier 21:08, 30 April 2014
I just took this article down to 79k from 94k by eliminating redundant prose and unhelpful generalities, but it still feels overly wordy. I've tagged two sections which can use further condensation. "Costs and international funding" is probably redundant across subsections, and might be made more brief if it were updated. (Maybe some of the suggestions have been implemented or rejected.) Discussion of international aid programs might also be spun off into a separate article? "Considerations and general recommendations" has some POV recommendations, some of which should probably be removed, and others of which are non-controversial or merely observations, but in some cases already mentioned elsewhere in the article. So some splitting up and redistributing of citations there could make the overall article shorter. -- Beland ( talk) 08:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Climate change adaptation. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Other/index.aspxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 13:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 22 external links on Climate change adaptation. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.heinzctr.org/publications/PDF/Adaptation_Report_October_10_2007.pdfWhen 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) 16:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Climate change adaptation. 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) 12:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added to the section Adaptation measures by region. I changed the title of this section from measures by country to measures by region in order to allow for the addition of a section on Mesoamerica. I believe that this is an important section to add, as the region has a long history of adaptive methods in response to climate change. By adding a section on past measures made in the Maya civilization, it shows how past adaptations in certain regions are not always successful, and how they can change. Incorporating past and current measures side by side gives a thorough and multi-faceted approach to understanding adaptations made in a region over time. Riggslm ( talk) 17:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)riggslm
I just reverted the following
This article is about adaptation to the modern episode of global warming. If we don't have an article on adaptive responses to ancient episodes, perhaps this text wouldd be a good start, and we could link to it from this article? At any rate, my thought is the topic is SO BIG and complex we should really split out the ancient civilization discussion. Your thought? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
We have no article on climate vulnerability yet. I think we should perhaps create one (or maybe it's already covered in an existing article). But for now I will create a redirect to here as this article talks a lot about climate vulnerability. EMsmile ( talk) 10:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Before starting a new article, suggest taking stock of the current plethora of related articles. Search for articles starting with
etc. IMO our coverage would be vastly improved by consolidating wherever we find overlap. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Shalor (Wiki Ed): I don't see anything wrong with this article's writing style. Can you explain why you added this cleanup tag to this article? Jarble ( talk) 19:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
add this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_change_adaptation_icon.png -- Tommaso.sansone91 ( talk) 08:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. ( non-admin closure) comrade waddie96 ★ ( talk) 10:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
Climate change adaptation be
renamed and moved to
Global warming adaptation.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log •
target log
This is
Template:Requested move/end |
Climate change adaptation → Global warming adaptation – The article is entirely about modern society adapting to human-induced global warming, rather than beings adapting to climate change more generally. Therefore, it should be moved to a title matching the main page. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 09:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it made sense 10 years ago but it does not make much sense to me now. Is someone going to update it or if not I guess we should delete it? Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
No replies so I am deleting. Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
It is out of date. Is someone going to update it or if not I guess we should delete it? Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
No replies so I am deleting. Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Hey all. I felt like the "adaption policies by region" section had to be killed for a few reasons: 1) There was significant overlap with the "adaption measures by region" section, 2) It only had coverage on Africa, 3) the information it did have a little too specific for this article, especially given that the article is already pretty lengthy.
For this reason, I moved the information into three locations. I moved all the country-specific information into the Climate change in Africa regional sections. I moved the overall regional statement into the lead of that article. Finally, I moved the lead of that section into the lead of the "adaption measures by region" section. (I suspect it will need some editing in order to fit better)
I think I succeeded in reducing some redundancy in this article while filling out empty sections in the Climate change in Africa article. Please let me know regarding any thoughts on this change. Good? Bad? Did I miss a real need for the "policy" section distinct from the larger "measures" section? Thanks! Jlevi ( talk) 01:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
X1\ ( talk) 00:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
The "external links" list is way too long. I am going to cull it a bit. Compare with the much shorter "external links" list for the climate change article. Also compare with WP:EXT. EMsmile ( talk) 11:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
EMsmile ( talk) 01:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I find the section "measures by region" problematic. It repeats some of the information that is in the individual "climate change in country X" articles now. We currently have 54 of those and many of them have information on adaptation measures and policies. But does it make sense to arbitrarily repeat here information for many of the countries? Which ones? There's got to be a better way; perhaps give some overview examples but then send people to those sub-articles. Most of them have a section on "adaptation" although often it's called "mitigation and adaptation". Maybe we should only pick out certain country examples who have particularly far reaching policies or technologies for adaptation? How to choose which countries are worth mentioning and which not (let's not be Euro-centric or US-centric either). EMsmile ( talk) 11:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Have added that now. Do you agree? EMsmile ( talk) 13:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I have just done a bit of a restructuring to move the existing content into the three categories of adaptation options. This was prompted by an e-mail I received from a content expert who pointed out "The IPCC reports don't show all possible actions, but give 3 categories of actions: structural and physical adaptation (i.e. engineering and built environment, technological, ecosystem-based and services); social adaptation (i.e. educational, informational, behavioural); and institutional adaptation. It gives examples in tables for different sectors (you have to look in the relevant chapter)". After reading that, I realised the current content of the article could be structured along those lines. I looking forward to working more with this content expert and with anyone who is watching this article to improve the article further. EMsmile ( talk) 03:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 6 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angisingh279.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Suggest that this section is just a summary and that a new page is created for this item. Both adaptation and mitigation strategies relating to the consequences of climate change are not only very important but also could give rise to a wealth of material. Will look forwarding to researching and contributing to this new page. - Paul Millsom
I just removed the following section, because it reads like an advertisement for a book. Feel free to use the book as a source instead.\
== Conflict-sensitive adaptation == A book by the Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag on 'conflict-sensitive adaptation' sheds light on unintended damaging effects of climate adaptation measures. [1] For example, when disadvantaged groups are left out of the planning process, adaptation methods such as agricultural or water programmes may increase vulnerabilities. The book draws on findings from Africa and outlines how conflict-sensitive adaptation activities should look that are cognizant of the conflict-effects adaptation may have. The authors provide a "Memorandum for Action on Adaptation for Peace and Stability" that outlines principles to support processes for adaptation and peace such as the establishment of peace and conflict assessments for adaptation programmes, mainstreaming climate change adaptation in conflict-prone contexts, applying conflict sensitive approaches or provisions to ensure participatory processes to design and implement adaptation measures. [2]
References
I don't find the image in the lead ideal. It's too complex to give a quick impression of what adaption is about, particularly when thinking of lay persons who are looking at this page. How about rather a collage of 2, 3 or 4 photos that show examples of adaption measures? Perhaps this has already been discussed in the past? EMsmile ( talk) 09:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I am going to propose here some photos that could be used in a 4-photo collage for the lead, similar to how we did it at sustainable energy. The aim would be to have one photo for each of these categories: Structural and physical adaptation (this can be grouped into engineering and built environment, technological, ecosystem-based, services); Social adaptation (educational, informational, behavioral); Institutional adaptation (economic, laws and regulation, government policies and programs). The aim would also be to have a global balance, say half from high income countries and half from developing countries. EMsmile ( talk) 00:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
See possible image collage on the right. Please fire away with constructive criticism! :-) EMsmile ( talk) 01:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
How about like this (see on the right) - I took out some of the "people photos", or photos that looked too similar:
EMsmile ( talk) 00:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
EMsmile ( talk) 12:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
EMsmile ( talk) 12:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Social and institutional adaptation measures" can't be shown in a picture.The same could be said about many concepts, like capacity development or sustainable development, and yet we do try to show a picture in the lead. That's why the captions that go with an images are so important. You said
Pictures of people standing on a beach, or signing a document, or holding scientific instruments, do not convey acts of adaptation. They could be standing, or signing, or "scienc"ing, practically anything other than climate change adaptation.. The same could also be said about the tree planting images: you don't know if they are planting trees because they recently had a bushfire and are simply replanting their trees. Or if they are planting a tree in connection to climate change adaptation. Same with a seawall or a dyke. They might be built simply because people live in low-lying areas (like in the Netherlands), or because sea level rise has made them more vulnerable and they now need it for climate change adaptation. To me, climate change adaptation is about much more than just building infrastructure and planting trees, and we should be able to show that in the images. - Anyhow, there are 143 people watching this talk page. Please contribute to the discussion as we need fresh inputs! - And I think perhaps I'll exchange the current image in the lead soon because the photo collage that we have now is in any case better than the current image in the lead section. EMsmile ( talk) 01:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
This is one of my first edit inquiries, so I hope that I'm doing this right. I was directed to this page from Citation Hunt while going through the Wikipedia Help:Introduction tutorial. I tried to find a good reference for the "Potential biophysical effects include sea level rise of 110 to 770 mm (0.36 to 2.5 feet) between 1990 and 2100[citation needed]," clause in Section 1.2 of the page. I came across an academic article that reviewed a couple of different estimates for projected sea level rise between 1990 and 2100, ranging from "3 feet or more by 2100" to "5 feet or more by 2100". [1]
Would it be more helpful to just rewrite the sentence in question on this page to note that there is a range of reliable estimates for how much sea level might rise from 1990-2100?
Thank you all for your help,
-- OpenBarry ( talk) 06:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
References
I think the section on adaptation to flooding needs to be tidied up. Currently it's mixing up urban flooding (which is unrelated to sea level rise in some cases) and the kind of flooding that is related to sea level rise. When this section is reworked, consider using an excerpt or linking better with the related articles, i.e. urban flooding and coastal flooding. EMsmile ( talk) 10:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to convert this article to long ref style to make it more consistent, easier to move content from one article to another, easier for newcomers. Also the long ref style works better when articles use excerpts from other articles. It means the section called "works cited" would eventually no longer be needed Does anyone object? See also a previous discussion at WikiProject Climate Change here. I've made this conversion already for a few articles, e.g. climate change mitigation, sea level rise, ocean acidification, ocean heat content, IPCC. See also short discussion here. (Note I am not saying to convert the main climate change article of course - that one has so many refs and is optimised to work with the short ref style). EMsmile ( talk) 12:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi User:Richarit, I am just wondering why you have removed these three options?:
Do they not count as adaptation options, or have you perhaps merged or summarised them into one? EMsmile ( talk) 12:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
As part of WikiPedia SDG 13 project, I (with the help of User:EMsmile and others) will:
Any comments/suggestions are welcome Richarit ( talk) 13:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC) UPDATE -
-- Richarit ( talk) 18:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I am referring to this edit by Richarit where he merged the three options into one section. I think I do agree with this change, the only disadvantage is that this section about options has now become rather large, and its sub-section headings are no longer visible in the TOC, unless the TOC is expanded to allow fourth level headings to be visible as well. Which is what I have now done here. I normally prefer TOC level 3 but it's now TOC level 4. We need to take a close look at the sub-headings within those different options to ensure these are really the best sub-headings to use (and decide if we want them to be visible in the TOC or not). EMsmile ( talk) 12:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@ EMsmile, in this diff, you removed a page number. Just confirming that the remaining page number fully support the text? If not, please self-revert, as a wrong page range makes it much more difficult to verify text. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 17:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Can we please make it clearer in this section what the difference is between Nature-based solutions versus ecosystem-based adaptation? Are the terms used interchangeably in the adaptation literature or is one the overarching term for the other? Nature-based solutions are not specific to adaptation, they can also perform other functions, like wastewater treatment. EMsmile ( talk) 10:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nufarm000 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Nufarm000 ( talk) 19:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to revisit our choice of 4 images for the lead. See also related discussion here:
Proposal to organise Purposes according to the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). The GGA was established in the Paris Agreement and it aims to do 3 broad things: enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate change.
The current Purposes section is confusing because 'respond to impacts' and 'reduce risk factors' headings overlap as objectives (I suppose the former could be more about reacting to evolving hazards and the latter could be more about reducing risk in general?). In any case 'respond to impacts' text doesn't discuss responses, only the impacts whereas 'reduce risk factors' covers responses and risk concepts broadly including vulnerability and adaptive capacity. So we could just have this section as purpose (considering that reduce risks is a quite standard definition, based on the risk propeller on p6 here https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg2/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf) after discussing impacts. On the other hand, we could try to structure this section on the 3 components GGA (also means some overlaps). This is coming more from the political declaration rather than the scientific report but I think it does tie in with what we are doing.
Any thoughts or feedback is welcome Richarit ( talk) 20:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)--
The word "options" doesn't feel right here. It imples mutual exclusivity. Eldomtom2 ( talk) 16:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Things remaining for me to work on :
Some suggestions of improvements that other people could work on
Richarit ( talk) 16:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I was just doing some work on the section about adapting to heat waves in the section "Options by type of impact" and noticed that the issue of greener cities comes up now several times in the article, namely also in the section on cities and on health (in "risks by sectors"). I wonder how we could improve on that? I also wonder if the section heading "risks by sectors" really works. Would reader understand from the table of content what risk has to do with adaptation? EMsmile ( talk) 10:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The regional risks section needs some work. As Richarit pointed out above: "The bit on regional risks and adaptation is weak because it only mentions regional vulnerability and measurement of adaptive capacity that is very old, from AR4 or 5. It would be good to update this with the latest information from the IPCC WG2 chapters for each region (ch 9-15 or add from the TS)." I wonder if it's better to delete it for now as it's not really clear what it's all about and whether it digresses too much into the climate risk or climate vulnerability areas? Do we really need it? Are adaptation efforts really so different from one region to the next? EMsmile ( talk) 10:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
BTW I think that the focus should be more on the adaptations than the risks. Richarit ( talk) 04:18, 22 March 2023 (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 |
Can we put the TOC back to the left and minimize it...it just appears to be too obtrusive.-- MONGO 07:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Please do it. I don't know how and that big "AfD" notice screws everything up. I was going to wait until the "AfD" notice was removed on April 9 and see what the article looked like afterwards. Richard 08:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, I think the problem is that the section titles are too long and therefore the TOC wants to use the whole width of the page. I'm not sure this can be fixed unless we shorten the titles. The biggest problems are sections 5.1-5.3. I'll think about ways to shorten those but I'm not convinced that this will solve the problem because the rest of the titles are also pretty long. Richard 08:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem is there's no introductory section, which goes above the TOC (it has no heading, and the TOC automatically goes below this, and above the first heading). The titles are also way too long, yes. Proto|| type 09:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have a section on paleo adaptation. After all, post ice age global warming has been occurring for thousands of years. I read recently that at the time of the Roman invasion of Britain, less that 2000 years ago, sea level was 3 to 4 meters higher than today. It might help give some perspective, to note that today we have far more technology and resources available for adapation than most have had during these millenia. Britain also went through notable warming and cold periods that had their impact on architecture and agriculture. This is just to give a sampling of the type of info that might be out there and appropriate for this possible section.-- Silverback 12:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree the article needs cleanup but it would be helpful to have specific comments on what needs cleanup rather than this general cleanup tag. If you see areas that need cleanup then please document them here. Or, better yet, Be bold! and do the cleanup yourself. -- Richard 06:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
this section of the page is based on a GW denial based aricle (reference 7) whose CO2 statistics are way off from mainstream references, tried cleaning it up a bit but needs much more work. sbandrews 17:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
"In 2003 the world net output of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, was about 25 billion metric tons annually.[10]
Even with the Kyoto Protocol, global emissions by 2015 will rise to perhaps 9 billion tons[citation needed], 50 percent higher than today's level. "The 9 billion tons seems to refer to US emissions ('course, the U.S. of A. is the world as far as some people are concerned), needs fixing. 213.139.161.102 ( talk) 17:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. Please forgive me for bringing up a topic that is only tangentially related to this page.
While looking for something else on the sea level rise article, I came accross this article and noticed that some authors had cited one of my early papers on the subject. EPA will be releasing a report with chapters about adaptation to sea level rise very soon, and I would be happy to supply some text for your consideration.
Anyway, the other thing I noticed is that someone added a redlink to my name. I asked the general village pump about whether I should write a short blurb so it is not totally blank, and the guidance I got was that instead of submitting text under that heading, I should vet it through the community, and put it forward as a "proposal". "The community" could mean many things, but since this page seems to have created the redlink, logically it is probably you. Please let me know what you think, either on this page or by sending a note. Best regards Jim Jimtitus ( talk) 00:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
From the article:
Stating that something "is a necessary strategy" is a very abstract way of saying that somebody ought to do that thing. (Indeed, in this case, that everybody ought to do it.) Wikipedia usually refrains from making "ought" claims, giving advice, or suggesting actions. For instance, our article on murder does not say that people ought not commit murder, and our article on democracy does not say that people should have democracy. Similarly, the "how-to" style of writing is discouraged.
More specifically, good articles don't make "ought" claims, or encourage courses of action, in Wikipedia's voice -- rather, they state that someone else has made those claims or suggestions. It would be more encyclopedic to refer to specific persons or sources who have counseled or proposed a course of action, rather than saying (in Wikipedia's voice) that this course of action is necessary.
Thoughts? -- FOo ( talk) 17:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Should this article discuss any potential technologies for adaptation to global warming? For example, vertical farms or arcologies may be available in the late 21st century to increase the ability of humans to adapt to even extreme global warming. 96.241.0.33 ( talk) 08:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added the tags to the section on "National Center for Policy Analysis." The source is of questionable reliability, and the arguments presented are not explained properly.
A study by the American National Center for Policy Analysis argues that adaptation is more cost-effective clarification needed (for whom?) than mitigation. dubious – discuss
"Cost-effective" – for whom is adaptation more cost-effective? The burdens of costs of mitigation are clearly placed on developed countries under the UNFCCC. It's difficult for me to see how developing countries lose out under mitigation policies. In terms of measuring costs, according to the IPCC report, adaptation costs are largely unknown. Climate change impact costs are also highly uncertain. Therefore it is difficult for me to see how you can be so confident about adaptation being cheap. It is also necessary to specify who is actually paying the costs of impacts, adaptation and mitigation.
1. By 2085, the contribution of (unmitigated) warming to the above listed problems specify is generally smaller than other factors unrelated to climate change.
What "problems" are these? They should be specified. What about a comparison of all "problems" (climate change impacts, presumably) against these "other factors"?
2. More important, these risks specify would be lowered much more effectively and economically vague by reducing current and future vulnerability to climate change rather than through its mitigation. dubious – discuss
Who is paying for these risks to be reduced? What risks are we talking about? The basis for the economic analysis should be explained – e.g., valuation of impacts over time and across regions, valuation of market and non-market impacts, sensitivity of the results to changes in assumptions, etc. Also the degree of consensus in the economics literature over these results should be specified.
3. Finally, adaptation would help developing countries cope with major problems now, and through 2085 and beyond, dubious – discuss whereas generations would pass before anything less than draconian mitigation clarification needed (define "draconian") would have a discernible effect. [1] dubious – discuss
What are these "major problems" developing countries face? What assumptions are being made in making the trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation? How much uncertainty is there in the calculation of this trade-off? "Draconian" means what exactly? What does "discernable" mean? Without specifying a particular mitigation policy, it is difficult to know what either of these terms mean. To sum up, I don't think this misleading, inaccurate and biased source deserves such a large amount space in this article. In my view, it probably deserves precisely zero space.
I've deleted this from the article:
Under the Kyoto Protocol, the United States would have agreed to cut greenhouse emissions by about 400 million tons per year by 2012. In 2003 the world net output of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, was about 25 billion metric tons annually.[12]
Even with the Kyoto Protocol, global emissions by 2015 will rise to perhaps 9 billion tons[citation needed], 50 percent higher than today's level. Such nearly-inevitable carbon buildup ought to tell us is that if greenhouse theory is right, a warming world is now unavoidable: at least through the next generation, until a renewable-fuels energy economy can be created.[13]
I don't see what any of this has to do with adaptation. The stuff about "proving" the existence of climate change is rubbish. See the main global warming article. I replaced it with information relevant to this article. Relevancy, in my opinion, should be based on the title of the article. The article's title is "adaptation to global warming", the article's title is not "US views on global warming, and whether or not some non-experts believe it's happening."
Since when has this been viewed as adaptation? The IPCC groups it with mitigation.
Some scientists, such as Ken Caldeira and Paul Crutzen,[32] suggest geoengineering techniques, which can be employed to change the climate deliberately and thus control some of the effects of global warming.
"Some scientists" – are we talking about social scientists, natural scientists here? How many scientists are "some scientists"?
Greenhouse gas remediation can be regarded as a mitigation of global warming. Techniques may include biomass energy with carbon capture and storage,[33] using lasers to break up CFCs in the atmosphere[34] and iron fertilisation of oceans to stimulate phytoplankton growth.
What's this doing in this article? This article's about adaptation, not mitigation. I've deleted it. Geoengineering should only be mentioned in this article if it is in some way related to adaptation. Enescot ( talk) 06:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Overshoot, adapt and recover: We will probably overshoot our current climate targets, so policies of adaptation and recovery need much more attention, say Martin Parry, Jason Lowe and Clair Hanson. 99.190.89.224 ( talk) 02:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
What I mean is, what is it trying to talk about? It wants to talk about five different subjects at once, and keeps going back and forth. I would have to say that if this article isn't fixed soon it should just be deleted. Hyblackeagle22 ( talk) 12:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Adaptation is important to climate change (increases and decreases in temperature) generally and not just global warming (increases in temperature). Some parts of the world may get colder before getting warming under current climate change projections. The article discusses warming and cooling, so a better title might be "Adaptation to climate change" or "Climate change adaptation," both of which redirect to this page. -- [Added on 24 October 2010 by User:Bacamat.]
Spin-off Adaptation to global warming in the United States, per Talk:Regional effects of global warming # Specific cities ? 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 23:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
James Titus who? identifies the following criteria [2] that policy makers should use in assessing responses to global warming: ...
216.250.156.66 ( talk) 17:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
From Oil chief: World will adapt to climate change June 28, 2012 ... " ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson says fears about climate change, drilling and energy dependence are overblown." cited in Exxon on climate change impacts: “Don’t worry, engineering will fix it” June 29, 2012 Skeptic (U.S. magazine)
108.73.113.185 ( talk) 04:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
In late June, the company publicly acknowledged that burning fossil fuels is warming the planet. Here's the statement by ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations: ...
99.112.212.152 ( talk) 08:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
99.181.142.117 ( talk) 07:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Where is this temperature that humans can't 'survive' in come from. What is meant by it? Is it the lowest temperature, highest temperature, average temperature, for what period does it refer to, etc? I find this claim dubious in the face of humans surviving in much hotter temperatures than 95°. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:A3C0:7:453C:D841:2FA8:A6B2 ( talk) 00:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Much of this article is using references that have since been updated. Specifically it cites the IPCC 3rd assessment report where the 5th report is in the process of being released. SWOldfield ( talk) 05:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Climate adaptation must have its own very specific definition so people know how to work about it - not just a whimsical one. Here is one article which could probably give light: http://blog.nature.org/science/2014/03/18/climate-adaptation-definition-as-transformation/ If adaptation has been done before the issue of climate change then today's definition must be something heavier and different and has sense and it is valued and practiced and has favorable results in tangent to life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.21.81 ( talk) 05:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Adaptation to global warming. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The phrase "global warming" is generally being replaced by "climate change" since the effects of climate change are not uniform across the globe and, indeed, some areas could actually cool under some scenarios. I propose changing the title of this page accordingly.
Enquire (
talk)
21:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, saying "climate change" instead of "global warming" could perhaps make the article more neutral, because "global warming" as a phrase has increasingly become associated with non-scientific controversies. I agree the name should be changed. User:Luke_Maier 21:08, 30 April 2014
I just took this article down to 79k from 94k by eliminating redundant prose and unhelpful generalities, but it still feels overly wordy. I've tagged two sections which can use further condensation. "Costs and international funding" is probably redundant across subsections, and might be made more brief if it were updated. (Maybe some of the suggestions have been implemented or rejected.) Discussion of international aid programs might also be spun off into a separate article? "Considerations and general recommendations" has some POV recommendations, some of which should probably be removed, and others of which are non-controversial or merely observations, but in some cases already mentioned elsewhere in the article. So some splitting up and redistributing of citations there could make the overall article shorter. -- Beland ( talk) 08:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Climate change adaptation. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Other/index.aspxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 13:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 22 external links on Climate change adaptation. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.heinzctr.org/publications/PDF/Adaptation_Report_October_10_2007.pdfWhen 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) 16:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Climate change adaptation. 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) 12:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added to the section Adaptation measures by region. I changed the title of this section from measures by country to measures by region in order to allow for the addition of a section on Mesoamerica. I believe that this is an important section to add, as the region has a long history of adaptive methods in response to climate change. By adding a section on past measures made in the Maya civilization, it shows how past adaptations in certain regions are not always successful, and how they can change. Incorporating past and current measures side by side gives a thorough and multi-faceted approach to understanding adaptations made in a region over time. Riggslm ( talk) 17:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)riggslm
I just reverted the following
This article is about adaptation to the modern episode of global warming. If we don't have an article on adaptive responses to ancient episodes, perhaps this text wouldd be a good start, and we could link to it from this article? At any rate, my thought is the topic is SO BIG and complex we should really split out the ancient civilization discussion. Your thought? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
We have no article on climate vulnerability yet. I think we should perhaps create one (or maybe it's already covered in an existing article). But for now I will create a redirect to here as this article talks a lot about climate vulnerability. EMsmile ( talk) 10:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Before starting a new article, suggest taking stock of the current plethora of related articles. Search for articles starting with
etc. IMO our coverage would be vastly improved by consolidating wherever we find overlap. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Shalor (Wiki Ed): I don't see anything wrong with this article's writing style. Can you explain why you added this cleanup tag to this article? Jarble ( talk) 19:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
add this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_change_adaptation_icon.png -- Tommaso.sansone91 ( talk) 08:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. ( non-admin closure) comrade waddie96 ★ ( talk) 10:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
Climate change adaptation be
renamed and moved to
Global warming adaptation.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log •
target log
This is
Template:Requested move/end |
Climate change adaptation → Global warming adaptation – The article is entirely about modern society adapting to human-induced global warming, rather than beings adapting to climate change more generally. Therefore, it should be moved to a title matching the main page. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 09:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it made sense 10 years ago but it does not make much sense to me now. Is someone going to update it or if not I guess we should delete it? Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
No replies so I am deleting. Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
It is out of date. Is someone going to update it or if not I guess we should delete it? Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
No replies so I am deleting. Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Hey all. I felt like the "adaption policies by region" section had to be killed for a few reasons: 1) There was significant overlap with the "adaption measures by region" section, 2) It only had coverage on Africa, 3) the information it did have a little too specific for this article, especially given that the article is already pretty lengthy.
For this reason, I moved the information into three locations. I moved all the country-specific information into the Climate change in Africa regional sections. I moved the overall regional statement into the lead of that article. Finally, I moved the lead of that section into the lead of the "adaption measures by region" section. (I suspect it will need some editing in order to fit better)
I think I succeeded in reducing some redundancy in this article while filling out empty sections in the Climate change in Africa article. Please let me know regarding any thoughts on this change. Good? Bad? Did I miss a real need for the "policy" section distinct from the larger "measures" section? Thanks! Jlevi ( talk) 01:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
X1\ ( talk) 00:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
The "external links" list is way too long. I am going to cull it a bit. Compare with the much shorter "external links" list for the climate change article. Also compare with WP:EXT. EMsmile ( talk) 11:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
EMsmile ( talk) 01:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I find the section "measures by region" problematic. It repeats some of the information that is in the individual "climate change in country X" articles now. We currently have 54 of those and many of them have information on adaptation measures and policies. But does it make sense to arbitrarily repeat here information for many of the countries? Which ones? There's got to be a better way; perhaps give some overview examples but then send people to those sub-articles. Most of them have a section on "adaptation" although often it's called "mitigation and adaptation". Maybe we should only pick out certain country examples who have particularly far reaching policies or technologies for adaptation? How to choose which countries are worth mentioning and which not (let's not be Euro-centric or US-centric either). EMsmile ( talk) 11:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Have added that now. Do you agree? EMsmile ( talk) 13:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I have just done a bit of a restructuring to move the existing content into the three categories of adaptation options. This was prompted by an e-mail I received from a content expert who pointed out "The IPCC reports don't show all possible actions, but give 3 categories of actions: structural and physical adaptation (i.e. engineering and built environment, technological, ecosystem-based and services); social adaptation (i.e. educational, informational, behavioural); and institutional adaptation. It gives examples in tables for different sectors (you have to look in the relevant chapter)". After reading that, I realised the current content of the article could be structured along those lines. I looking forward to working more with this content expert and with anyone who is watching this article to improve the article further. EMsmile ( talk) 03:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 6 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angisingh279.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Suggest that this section is just a summary and that a new page is created for this item. Both adaptation and mitigation strategies relating to the consequences of climate change are not only very important but also could give rise to a wealth of material. Will look forwarding to researching and contributing to this new page. - Paul Millsom
I just removed the following section, because it reads like an advertisement for a book. Feel free to use the book as a source instead.\
== Conflict-sensitive adaptation == A book by the Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag on 'conflict-sensitive adaptation' sheds light on unintended damaging effects of climate adaptation measures. [1] For example, when disadvantaged groups are left out of the planning process, adaptation methods such as agricultural or water programmes may increase vulnerabilities. The book draws on findings from Africa and outlines how conflict-sensitive adaptation activities should look that are cognizant of the conflict-effects adaptation may have. The authors provide a "Memorandum for Action on Adaptation for Peace and Stability" that outlines principles to support processes for adaptation and peace such as the establishment of peace and conflict assessments for adaptation programmes, mainstreaming climate change adaptation in conflict-prone contexts, applying conflict sensitive approaches or provisions to ensure participatory processes to design and implement adaptation measures. [2]
References
I don't find the image in the lead ideal. It's too complex to give a quick impression of what adaption is about, particularly when thinking of lay persons who are looking at this page. How about rather a collage of 2, 3 or 4 photos that show examples of adaption measures? Perhaps this has already been discussed in the past? EMsmile ( talk) 09:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I am going to propose here some photos that could be used in a 4-photo collage for the lead, similar to how we did it at sustainable energy. The aim would be to have one photo for each of these categories: Structural and physical adaptation (this can be grouped into engineering and built environment, technological, ecosystem-based, services); Social adaptation (educational, informational, behavioral); Institutional adaptation (economic, laws and regulation, government policies and programs). The aim would also be to have a global balance, say half from high income countries and half from developing countries. EMsmile ( talk) 00:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
See possible image collage on the right. Please fire away with constructive criticism! :-) EMsmile ( talk) 01:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
How about like this (see on the right) - I took out some of the "people photos", or photos that looked too similar:
EMsmile ( talk) 00:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
EMsmile ( talk) 12:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
EMsmile ( talk) 12:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Social and institutional adaptation measures" can't be shown in a picture.The same could be said about many concepts, like capacity development or sustainable development, and yet we do try to show a picture in the lead. That's why the captions that go with an images are so important. You said
Pictures of people standing on a beach, or signing a document, or holding scientific instruments, do not convey acts of adaptation. They could be standing, or signing, or "scienc"ing, practically anything other than climate change adaptation.. The same could also be said about the tree planting images: you don't know if they are planting trees because they recently had a bushfire and are simply replanting their trees. Or if they are planting a tree in connection to climate change adaptation. Same with a seawall or a dyke. They might be built simply because people live in low-lying areas (like in the Netherlands), or because sea level rise has made them more vulnerable and they now need it for climate change adaptation. To me, climate change adaptation is about much more than just building infrastructure and planting trees, and we should be able to show that in the images. - Anyhow, there are 143 people watching this talk page. Please contribute to the discussion as we need fresh inputs! - And I think perhaps I'll exchange the current image in the lead soon because the photo collage that we have now is in any case better than the current image in the lead section. EMsmile ( talk) 01:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
This is one of my first edit inquiries, so I hope that I'm doing this right. I was directed to this page from Citation Hunt while going through the Wikipedia Help:Introduction tutorial. I tried to find a good reference for the "Potential biophysical effects include sea level rise of 110 to 770 mm (0.36 to 2.5 feet) between 1990 and 2100[citation needed]," clause in Section 1.2 of the page. I came across an academic article that reviewed a couple of different estimates for projected sea level rise between 1990 and 2100, ranging from "3 feet or more by 2100" to "5 feet or more by 2100". [1]
Would it be more helpful to just rewrite the sentence in question on this page to note that there is a range of reliable estimates for how much sea level might rise from 1990-2100?
Thank you all for your help,
-- OpenBarry ( talk) 06:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
References
I think the section on adaptation to flooding needs to be tidied up. Currently it's mixing up urban flooding (which is unrelated to sea level rise in some cases) and the kind of flooding that is related to sea level rise. When this section is reworked, consider using an excerpt or linking better with the related articles, i.e. urban flooding and coastal flooding. EMsmile ( talk) 10:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to convert this article to long ref style to make it more consistent, easier to move content from one article to another, easier for newcomers. Also the long ref style works better when articles use excerpts from other articles. It means the section called "works cited" would eventually no longer be needed Does anyone object? See also a previous discussion at WikiProject Climate Change here. I've made this conversion already for a few articles, e.g. climate change mitigation, sea level rise, ocean acidification, ocean heat content, IPCC. See also short discussion here. (Note I am not saying to convert the main climate change article of course - that one has so many refs and is optimised to work with the short ref style). EMsmile ( talk) 12:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi User:Richarit, I am just wondering why you have removed these three options?:
Do they not count as adaptation options, or have you perhaps merged or summarised them into one? EMsmile ( talk) 12:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
As part of WikiPedia SDG 13 project, I (with the help of User:EMsmile and others) will:
Any comments/suggestions are welcome Richarit ( talk) 13:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC) UPDATE -
-- Richarit ( talk) 18:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I am referring to this edit by Richarit where he merged the three options into one section. I think I do agree with this change, the only disadvantage is that this section about options has now become rather large, and its sub-section headings are no longer visible in the TOC, unless the TOC is expanded to allow fourth level headings to be visible as well. Which is what I have now done here. I normally prefer TOC level 3 but it's now TOC level 4. We need to take a close look at the sub-headings within those different options to ensure these are really the best sub-headings to use (and decide if we want them to be visible in the TOC or not). EMsmile ( talk) 12:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@ EMsmile, in this diff, you removed a page number. Just confirming that the remaining page number fully support the text? If not, please self-revert, as a wrong page range makes it much more difficult to verify text. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 17:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Can we please make it clearer in this section what the difference is between Nature-based solutions versus ecosystem-based adaptation? Are the terms used interchangeably in the adaptation literature or is one the overarching term for the other? Nature-based solutions are not specific to adaptation, they can also perform other functions, like wastewater treatment. EMsmile ( talk) 10:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nufarm000 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Nufarm000 ( talk) 19:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to revisit our choice of 4 images for the lead. See also related discussion here:
Proposal to organise Purposes according to the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). The GGA was established in the Paris Agreement and it aims to do 3 broad things: enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate change.
The current Purposes section is confusing because 'respond to impacts' and 'reduce risk factors' headings overlap as objectives (I suppose the former could be more about reacting to evolving hazards and the latter could be more about reducing risk in general?). In any case 'respond to impacts' text doesn't discuss responses, only the impacts whereas 'reduce risk factors' covers responses and risk concepts broadly including vulnerability and adaptive capacity. So we could just have this section as purpose (considering that reduce risks is a quite standard definition, based on the risk propeller on p6 here https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg2/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf) after discussing impacts. On the other hand, we could try to structure this section on the 3 components GGA (also means some overlaps). This is coming more from the political declaration rather than the scientific report but I think it does tie in with what we are doing.
Any thoughts or feedback is welcome Richarit ( talk) 20:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)--
The word "options" doesn't feel right here. It imples mutual exclusivity. Eldomtom2 ( talk) 16:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Things remaining for me to work on :
Some suggestions of improvements that other people could work on
Richarit ( talk) 16:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I was just doing some work on the section about adapting to heat waves in the section "Options by type of impact" and noticed that the issue of greener cities comes up now several times in the article, namely also in the section on cities and on health (in "risks by sectors"). I wonder how we could improve on that? I also wonder if the section heading "risks by sectors" really works. Would reader understand from the table of content what risk has to do with adaptation? EMsmile ( talk) 10:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The regional risks section needs some work. As Richarit pointed out above: "The bit on regional risks and adaptation is weak because it only mentions regional vulnerability and measurement of adaptive capacity that is very old, from AR4 or 5. It would be good to update this with the latest information from the IPCC WG2 chapters for each region (ch 9-15 or add from the TS)." I wonder if it's better to delete it for now as it's not really clear what it's all about and whether it digresses too much into the climate risk or climate vulnerability areas? Do we really need it? Are adaptation efforts really so different from one region to the next? EMsmile ( talk) 10:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
BTW I think that the focus should be more on the adaptations than the risks. Richarit ( talk) 04:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)