Talk:Climate change adaptation

Table of Contents

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)

Paleo-adaptation

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)

It might help give some perspective to note that the population of Greater London likely matches or exceeds that of Britain at that time, and that cities the size of Bristol or Liverpool aren't just put on the back of a flatbed truck and reconstructed somewhere else. Take a solid look at New Orleans to gain some perspective as to what "sea level rise" means. We have far more technology available. We also have FAR more infrastructure to take care of. --OliverH 23:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Greater London probably has several times the population, of Britain back then. With our technology you can't claim we are more helpless that those populations were. Yes they did not have as much to move or protect. But if they did move they probably had to fight their way. With current levels of unemployment and short work weeks, and long vacations there are plenty of resources available to implement even Holland style solutions, if there is the will.--Silverback 02:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a misconception that short work weeks and long vacations indicate reserves of anything. Men aren't machines and productivity does not correlate linearily with time worked. "Holland style solutions" are not built to withstand global warming. They're built to withstand the status quo. As for our "modern technology" protecting us, I only have one word for you: Katrina. We can't even dream of the logstic effort necessary to preserve or move the coastal centers of economy. And by the way: "Holland style solutions" also require "Holland style" density of population and infrastructure, otherwise, the effort to get the material into position only gets that much greater. --OliverH 23:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I put in just about all the points mentioned above but I canted the text more towards OliverH's perspective than Silverback's perspective. Let's not get into an edit war, here. If you wish to expand the text with additional examples and supporting evidence, fine. However, please do not change the meaning of the section without prior discussion here. Richard 00:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In any global sense, 3 to 4 meters higher is simply wrong. It might be true of a specific location due to tectonic or isostatic effects but if that is what you mean you need to be clearer about where you are referencing. See Image:Holocene Sea Level.png. Dragons flight 02:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

3 to 4 meters is just the figure I've heard for the area of the British coast near where the Romans invaded. It wouldn't surprise me if there were isostatic effects, but I would have thought in northern Europe that would lower "sea level" as the land rebounded. But the cause doesn't matter, when the subject is adaptation, although we should still try to get the cause right. --Silverback 15:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a cleanup tag on this article?

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)

The Kyoto Protocol

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)

Impact of Climate Change on Food Production

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

Redlink attached to my name in this page

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 JimJimtitus (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Jim, why don't you take a try at User:Jimtitus/Bio. Then we'll have something concrete to comment on. -Atmoz (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining where to put a discussion draft. Assuming that your perspective is the consensus, I'll plan to upload a draft by February 1; and when I have done so I'll add a note here to that effect and send a note to you and anyone else who comments on this queryJimtitus (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The is-ought distinction

From the article:

Because of the current and projected climate disruption precipitated by high levels of greenhouse gas emissions by the industrialized nations, adaptation is a necessary strategy at all scales to complement climate change mitigation efforts because we cannot be sure that all climate change can be mitigated.

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)

Advanced Technology

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)

Extensive revision

National Center for Policy Analysis

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 than mitigation.

"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 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 would be lowered much more effectively and economically by reducing current and future vulnerability to climate change rather than through its mitigation.

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, whereas generations would pass before anything less than draconian mitigation would have a discernible effect.

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.

Kyoto Protocol

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."

Geoengineering

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)

Add? Overshoot, adapt and recover in Nature (journal) 2009

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)

Probably not relevant. Convince me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the Point of this article?

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)

Disagree. Adaptation to climate change (or global warming) is a highly relevant topic, in my opinion at least as important as mitigation of climate change. Therefore, Wikipedia needs an entry on this topic. The content and consistency of the article might be improved, though. --Kerres (Talk) 09:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we change the title of this article?

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.]

Hi, Bacamat. I recommend that you don't worry about changing the title yet. First, improve the article as much as it can be improved (especially by adding material from the highest quality scientific sources), then see if you can get a consensus of editors to change the title. This is a very contentious area in Wikipedia, so we must be careful to work with other editors to achieve a consensus on changes. Please always give edit summaries explaining what changes you are making and why, or else explain them here on the talk page. I noticed that you deleted a reference. Please especially explain any deletion of published sources. I also notice that you have been working on the introduction to the article. That's sort of the tail wagging the dog. I suggest that you first work on the body of the article. Then the Lead should be modified to give an overview of the text of the article. See WP:LEAD. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add my support for changing the title of this page to "Adaptation to climate change". Global warming is an increasingly defunct term in the international discussions on climate change for the reasons that Bacamat describes. I was surprised to find this title. -- [Added on 02 December 2011 by User:Solarize-UK.] —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

I created this article and I am open to changing the title as proposed. If there are no objections, I will do the move in a few days. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Spin-off Adaptation to global warming in the United States, per Talk:Regional effects of global warming # Specific cities ?

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)

Here is something was in Regional effects of global warming, maybe better here ... All Climate Is Local: How Mayors Fight Global Warming; Mayors are often better equipped than presidents to cut greenhouse gases by Cynthia Rosenzweig Scientific American August 23, 2011 (current print issue). 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Deadlink issue ...

James Titus identifies the following criteria that policy makers should use in assessing responses to global warming: ...

216.250.156.66 (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

add Exxon quote?

• Exxon on climate change impacts: “Don’t worry, engineering will fix it” June 29, 2012 Skeptic (U.S. magazine)

99.181.136.208 (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)