Talk:Climate change adaptation/Archive 1

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)

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)

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 ?
Spin-off Adaptation to global warming in the United States, per Talk:Regional effects of global warming ? 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 ...
216.250.156.66 (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

add quotation?
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)
 * See Talk:Geoengineering for potential "engineering" reference. 99.181.159.96 (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Add reference

 * Let them eat ... climate adaptation (refering to Let them eat cake) July/18/2012 MinnPost.com; excerpt ...

99.112.212.152 (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Where best to use reference?
99.181.142.117 (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Climate adaptation may be a family affair; Newborn reef fish can cope with changed water conditions if their parents have already adjusted by Janet Raloff July 28th, 2012; Vol.182 #2 (p. 16) Science News

35 deg C or 95 degrees F
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)


 * This issue has been outstanding for almost six months. Consider deleting sentence. SWOldfield (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Out of Date
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 not be whimsically defined
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Adaptation to global warming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100209041437/http://www.imeche.org:80/media/press to http://www.imeche.org/media/press/


 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050222203022/http://animana.org:80/tab2/22glacialmeltdown.shtml to http://www.animana.org/tab2/22glacialmeltdown.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101118005813/http://unfccc.int:80/meetings/cop_15/items/5257.php to http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_15/items/5257.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Update title to "Adaption to climate change"
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


 * Agreed. Climate is a very complex phenomenon, and the effects of overall global warming may be so diverse that only "climate change" may encompass them. Kortoso (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Why hasn't this or the the title of the Global warming article been altered to Climate change yet?Pvilafl (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * By convention, we've decided on Wikipedia to use global warming for the current stuff and climate change for the longer-term fluctuations. There really isn't a solid reason to use one or the other, except that there's a need for different terminology. That, and the fact that we had articles on global warming even before political consultant Frank Luntz tried to reframe global warming as climate change to make it sound less scary. Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems that some political folks would like to call it climate change 'cause "climate is always changing ... so we don't need to do anything 'bout it". However the current episode of change is largely anthropogenic, and we rather do need to "do something about it." The current episode of change is called "global warming" to distinguish it from the always changing climate. Of course the vested interests (big energy and their political pawns) $$ and various other "head in sand" types don't want to see it. Ain't it fun :) Vsmith (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the two terms are very different with Global Warming being used in most sources to describe warming as being done by modern humans. Climate change is far more encompassing, with sun fluctuations, orbit, ice ages, anthropogenic warming, etc... It's not only global warming. As long as the article encompasses all those items, there is no reason not to change it, but they are not identical terms by any stretch. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Article length
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100821073604/http://hdr.undp.org:80/en/media/HDR_20072008_Summary_English.pdf to http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_Summary_English.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Other/index.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229175020/http://www.eed.de/fix/files/doc/2008_BMueller_int_adapatation_finance.pdf to http://www.eed.de/fix/files/doc/2008_BMueller_int_adapatation_finance.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100503041746/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/annex1sglossary-j-p.html to http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/annex1sglossary-j-p.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070303133040/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301081648/http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/cdeser/Docs/deser.internal_variab.climdyn10.pdf to http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/cdeser/Docs/deser.internal_variab.climdyn10.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107193527/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/010.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/010.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316140445/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/azar_1998_four_crucial_issues.pdf to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/azar_1998_four_crucial_issues.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100410171605/http://go.worldbank.org/BKLQ9DSDU0 to http://go.worldbank.org/BKLQ9DSDU0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100727030703/http://www.adaptation-fund.org/howtoapply to http://www.adaptation-fund.org/howtoapply
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402025816/http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/adgerwn/Adgeretal2005GEC.pdf to http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/adgerwn/Adgeretal2005GEC.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922205501/http://www.iied.org/CC/documents/adapt_to_cc.pdf to http://www.iied.org/CC/documents/adapt_to_cc.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100624132408/http://www.geog.psu.edu/pdf/Smit_Wandel_GEC.pdf to http://www.geog.psu.edu/pdf/Smit_Wandel_GEC.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120215160910/http://www.georgetownclimate.org/adaptation/clearinghouse to http://www.georgetownclimate.org/Adaptation/clearinghouse
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012070304/http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/impacts/ to http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/impacts/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204153036/http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/index_e.php to http://www.adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/index_e.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213075012/http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/assess/2007/index_e.php to http://www.adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/assess/2007/index_e.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111230064904/http://cecar.unu.edu/ to http://cecar.unu.edu/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081114101033/http://maindb.unfccc.int/public/adaptation/ to http://maindb.unfccc.int/public/adaptation/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218231656/http://unfccc.int/adaptation/items/4159.phpadaptation to http://unfccc.int/adaptation/items/4159.phpadaptation
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050914181308/http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st278/ to http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st278/
 * Added tag to http://www.heinzctr.org/publications/PDF/Adaptation_Report_October_10_2007.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060507114138/http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/TB1909/ to http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/tb1909/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060503181532/http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer740/ to http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer740/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060225175911/http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/aer703/ to http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer703/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021012207/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/062.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/062.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207020236/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/384.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/384.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100224073153/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/676.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/676.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021123355/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/642.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/642.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091223014417/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/653.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/653.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008034517/http://tcktcktck.org/2011/04/green-climate-fund-clears-planning-hurdle/ to http://tcktcktck.org/2011/04/green-climate-fund-clears-planning-hurdle/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021162125/http://www.climateaccess.org/sites/default/files/Greenpeace_Dealing%20in%20Doubt.pdf to http://www.climateaccess.org/sites/default/files/Greenpeace_Dealing%20in%20Doubt.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060710143740/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/006.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/006.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"Addition made to Adaptation measures by region"
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

Adaptation in past episodes of climate change
I just reverted the following
 * Historically, the Classic Maya civilization can also serve as an example as to how climate change can catalyze human adaptation. The factors that determine a populations' vulnerability and ultimate resilience are identified by Dunning et al. as the system's rigidity, their options for change, and their resilient capacity. In Classic Maya, geography played a role in the civilizations ability to adapt, although it was not enough of a factor to prevent the ultimate collapse of the empire. The coastal plains communities had many more options for change and resilient capacity than those Maya in the elevated interior areas, as they had more dependable access to drinking water in addition to river and maritime trade networks. Traditionally, classical Mayan agriculture was highly adapted to the seasonal weather shifts of drought and precipitation. As the population began to expand, the water reservoirs had to serve more and more people. The sanitation of these reservoirs was achieved by transforming the man-made reservoirs into "wetland biospheres", which involved the planting of pondweeds to purify the water, and water lilies to prevent the build-up of too much algae. Additionally, they implemented terracing on upland slopes in response to the extensive deforestation in Classical Maya lowlands. However, the system began to falter at the end of the Classic period as the Mayan lowlands suffered from a series of droughts. The Mayan kings, who held the royal power, were the ones who had political control over the water resources. They were very dependent on laborers to maintain and clean the reservoirs and wells. As water resources became increasingly scarce and drought plagued the Mayan people, the population gradually began to decrease. This was further exacerbated by a lieu of socioeconomic changes, which included shifting trade routes, intercity conflict, and the presence of adjacent land to relieve population pressures. As the farmers and laborers adapted or migrated, the elite did nothing to change their actions and their political structure began to collapse. 

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)
 * If we follow that Wikipedia convention that climate change is the broad topic and global warming is the man-made part, then this article would have to be renamed to "global warming adaptation"? But in the literature the term "climate change adaptation" is the common term. I do think that eventually we'll have to change things around so that "Climate change" contains what we currently have under "global warming" and there is a separate article called "Climate change (not human influenced)" or something like that, as that's becoming the less well-known and less important sub-topic.EMsmile (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Climate vulnerability
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)
 * A little late to this but that certainly deserves its own article! It doesn't look like any of the vulnerability content here has been moved anyway, no? Alison Alice (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet . See . —  Newslinger  talk   14:30, 28 August 2019 (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)
 * Effects of climate change on..
 * Effects of global warming on..
 * this article, Climate change adaptation
 * Climate security

"This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay"
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)


 * I think the section on migration, which is largely unsourced, reads like an essay. Rest of article seems alright to me. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

adding images
add this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_change_adaptation_icon.png --Tommaso.sansone91 (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you should be able to add it yourself as described here or see Help:Pictures

Chidgk1 (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 October 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. (non-admin closure) comrade waddie96 ★ (talk)  10:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

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)
 * opposed because premature The main page title has been the subject of reform discussions for more than a year, so proposing anything here based on the current status quo is premature. If the perennial top article move/redirect debate (current at Talk:Climate change) is ever resolved, I look forward to working with you and WP:WikiProject Climate Change and anyone to propagate the outcome (whatever it is) down through the various sub-articles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * opposed Not only premature, but also note that the term isn't in use. While global warming as a term is used sometimes to describe modern climate change, global warming adaptation is so rare that's it is close to a made-up term (383 results in Google Scholar and that includes results that use it in two different sentences such as "(...) the causes of global warming. Adaptation can take two forms (...)"). Normal Google has a similar results: it's not used as a phrase. That is also quite logical: we don't have to adapt only to rising temperatures (modern global warming) but to all aspects of modern climate change (changes in sea level, storm tracks, precipitation and so forth). Agree further with NEAG that this is not the place or time to discuss this. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (chuckle, I would have said all that, but figured it was premature....) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as the phrase "climate change" is historically overwhelmingly used to describe modern anthropogenic climate change. bd2412  T 18:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should "Cost of adaptation vs. mitigation" section be deleted?
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)

Should "Opposition to adaptation" section be deleted?
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)

Killed the "adaption policies by region" section
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)

add wildfire prevention / mitigation with goats?
X1\ (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * California Cities Turn To Hired Hooves To Help Prevent Massive Wildfires January 5, 2020 NPR.org

External links list needs culling
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)
 * I have also removed these external links now. I am sure those projects are very good but there are probably hundreds of equally good projects out there. We should only include the most important, overarching websites here. The ones I removed today are:


 * Integrating Hydro-Climate Science into Policy Decisions for Climate-Resilient Infrastructure and Livelihoods in East Africa (HyCRISTAL) was aimed to tackle uncertainties that exist around climate change projections for the region, concentrating in particular on what they mean for the availability and management of water.
 * Southern African Science Service Centre for Climate Change and Adaptive Land Management (SASSCAL) initiative aims to put possible solutions to the many challenges of global change to develop and produce scientifically sound findings and sustainable socio-economic benefits for the entire Southern Africa region.
 * West African Science Service Center on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use (WASSCAL) is a research-focused Climate Service Centre designed to help tackle this challenge and thereby enhance the resilience of human and environmental systems to climate change and increased variability in West Africa.

EMsmile (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

How to improve the section "measures by region"?
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)
 * The current setup is not useful at all. To the extent regions matter, it's when they are a place of similar climate threats, such as stronger typhoons, which is not how it is organised. The section should be scrapped as an arbitrary list, with relevant information kept on this article only if it fits as an example in "Adaptation options". CMD (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've boldly removed it now. Never know how to integrate those sections. As the information was often undue / old, I didn't spend more than 3 minutes looking for things to rescue, so feel free to revert me and do this more carefully. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have gone through the deleted content and rescued it all by moving the text blocks to the respective "climate change in Country X" or "climate change in Region X" articles where they were welcome additions to beef up the short or missing sections on adaptation. There was one paragraph that I have rescued and moved back into this article (about policy) - check for repetition. Otherwise, I think it was a good move to remove the "measures by region" section. EMsmile (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How about adding now a section called "Examples by country" and then from there just link to the country articles? We have done that here and I think it's pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Africa However, it would require a navbox for the entire world and all the country articles. So far I think we only have a navbox for climate change articles in Africa, Asia, Europe? Each of the country articles will have (or already has) a section on adaptation. EMsmile (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * By country would become a mess, with many one-line paragraphs... By continent? Or just weave it in other section? I prefer the latter. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest that weaving any particularly important/useful examples into relevant sections would be best. E.g. if the section talks about flood proofing measures and we have a good example from the Netherlands then place the example directly in the flood proofing section, rather than in a country section. However, like I said above, could there also be a clever, not-to-be-overlooked way to point people to the 54 CCC articles (CCC = Climate change in county X), where people can find adaptation information as well? I think we don't have a navbox as of yet that shows them all. Could it go into the navbox on climate change as another row? Or we created a new navbox for "climate change by country" articles? So far we have those navboxes only for certain regions (Asia, Africa, Europe, North America). Navboxes also can get overlooked though. Could we mention the navbox in a Section called "Examples", like it was done here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Africa#Climate_change_by_African_country ? EMsmile (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've realised I can add a nav box with all climate change country articles like this:

Have added that now. Do you agree? EMsmile (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, much more useful than the random list in the article. CMD (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it, User:CDM. :-) I have actually moved it up a little now to a new section called "By country". Do you agree? Am going to make the same change also for the climate change mitigation article. Is "By country" a clear enough heading? I see we use "By sector" sometimes, so I have modelled it on that. EMsmile (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, headers should not be used to contain solely templates, as such items do not show up on mobile devices, meaning it's a blank header. If it is to go into the article body, it needs to be part of a larger section. CMD (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't know that. Why don't templates or nav boxes show up on mobile devices? Not even on the Wikipedia App, I see. That's a pity. It will probably be rectified some day. Would it help if we added a couple of explanatory sentences? I think if it's just in a navbox at the very bottom then nobody will notice that it exists. EMsmile (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They just don't display well on mobile views to my understanding. Always use desktop mode when on a mobile device. I was thinking of just putting it under an existing header if the desire is to keep it out of the end, such as under Effective policy. CMD (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's better if the table stays as a Level 1 heading but I have now added a couple of sentences to ensure the section is not empty. What do you think, CMD? EMsmile (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The conversation above removed the by country section, I don't think it makes sense to add it back again. Text can also no rely on tables, for the above mobile reasons. CMD (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean? The By country section was still there when I last looked at it. You had proposed to move it under "Effective policy" but I don't see the advantage of that, as either way the table needs a sentence to introduce is. Or maybe I didn't understand correctly what you were planning to do. I think if someone looks at it from the mobile version they'll realise that there should be a table that is not visible. There are other shortcomings with mobile versions as well which we don't take as a reason to curtail ourselves with the desktop version? EMsmile (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion initially was about a "measures by region" section which was then removed, this appears to recreate that section in a new form. The table shouldn't need a sentence to introduce, as no text should be relying on tables to convey information, and hopefully elements such as tables and images should be able to standalone. The advantage of putting tables and other elements into existing sections is they strengthen the presentation of those sections on desktop while not making the article look unfinished on mobile (most readers use mobile apparently, although I don't have the stats to hand). CMD (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, I started off this section by asking "how to improve the section "measures by region"". User:Femkemilene deleted it but did say she wasn't sure what was best in this case. My suggestion with the table was trying to reach a compromise by allowing people to find the "by country" information easily without creating extra work and duplicating content. With the sentences (and one reference) that I have added, the section is now no longer empty. We could even add a bit more prose here just to indicate how countries may differ in their approaches (although I don't have that info at my fingertips). Moving it under "effective policy" would mean that it's not visible in the table of content. - Do the other page watchers have any opinions? EMsmile (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Restructured along the lines of 3 categories
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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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)

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

Advertisement
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. 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.

Is the image in the lead really ideal?
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)
 * ,, , , : Just wondering if you have an opinion about the image in the lead of this article? Sorry for the ping, just ignore if too busy. :-) I am generally very interested in the leads and the lead images. See also here for "sustainable energy": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_energy#Just_one_image_in_the_lead,_or_a_collage . EMsmile (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Another thing I don't like about this image for being the image in the lead is that the reader has to do quite a bit of reading and thinking; whereas something that is more visual (less text) might help to grasp the concept faster. Also, whilst the image is very detailed, it doesn't actually say anything about the type of adaptation measures that are available. Of course I would keep the image but just not in the lead. EMsmile (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the lead image here is bad on several levels- it's not legible on smartphone / thumbnail view, way too much text in general, doesn't work as a visual clue for search results, is poor quality and not SVG.
 * The tougher question is what to replace it with. If you scan the rest of this article there's not many good images in there, at least not many images that are clear at a glance in a gallery as to what's going on. Google image results aren't very helpful either.
 * I think maybe we should create something for climate change that's like the sustainable energy template and use that (here it is on a page: renewable energy). Efbrazil (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Efbrazil, sorry for my long silence. I had some dramas with other Wikipedians (not related to climate change articles) and took a little Wikibreak but now I am back, feeling refreshed. I looked for suitable images on Wikimedia Commons but found nothing there. I also looked in Google Images and found some interesting schematics; some of them might work but we'd have to track down the correct licence of course. Just one arbitrary example is this report by IUCN which includes some interesting schematics and photos on adaptation: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/PAG-024.pdf . Overall, do we have a preference for either a schematic, or some photos? If the preference is for photos then a single photo would probably not work, but perhaps a collage of 4 photos? The website of WeAdapt uses a collage of 25 photos on its front page. That seems a bit much, but maybe a collage of 4 or 9 photos would do. But I am just wondering what's likely to be better: a schematic (but not with a lot of text please) or photos? EMsmile (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding your other suggestion of a navbox template at the top right, I am just wondering: How is that better than the nav box that we already have for climate change at the bottom of the article? If we decided to have one then I would put it below the image in the lead section. Otherwise, a lot of articles would end up with the same image that would come up in the searches which would make it a bit boring and confusing. EMsmile (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I hear you about wikibreak and drama, I'm partly on break now myself, at least steering clear of negative energy.
 * I prefer schematics if they can be done elegantly, but this topic is hard to wrap up in one schematic, but then again it's also hard to wrap up in a collage too. Of the 25 photos in the weadapt page, none of them are clearly "adaptation"- they show bad climate change stuff in vulnerable areas and then show happy images of food and people and such, I guess theoretically after the bad things are dealt with. Maybe it's a bit too pollyannic, but I don't have a better idea.
 * An informational side bar is much more visible than something at the bottom of the page and could help deflect from a lousy image in articles like this one, but it won't appear on smartphone or search results, so it's not really a "solution" to the image issue, just a way to mitigate the problem.
 * If you want to take a crack at something like a collage that would be great. Efbrazil (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am still pondering about this, trying to work out if a schematic or a collage of images would work better. If we decided on using a schematic, how do we feel about this one? I think it's nice and simple. However, it only shows how adaptation fits in the overall theme but not what the categories or steps within adaptation are. If we go down the pat of an image collage, we should try to find examples of the three categories of adaptation, i.e. 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. Or perhaps these three categories could be shown nicely in a schematic. A bit like the graphical summary of this paper from 2014. There is probably something suitable already out there, we just need to track it down? EMsmile (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 1 for a picture collage for the lead
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)




 * The current image doesn't even really deal with actual adaptation strategies, and the pictures shown above capture the breadth of adaptations. The EPA website has 164 strategies on this list. I think a text/concept-centered image is best as a main image. — RCraig09 (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been searching and searching on the internet and in Wikimedia Commons for a schematic. I have not found one that is suitable for the lead. Unless you know of a good one that I haven't found yet? I think the lead is trying to show to lay people what it's all about. It should not be overly wordy and complicated. It should indicate to the reader that they have come to the right page. I think some more schematics could be added to the main body. - If we agree that my picture collage is better than the current image then how about I swap it over, and then in parallel we keep searching for a concept-based image? Once we find it, we can then replace the picture collage. Hence, this would amount to incremental improvements. I think we have consensus that the current image is not suitable for the lead (scroll up to the earlier section to see previous comments as well). EMsmile (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's preferred style for the intro to have a single summary image, not a collage. I think that many of the pictures above would simply make the article look like the article is in a children's encyclopedia rather than an adult encyclopedia, which calls for a deeper understanding and substantive content in terms of ideas/words. Another idea: With Gimp I can make an animated GIF of free-use images, with each image having an embedded textual caption to place each image in context. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a collage looks more professional than a GIF. The current schematic is not good, I think we can all agree. A collage would be an improvement, but if we can find/make a better supersimple schematic I'm also happy with that. I think it would be good to have a picture of nature-based adaptation included as this is a hot topic within CCA research / COP26. One of the two top images could be replaced as they seem similar from a first glance. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @RCraig09: I'm not familiar with that preference (I know we're not supposed to have ethical collages, but that's different, right?). I think I would typically agree for articles where a representative image exists, but my simple mind can't think of an appropriate one here. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * When MOS:LEAD discusses images, it refers to "image"—singular. Collages aren't prohibited, but most I've seen (Paris, Amsterdam, Tokyo) seem designed for tourists and not for science readers.
 * Pictures of people working in fields or standing on a beach or signing documents (above) seem too simplistic or childish (especially without a textual explanation), so in the absence of an animated GIF I think a conceptual diagram (elaborate example) should be our aim, including:
 * ● Reforestation ● Wetland restoration ● Flood barriers ● Drought-tolerant crops ● Freshwater conservation ● Population migration ● Endangered species preservation ● Selective breeding of coral ● etc.
 * — RCraig09 (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think image collages can work well also for science topics. Compare with the image collages at sustainable development, marine biology, ecology. They're good, aren't thy? And yes, of course the caption would explain what each image shows, just like we did at sustainable development. For climate change adaptation I think it's important to not show technical aspects but also people, as adaptation is about people. What makes a photo "childish" in your opinion? Like we said in the article: "Climate change adaptation involves structural, physical, social and institutional adaptation." What if we try to select one photo for each of those? One to signify structural adaptation, one for physical etc. Nature-based adaptation would be be wetland restoration or reforestation, right? We have two of those already? I've included one for wetland restoration now in the version below. EMsmile (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Image collage, proposal 2
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)


 * By 'childish' I meant oversimplified and without concrete scientific content showing the physical actions of adaptation. It's perfectly fine to show people as long as they're involved in the physical (photographically representable) act of adaptation and not just signing something at a table.
 * I think we're zeroing in on something workable. The sea wall pic is most appropriate. The pic of twenty people planting mangroves trumps the pic of five people holding tree boxes, as it conveys some degree of scale. But I'm having a little difficulty getting how the wetland picture is actually a wetland restoration picture, and the shacks on the beach do not convey the claimed "adaptation project". I'm sure we can find, say, four pictures that signify something concrete, maybe using the list of categories I made above, in . Thanks for all your work. I'll be doing some more searching myself. — RCraig09 (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I think the physical and infrastructure measures are easy to show in pictures (dykes, sea walls, planting trees and so forth). But the harder part is the social and institutional adaptation measures. That's why I think at least two of the pictures should show people rather prominently. My idea for the institutional adaptation measures was to show law makers, politicians or alike doing something. Signing laws, contracts etc. Or engaging with the population, capacity building, awareness raising... So let's have one of the four images along those lines? People are so important when it comes to adaptation. EMsmile (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I noticed that the currently 4 selected images all have something to do with water. Might be my subconscious background (I come from the water & sanitation field). So maybe one or two should be non-water. Tree planting is non water. Photos showing political or admin activities are also non-water. EMsmile (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the general concept of variety (different areas of adaptation as I listed in green above). I understand that "people are important when it comes to adaptation" but a picture of people signing laws or contracts does not convey anything about adaptation; a pic of people planting trees does succeed. — RCraig09 (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the following gallery has good variety of candidates:

EMsmile (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

EMsmile (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Any of various "green roof" pics are OK with me.
 * I favor the image of many-people-planting-trees over few-people-planting-trees.
 * Separately: human migration is a valid subtopic, and when I specifically looked though Commons images for representative photos I couldn't find one that explicitly, visibly tied the migrants to climate change, though Oxfam explicitly ties File:Oxfam Horn of Africa famine refugee.jpg to "drought and conflict". I'd be OK including that image here. (From Category:Environmental_migrants.)
 * "Social and institutional adaptation measures" can't be shown in a picture . They are precursors to adaptation but are not adaptation itself. 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.
 * Similarly, simply showing a village or shacks close to the sea, abstractly shows a motivation for adaptation, but does not show adaptation. — RCraig09 (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for this fruitful discussion. I think we are slowly getting there. Nevertheless, I disagree with you on this one: 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)
 * The best pictures will stand practically on their own; that's why we use pictures rather than words alone.
 * In contrast, a pic of people signing a document demands a caption to even show the picture's relevance! Such a picture conveys nothing beyond its caption! — RCraig09 (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * As a starting point, I've replaced the old diagram with some of the pics you've found, and some I've found. Probably the best course is to possibly add a small number of additional pics to touch on different approaches. — RCraig09 (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replacing the old diagram in the lead, good move. Regarding the image collage that you have put together, I am not sure about the one with the agriculture / selective breeding of crops. Firstly, it adds too much white overall (purely from an aesthetic point of view). Secondly, I don't find it a very strong/typical/clear picture for climate change adaptation. But let's see what others think. Meanwhile, let's add some of the other images that we had found (but not used for the lead) into the main body of the article. EMsmile (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * hello, if I may jump in here (I'm from weadapt) of course adaptation could be many things some of which are difficult to find imagery for, law-making or financial services for example or migration (the usual cases where direct attribution is possible are low lying islands). I'm not sure what to do about that. I would also favour showing people doing things, so perhaps we could have a picture of a training/learning where people are also doing something. I like the tree planting picture, although I wish it were not showing USAID - the aid system is given a lot of prominence and credit rather than local government and community work. I like the sea wall - it probably could mention storm surges as well (as more frequent extreme storms is in addition to and interacting with SLR). For the green wall one it might be better to select an external wall or roof as they have the biggest impact on temperature/heat stress (I just quickly checked this - but it might not necessarily be an issue). I like the crop/genetic one - but you do have to enlarge/click to see it well. I will ask around a few others opinions and get back to you. Oh and also I do dislike 'staged' pictures with people where they are looking at the camera. I think the current set are better from this aspect. --86.20.134.236 (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

How much sea level rise?
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".

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)


 * Good question. The Sea level rise article itself is rated good (green mark top right) so that might have better info than this article. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've deleted this detailed content about sea level rise because the figures on this should be at Sea level rise. If they need to be repeated here then only by using an excerpt. EMsmile (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Improve the section on adaptation to flooding
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)

Suggestion to convert to long references style
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)
 * I can do this conversion but perhaps I'll wait until User:Richarit has continued with his work: I assume that during the process of updating this article, some of the older references to the AR4 or AR5 reports will be replaced with references to the AR6 report? EMsmile (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, when we cite IPCC reports we should always use their preferred citation style which is usually provided on page 1 or 2 of the pdf file where it says "This chapter should be cited as:". The easiest way of doing this is to click on "cite" then "manual" and then "basic". Copy the preferred citation text to that free text box, then add the URL to the pdf file and also the URL to the IPCC report page (to be extra sure in case the pdf file gets moved later). EMsmile (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, I've converted them all to long ref style. I still need to do the same at effects of climate change since we are now using an excerpt from there.

Question about removed options
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)
 * Installing protective and/ or resilient technologies and materials in properties that are prone to flooding
 * Surveying local vulnerabilities, raising public awareness, and making climate change-specific planning tools like future flood maps
 * Requiring waterfront properties to have higher foundations


 * Thanks. I removed the first because it is a single source not discussing CCA (move to flood risk management, the second because it is not a structural measure (moved later in the article) and the third because it is contained in another option --Richarit (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Plan for improving this page
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)
 * 1) improve the purposes section : reduce risk factors. This needs to be linked to the climate risk page (which we also plan to improve - and we can draw from the lead on that page. Needs to be improved eg. explain that hazards cannot be reduced but vulnerability and exposure can.
 * 2) improve related concepts : synergies with mitigation. This could refer to the climate resilience (or climate resilient development) page
 * 3) restructure to have one overall section on options with subsections on structural, social & institutional [removed 3 options:
 * 4) Installing protective and/ or resilient technologies and materials in properties that are prone to flooding
 * 5) Surveying local vulnerabilities, raising public awareness, and making climate change-specific planning tools like future flood maps
 * 6) Requiring waterfront properties to have higher foundations
 * 7) improve social adaptation options. I would include a new subsection on informational services like climate services and EWS
 * 8) improve challenges section. Add some introductory text to better connect it in the page, and consult experts on what the other main challenges are
 * 9) a new section on 'measuring progress on adaptation' would be useful. This can cover similar grounds as on the weadapt introduction article
 * 10) update the references to AR4 and AR5 with AR6
 * 11) add further summary of the article into the lead section to amount to 500-600 words
 * 1) I have improved the purposes section as suggested, plus brought in the description of adaptive capacity as it relates to reducing risk. I now have a new proposal to organise Purposes according to the Global Goal on Adaptation(3 parts - see below)
 * 2) have improved DRR section but not synergies. Missing in the latter are discussions on NBS / forests/agricuture as current examples are only from urban sector
 * 3) done-  4 types of options are discussed although some could do with more refinement
 * 4) done
 * 5) not done but still planned
 * 6) not done but still planned - introduce 'adaptation planning' as a separate section or combined with implementation
 * 7) done (for all sections updated)
 * 8) not done yet

Putting all the options in one section instead of three
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)


 * Thanks for this. I think it looks fine with the sub headings visible and I agree we should look at these. They are not very consistent because some section texts were written before we did the reorganisation and some options were and are in the wrong categories. For example 'responding to sea level rise' mentions hard and soft options, but those soft options such as community strategies/adaptations would come under social/behavioural category below (and so would any sort of household level response to flood). One way around this would be to have a sub section on flooding and the main other hazards (drought & rainfall variation, heat, and flooding) below each category of option. so that would look like this :


 * 1) Structural and physical options
 * 2) For flooding
 * 3) For drought and rainfall variability
 * 4) For heat
 * 5) For sea level rise
 * 6) Other 1
 * 7) Other 2
 * 8) Social options
 * 9) For flooding
 * 10) For drought and rainfall variability
 * 11) For heat
 * 12) Other 1
 * 13) etc ..
 * The disadvantage is that this approach (where we organise by type/category, then by hazard) would probably make it much too long for inclusion in the TOC. --Richarit (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The other thing to mention is that the AR6 Ch 16 organises options (they now call them adaptation responses) in a different way - they organise into:


 * Technological/Infrastructural
 * Institutional
 * Behavioural/cultural
 * Nature-based
 * These map quite well into our 3 current categories (which were from 2014 report I think) but Nature-based is a new category that we have under structural and physical (but a bit broader than 'ecosystem based adaptation'). --Richarit (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for this. I think it might be better if we follow the IPCC way of grouping the options more closely, as this should be pretty much the gold standard... Also I find your proposal interesting for grouping it by "type of change". It has inspired me to try out a quite different structure which I have now implemented by creating a new section called "Adaptation responses by type of climate change impact". I am thinking here we can put the more tangible examples of how we adapt to certain impacts of climate change. The section "Adaptation responses by type of option" could then focus more on the theoretical approaches. Do you think this could work? I think for our readers this might work better as they might wonder "how can we adapt to flooding" and then they could jump directly to that section. EMsmile (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * agreed, this is a better arrangement if we are permitted to allocate two sections - it is a potentially big subtopic Richarit (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Page number
@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)
 * Hi, my reasoning for removing the end page number of the given range was "I think it's enough to give the starting page number, it gets too distracting otherwise". When the content for a cite goes over say 2 pages, I think it's sufficient to give the starting page number. This allows readers to easily find the correct location in the document. The page number itself is already a little bit of a distraction, especially if it's a high number like . I find that if it then says this would be distracting for the reader.  EMsmile (talk)
 * But you are misleading people that verify such claims. It would cost me 15 rather than 5 minutes to verify such a claim; and there is a good chance I will come to the conclusion it's not supported and delete part of content that was correctly cited before. You can't just make up your own convention about how to cite sources. Surely the solution lies in using a different cite system if you really dislike the long inline text. In articles with the rp system, I tend to use shorter sources to ensure I don't overfill the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am genuinely confused now. I thought the page number was meant to tell people where they can find the content that is being cited. So in this diff I changed the page range that User:Richardit had provided with the page where the content was first mentioned in that document. Separately, I talked about it with the user (who is still quite new) because my understanding was that the page number is meant to provide the location where the content begins to be talked about, and that the end page number of a page range is not really required. Similarly to how I did it here today: I cited content from chapter 8 of the WG III report. The content is explained from various angles over pages 8-63 and the following two pages but I think saying shows the reader exactly where the content is in the document. Have I unknowingly violated a style guide rule about citing page numbers that I wasn't aware of? If you say it's important to provide the range of pages (start to end), I can adjust my way of citing in future (and revert that edit in question), no problem. I honestly thought that what I was doing was quite normal (noting also that for journal papers nobody usually provides pages numbers even if the journal paper is quite long; control+F is useful for finding the right location anyhow).  EMsmile (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If all the information you cite is found on a single page, you can just cite that single page. Even if more pages talk about the same thing. If not all of the information can be found there, you need to cite all the other pages needed to verify the information. So if the end of page 4 says:
 * "Femke gave the birds some seeds to" and page 5 says "eat so that they had enough energy to fly about", I would need to cite both pages if I were to paraphrase that.
 * It's true that we're stricter on citing pages than journals (and in general, in checking that the sources actually pan out. You wouldn't believe how sloppy scientists are with citations now and then). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * [written in parallel to Femke's edit on 20:19] I've now put the end page number back in just to be on the safe side. I'd still like to understand this better as for my own edits I usually only put the starting page number (but most of the time, the content that I want to cite is only on one single page anyhow). I've checked through the guidelines and it usually says "page number or range", see e.g. here: WP:CITEPAGE. "It helps to give a page number or page range—or a section, chapter, or other division of the source—because then the reader does not have to carefully review the whole cited source to find the relevant supporting evidence, which promotes efficient source checking." (bolding added by me). I thought that meant I can give either a page number or a page range. Is it possible that this is partly down to personal preference? If everybody uses page ranges, I can of course get in the habit of doing that, too. No problem. EMsmile (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is a single page that supports the text fully, you should cite that.
 * If there isn't, you should cite a range/multiple pages.
 * You're allowed to cite a range (personal preference) when information is found on one page, but it's preferred to only cite one page in that case. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Nature-based solutions versus ecosystem-based adaptation
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)


 * Yes, you are right - NBS is the overarching term and it is newer than EbA but there is a lot of overlap. I have mentioned this in the page. It is not really possible to separate out EbA and other types of NBS (the other important concepts/approaches in NBS such as Green Infrastructure, Climate Smart Agriculture, Ecosystem based DRR are also arguably part of EbA). Instead I have added subsections on benefits for ecosystems and for people. We can add more examples of options here (they are also going to overlap a lot). Richarit (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Tech Writing for Agriculture
— Assignment last updated by Nufarm000 (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting the 4 images in the lead
I'd like to revisit our choice of 4 images for the lead. See also related discussion here:
 * The first two are good, I think.
 * The third one with the selective breeding is too difficult to grasp for a layperson, I think. Can we find a better one to illustrate agricultural techniques for adaptation? I guess an irrigated field would be one but maybe not a terribly sustainable solution?
 * Also the one with the green roof is nice but is it too exotic? Are green roofs too rare at this stage? Perhaps replace it with a different one that shows greening of cities, e.g. one with shade and trees? (note Wikimedia Commons is likely to have lots of images for that) EMsmile (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * We adopted a similar format for lead images on the weADAPT article at https://www.weadapt.org/knowledge-base/climate-adaptation-learning-resources/an-introduction-to-adaptation and I wonder if any of these would fit your needs ? I am not sure of the Creative Commons status but we had permission to use them there so if there is one or two you like we could enquire  Richarit (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Purposes section
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)--
 * 1) enhance adaptive capacity - we have the subsection on adaptive capacity fitting here
 * 2) strengthen resilience - relating to system-level resilience and climate resilient developent discussed a lot in AR6
 * 3) reduce vulnerability to climate change - rewrite/expand current text for 'reduce risk factors'. The problem here is that 'exposure' is no longer considered to be a component of vulnerability (since AR5) but a separate risk factor, so I am wondering how to bring it in under this heading (?)
 * Yes, I think it would be a good idea to re-arrange the purposes section. It was actually me who created it (from existing text) in an edit in April 2021, see here. Previously the structure looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change_adaptation&oldid=1019006236. It's probably also better to remove the excerpt from effects of climate change or reduce it to just one paragraph. Also, I am wondering if "aims" might be a better section title than "purposes"? I don't have a strong preference on this though. EMsmile (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. This was (finally) completed now! Richarit (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

"Adaptation options" section
The word "options" doesn't feel right here. It imples mutual exclusivity. Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would "options" imply that the options are mutually exclusive? If so, what would be a better title for this section, or could the section text make it clearer that the options are not mutually exclusive? EMsmile (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it implies mutual exclusivity to me, only that it does. Perhaps something like "adaptation by area" would work better?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think "options" is quite often used to describe the activities; however we also use the word 'responses' because this is what the IPCC report used (because the focus in the report was on implemented/documented adaptation). Perhaps the categories are more like areas, within which there are many options. A portfolio of options/measures (implies they are to be implemented together) - but do we want to introduce another term ? Richarit (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "approaches" ? — RCraig09 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Summary of recent edits (mid Feb- early March)

 * ‘Aims’ section: I redeveloped the former ‘purposes’ section into a longer ‘aims’ section that aligns with the GGA 3 components and unpacks these a bit. The policy goals of adaptation are context dependent and very varied, but it might be possible to give some examples in the planning and implementation section further down and link to these.
 * ‘Adaptation options’ section: I filled it in quite a bit with more examples of each type (all from the IPCC WG2 AR6 report)
 * ‘Sectoral and regional risks and adaptation’: I developed this section with several new subsections, and I deleted some of the older material about vulnerability. For each sector (Food is still missing) there is a paragraph or two about the main risks facing the sector and a paragraph or two of the main adaptation responses that are documented. Some of this was much too closely copied from the IPCC WG2 AR6 report, so thanks to Diannaa for pointing this out.
 * ‘Related activities’: section was worked on by me and EMsmile. We moved the text about Effects of climate change here under a new subsection about ‘climate change impacts’ research. We also have two other activities ‘disaster risks, response and preparedness’ and ‘climate change mitigation’ which are research and policy areas.
 * I've changed the "related activities" section heading to "Understanding the need" for now. Another option could be "scientific framing" maybe. EMsmile (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Things remaining for me to work on :
 * Improve the lead section
 * Develop the section on Planning and implementing, to include more on the demand-driven approach and the tools available

Some suggestions of improvements that other people could work on Richarit (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 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).
 * ‘Related activities’: On the subsection on Climate change mitigation synergies it would be good to mention NBS / forests/agricuture as current examples are only from urban sector.
 * ‘Related activities’: in this section the link with sustainable development could also be made. There is already text about this and SDG13 in the section on ‘global goals’
 * ‘Adaptation by type of impact’ : The subsection on ‘Changed rainfall patterns in agriculture’ should be broadened to mention other sectors like energy and industry and the heading changed to ‘changed rainfall patterns’
 * ‘Adaptation by type of impact’ : Other main types of impacts missing are extreme cold spells, various impacts on storms and wildfire - perhaps check also ‘Effects of climate change’. Something to consider is listing the direct effects first and then the more indirect, so starting with climate extremes : heat and cold waves, tropical cyclones, changing precipitation, and then drought, floods, wildfires and then all of the other systems that are impacted such as migration/mobility, trade, conflict etc. Could put some introductory text to explain this logic.
 * ‘Sectoral and regional risks and adaptation’: Food and agriculture section is still missing (IPCC chapter 5)


 * Thanks for your work here! The article will need quite a bit of work on making it easier to understand. Will you work on this as part of the project? For instance, the IPCC glossary is used to explain vulnerability like "the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected", which can be written much easier without the need to use quotations.
 * I've noticed some close paraphrasing from the glossary in general, Richardit. Can you do some more rewording towards a general audience there? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Femke - yes, some colleagues in our team will be looking closely at readability and scoring the article with a couple of tools, and I will work with them.
 * Climate vulnerability uses this definition of vulnerability so we would also need to change it there if we can find some better wording. The common usage as in the extent to which one is likely to experience damage or harm as discussed on this page (this page itself is now a bit out of date) might be used ?
 * I will look at the other wording for glossary and try to make a few improvements Richarit (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Internal overlap / repetition in risks by sector
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)


 * You are right - is it better to avoid redundancy in the article and/or link the sections ? Wouldn't the reader be likely to miss the connection if we take it out of sections ? In other articles about green cities, green infrastructure there is quite a gap when it comes to text about climate change adaptation. Richarit (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think avoiding redundancy would be good, especially given that the article is getting a bit long now (51 kB). Internal linking within the article can be done (sparingly); for some reason it's not very recommended but I think every now and again it could be appropriate. Also, if you have identified a gap in e.g. green infrastructure then I think it would be wise to add a link across from there to here (and even add a paragraph or excerpt there if it makes sense). EMsmile (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

What to do about the regional risks section?
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)


 * Yes, the risks and responses are different for different regions/continents (there is a good overview in chapter 16 figures 16.2,3,4 and 5.). We could perhaps look at the respective articles on climate change in these regions and what they say about adaptation. Eg. the Climate change in Africa page has quite a big section on CCA (it also shows differences within the continent) Although I still think the IPCC chapters would be the best source

BTW I think that the focus should be more on the adaptations than the risks. Richarit (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, we should focus more on the adaptation options not on the risks. The risks are more relevant for other Wikipedia articles, I guess climate risk would be the main one. Taking content from the IPCC chapters is good but comes with its own problems (the need for, and difficulty of, paraphrasing and converting into simpler language). By the way, adaptation is also included as a section in the "climate change by country" articles, e.g. here for Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Australia#Adaptation How do we ensure that we don't double up on content if we talk about particular countries. Maybe it's better to group them by type of country, e.g. low income country with water scarcity problems, high income country with sea level rise problems, or something like that.  EMsmile (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Mind you, why do we have a section heading called "Risks by sectors"? I am confused now. Perhaps better "Adaptation challenges by sector"? EMsmile (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It was formerly 'Sectoral and regional risks and adaptation' but it got shortened to 'risks by sectors'. The idea was to have a paragraph or two about the main risks facing the sector and a paragraph or two of the main adaptation responses in the sector (based on WG2 chapters). It should perhaps be called Adaptation by sector (this would be similar to the mitigation article which has 'Mitigation by sector' for buildings, transport, etc.) or indeed challenges if this is a better term. Richarit (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for that explanation. I have changed it for now to "options by sector" and "options by region" (as the article is about adaptation, I felt we could have a section title that is short, rather than "adaptation options by sector"). Would this work? We now have:


 * Options by type of action
 * Options by type of impact
 * Options by sector
 * Options by region EMsmile (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * yes, I think it works well Richarit (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)