This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Silverback (talk | contribs) at 15:25, 15 April 2006 (→Paleo-adaptation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:25, 15 April 2006 by Silverback (talk | contribs) (→Paleo-adaptation)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
