Yes, it is becoming discipline.

Interesting question. In my part of the world, the US Cornbelt region, climate adaptation in an agricultural context is a complex amalgamation of "adapting" broadly speaking to: shifts in local, regional and global markets; existing and emerging conservation issues at multiple scales (e.g., water quality/quantity concerns, diminished biodiversity); new technology/ equipment; and changing climatic conditions. Though its true that climate change is variously influencing all of these fronts. Still, farming has always been about adaptation to bio-physical conditions and markets (and exogenous conditions). Adaptation to these (often overlapping) conditions is influenced by a number of psycho-social, socio-technological, economic, agronomic, land tenure, and institutional/policy factors in very complex ways. In my opinion, examining these types of complexities is not part of a new discipline per se, rather such examinations have long been part of psychological, sociological, social-pysch, and economic research in agricultural contexts. I don't think that adaptation specifically to climate change (in agriculture) smoothly partitions into its own context, but rather is part of how land users deal with exogenous influencers across time.

Climate change adaptation is situated at the crossroads of science and public action..

In several countries, legislation provides for the integration of climate change adaptation into land-use planning (town and country planning) and sustainable development processes.

Climate change is a natural phenomenon, and therefore cannot be a discipline per se? But....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_(academia)

For instance Biology is a discipline, but cannot be a natural phenomenon per se because it represents a class where different natural phenomena are lumped together under the heading 'Biology'?

I agree with Prof. Tyndall

Yes, it is becoming a science by itself.

Can Biologists become specialists in Climate Change or is it the job of let say Meteorologists? What Biologists can do is to look for associations between changes in weather patterns and responses of individuals, populations or communities, but their job is not to identify underlying causes of Climate Change?

At most a discipline.

I believe that climate change adaptation would best be served as a disciple because it is a geo-bio-socio-political interaction, and once the latter enters in, doing science on those terms becomes more than difficult. It is dangerous to try to attach "scientific significance" to things that are influenced by politics because politics are not always motivated by facts but other subjective forces.

With having the benefit of growing up and working on a farm in addition to my education and career that still includes working directly with farmers and agribusiness, it is my experience that the 2 primary forces that influence farmers decisions are the local environmental conditions (what can be produced most cost efficiently) and government farm policy (biggest driver being commodity subsidies). That was true in the 1960s and still is now. Near the end of his time on earth, a friend and U.S. Congressman that was on the House Ag Committee, Cooper Evans, shared his perspective on the subsidies with me -- the subsidies were not meant to benefit the farmers so much as they were meant to help guarantee feedstock for ag commodity processors. While some people may jump up and scream that doing so is wrong, we must keep an eye on the bigger picture -- ag exports for any nation are vulnerable to perturbations in supply. The challenge for nations' leaders is to balance macro- and micro-scale ag economics with the risks of environmental consequences. In my experience, the principles of sustainable agriculture (that means environmentally and economically) could help nations' leaders make wise policy decisions to guide farmers towards establishing climate resilient systems on their lands.

There are always diversity in individuals' perspectives which might have been influenced by several factors. Whilst one might see climate change adaptation as becoming a discipline, others will definitely see it as otherwise. From my opinion, whether or not climate change adaptation is becoming a discipline depends on how one makes a case for his or her line of argument. I per se, see climate change adaptation as a mere approach to building resilience to the negative attributions of changes in climatic conditions. This approach as I avow, is underpinned by multi-scientific disciplines.

still ..not yet..however , the exact answer will depend on the extent of the word discipline. .It's rather the philosophy of the terminology of natural philosophy and methodology and the relationship to science and technology..if we are looking to some evidences about if it's a separated discipline they we are talking about a package of rules, outstanding theories and rigid prinipples which might persist against the political /economical challenge..is it the case now..!!However what was achieves in climate change theory and models might open the appetite to say yes for all achievements.

Thank you all for your valuable answers. I found the following interesting paper related to this issue Article Science of adaptation to climate change and science for adaptation

Regards