Institution
Cooperative Research Centre
About: Cooperative Research Centre is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Sea ice. The organization has 7633 authors who have published 8607 publications receiving 429721 citations.
Topics: Population, Sea ice, Autism, Climate change, Antarctic sea ice
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: Various endogenous factors that can positively impact the EPR effect in tumor tissues are discussed, as well as practical methods available in the clinical setting for augmenting the effect by use of exogenous agents.
1,701 citations
••
TL;DR: The structure and function of the EGFR is reviewed, from ligand binding to the initiation of intracellular signalling pathways that lead to changes in the biochemical state of the cell.
1,519 citations
••
TL;DR: The remediation of heavy metal(loid) contaminated soils through manipulating their bioavailability using a range of soil amendments will be presented.
1,507 citations
••
University of East Anglia1, University of Exeter2, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research3, Max Planck Society4, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich5, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation6, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology7, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory8, Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies9, École Normale Supérieure10, Centre national de la recherche scientifique11, University of Maryland, College Park12, University of Virginia13, Flanders Marine Institute14, Oak Ridge National Laboratory15, Woods Hole Research Center16, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign17, Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen18, Met Office19, University of California, San Diego20, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency21, Utrecht University22, University of Paris23, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research24, Tsinghua University25, National Center for Atmospheric Research26, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research27, National Institute for Environmental Studies28, Hobart Corporation29, Cooperative Research Centre30, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology31, University of Groningen32, Wageningen University and Research Centre33, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research34, Goddard Space Flight Center35, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research36, Princeton University37, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences38, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration39, Auburn University40, Food and Agriculture Organization41, VU University Amsterdam42
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties, including emissions from land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models.
Abstract: . Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide
( CO2 ) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere,
ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is
important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the
development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we
describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of
the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2
emissions ( EFF ) are based on energy statistics and cement
production data, while emissions from land use and land-use change ( ELUC ),
mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and
bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured
directly and its growth rate ( GATM ) is computed from the annual
changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink ( SOCEAN )
and terrestrial CO2 sink ( SLAND ) are estimated with
global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon
budget imbalance ( BIM ), the difference between the estimated
total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and
terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of
the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ . For the last decade available (2008–2017), EFF was
9.4±0.5 GtC yr −1 , ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , GATM 4.7±0.02 GtC yr −1 ,
SOCEAN 2.4±0.5 GtC yr −1 , and SLAND 3.2±0.8 GtC yr −1 , with a budget imbalance BIM of
0.5 GtC yr −1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated
sinks. For the year 2017 alone, the growth in EFF was about 1.6 %
and emissions increased to 9.9±0.5 GtC yr −1 . Also for 2017,
ELUC was 1.4±0.7 GtC yr −1 , GATM was 4.6±0.2 GtC yr −1 , SOCEAN was 2.5±0.5 GtC yr −1 , and SLAND was 3.8±0.8 GtC yr −1 ,
with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric
CO2 concentration reached 405.0±0.1 ppm averaged over 2017.
For 2018, preliminary data for the first 6–9 months indicate a renewed
growth in EFF of + 2.7 % (range of 1.8 % to 3.7 %) based
on national emission projections for China, the US, the EU, and India and
projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the
carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. The analysis
presented here shows that the mean and trend in the five components of the
global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period of 1959–2017,
but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr −1 persist for the representation
of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison
among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of
observations show (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change
emissions, (2) a persistent low agreement among the different methods on
the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics,
and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean
models, originating outside the tropics. This living data update documents
changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget
and the progress in understanding the global carbon cycle compared with
previous publications of this data set (Le Quere et al., 2018, 2016,
2015a, b, 2014, 2013). All results presented here can be downloaded from
https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2018 .
1,458 citations
••
Colorado State University1, The Nature Conservancy2, Cooperative Research Centre3, University of Washington4, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center5, United States Geological Survey6, United States Forest Service7, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education8, University of the Witwatersrand9, International Water Management Institute10
TL;DR: The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA) as mentioned in this paper is a framework for assessing environmental flow needs for many streams and rivers simultaneously to foster development and implementation of environmental flow standards at the regional scale.
Abstract: SUMMARY 1. The flow regime is a primary determinant of the structure and function of aquatic and riparian ecosystems for streams and rivers. Hydrologic alteration has impaired riverine ecosystems on a global scale, and the pace and intensity of human development greatly exceeds the ability of scientists to assess the effects on a river-by-river basis. Current scientific understanding of hydrologic controls on riverine ecosystems and experience gained from individual river studies support development of environmental flow standards at the regional scale. 2. This paper presents a consensus view from a group of international scientists on a new framework for assessing environmental flow needs for many streams and rivers simultaneously to foster development and implementation of environmental flow standards at the regional scale. This framework, the ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA), is a synthesis of a number of existing hydrologic techniques and environmental flow methods that are currently being used to various degrees and that can support comprehensive regional flow management. The flexible approach allows
1,408 citations
Authors
Showing all 7633 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Eric N. Olson | 206 | 814 | 144586 |
Nicholas G. Martin | 192 | 1770 | 161952 |
Grant W. Montgomery | 157 | 926 | 108118 |
Paul Mitchell | 146 | 1378 | 95659 |
James Whelan | 128 | 786 | 89180 |
Shaobin Wang | 126 | 872 | 52463 |
Graham D. Farquhar | 124 | 368 | 75181 |
Jie Jin Wang | 120 | 719 | 54587 |
Christos Pantelis | 120 | 723 | 56374 |
John J. McGrath | 120 | 791 | 124804 |
David B. Lindenmayer | 119 | 954 | 59129 |
Ashley I. Bush | 116 | 560 | 57009 |
Yong-Guan Zhu | 115 | 684 | 46973 |
Ary A. Hoffmann | 113 | 907 | 55354 |
David A. Hume | 113 | 573 | 59932 |