Institution
Lund University
Education•Lund, Sweden•
About: Lund University is a education organization based out in Lund, Sweden. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Cancer. The organization has 42345 authors who have published 124676 publications receiving 5016438 citations. The organization is also known as: Lunds Universitet & University of Lund.
Topics: Population, Cancer, Insulin, Breast cancer, Diabetes mellitus
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of Exeter1, École Normale Supérieure2, Norwich Research Park3, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research4, Wageningen University and Research Centre5, University of Groningen6, Max Planck Society7, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich8, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation9, Centre national de la recherche scientifique10, Stanford University11, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology12, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory13, Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies14, Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen15, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research16, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology17, University of Maryland, College Park18, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research19, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration20, Appalachian State University21, Flanders Marine Institute22, Augsburg College23, ETH Zurich24, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences25, University of East Anglia26, Woods Hole Research Center27, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign28, University of Hong Kong29, Utrecht University30, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency31, University of Paris32, Hobart Corporation33, University of Tasmania34, University of Bern35, National Center for Atmospheric Research36, University of Reading37, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences38, National Institute for Environmental Studies39, Russian Academy of Sciences40, Goddard Space Flight Center41, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research42, Princeton University43, Met Office44, Lund University45, Auburn University46, Food and Agriculture Organization47, VU University Amsterdam48
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, and show that 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.
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 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 (2009–2018), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr −1 ,
ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , GATM 4.9±0.02 GtC yr −1 ( 2.3±0.01 ppm yr −1 ), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr −1 , and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr −1 , with a budget
imbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr −1 indicating overestimated emissions
and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF was
about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr −1 , reaching 10 GtC yr −1 for the first time in history,
ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , for total anthropogenic
CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr −1 ( 42.5±3.3 GtCO2 ). Also for 2018, GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr −1 ( 2.4±0.1 ppm yr −1 ), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr −1 , and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in EFF of +0.6 % (range of
−0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, the
USA, 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. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the global
carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, 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
shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use change emissions
over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between 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 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 of the global carbon cycle
compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quere et
al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). The data generated by
this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingstein
et al., 2019).
981 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe how after a fire at a sub-supplier, with a huge impact on Ericsson, has implemented a new organization, and new processes and tools for SCRM.
Abstract: Supply chain risk management (SCRM) is of growing importance, as the vulnerability of supply chains increases. The main thrust of this article is to describe how Ericsson, after a fire at a sub‐supplier, with a huge impact on Ericsson, has implemented a new organization, and new processes and tools for SCRM. The approach described tries to analyze, assess and manage risk sources along the supply chain, partly by working close with suppliers but also by placing formal requirements on them. This explorative study also indicates that insurance companies might be a driving force for improved SCRM, as they now start to understand the vulnerability of modern supply chains. The article concludes with a discussion of risk related to traditional logistics concepts (time, cost, quality, agility and leanness) by arguing that supply chain risks should also be put into the trade‐off analysis when evaluating new logistics solutions – not with the purpose to minimize risks, however, but to find the efficient level of risk and prevention.
977 citations
••
TL;DR: A stepwise approach to the management of osteoarthritis is presented, and central pain sensitisation can also occur, and psychosocial factors are important determinants of pain severity.
975 citations
••
TL;DR: It is shown that the temporal dynamics following stand-replacing disturbances do indeed account for a very large fraction of the overall variability in forest carbon sequestration, and that mankind is ultimately controlling the carbon balance of temperate and boreal forests.
Abstract: A study of forest ecosystems from across western Europe and the United States has settled a long-running controversy — and raised many new questions. At issue is the influence of nitrogen deposition on the global carbon cycle, particularly the part played by human activity. The new study demonstrates that via the direct effects of forest management and indirectly via the use of nitrogen fertilizers and nitrogen oxide production by cars and industry, human activities have had a profound and largely positive effect on the carbon balance or net ecosystem production. (That's the balance between ecosystem carbon fixation through photosynthesis and its subsequent release through plant and soil respiration.) The implications of these findings for practical questions such as the merits of fertilizing forests with nitrogen, are considered in the accompanying News and Views by Peter Hogberg. The profound, overwhelming effects of human activities on the carbon balance of temperate and boreal forests are demonstrated. Apart from the direct effects of forest management, they show that carbon sequestration by this important component of the biosphere is driven by the imbalance in the global nitrogen cycle determined by human activities. Temperate and boreal forests in the Northern Hemisphere cover an area of about 2 × 107 square kilometres and act as a substantial carbon sink (0.6–0.7 petagrams of carbon per year)1. Although forest expansion following agricultural abandonment is certainly responsible for an important fraction of this carbon sink activity, the additional effects on the carbon balance of established forests of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, increasing temperatures, changes in management practices and nitrogen deposition are difficult to disentangle, despite an extensive network of measurement stations2,3. The relevance of this measurement effort has also been questioned4, because spot measurements fail to take into account the role of disturbances, either natural (fire, pests, windstorms) or anthropogenic (forest harvesting). Here we show that the temporal dynamics following stand-replacing disturbances do indeed account for a very large fraction of the overall variability in forest carbon sequestration. After the confounding effects of disturbance have been factored out, however, forest net carbon sequestration is found to be overwhelmingly driven by nitrogen deposition, largely the result of anthropogenic activities5. The effect is always positive over the range of nitrogen deposition covered by currently available data sets, casting doubts on the risk of widespread ecosystem nitrogen saturation6 under natural conditions. The results demonstrate that mankind is ultimately controlling the carbon balance of temperate and boreal forests, either directly (through forest management) or indirectly (through nitrogen deposition).
972 citations
••
TL;DR: This work designs and implements a parser replacement for the FORTRAN 77 programming language, and demonstrates the power of the JETSET programming language.
972 citations
Authors
Showing all 42777 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Yi Chen | 217 | 4342 | 293080 |
Fred H. Gage | 216 | 967 | 185732 |
Kari Stefansson | 206 | 794 | 174819 |
Mark I. McCarthy | 200 | 1028 | 187898 |
Ruedi Aebersold | 182 | 879 | 141881 |
Jie Zhang | 178 | 4857 | 221720 |
Feng Zhang | 172 | 1278 | 181865 |
Martin G. Larson | 171 | 620 | 117708 |
Michael Snyder | 169 | 840 | 130225 |
Unnur Thorsteinsdottir | 167 | 444 | 121009 |
Anders Björklund | 165 | 769 | 84268 |
Carl W. Cotman | 165 | 809 | 105323 |
Dennis R. Burton | 164 | 683 | 90959 |
Jaakko Kaprio | 163 | 1532 | 126320 |
Panos Deloukas | 162 | 410 | 154018 |