Institution
University of Colorado Boulder
Education•Boulder, Colorado, United States•
About: University of Colorado Boulder is a education organization based out in Boulder, Colorado, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Galaxy. The organization has 48794 authors who have published 115151 publications receiving 5387328 citations. The organization is also known as: CU Boulder & UCB.
Topics: Population, Galaxy, Context (language use), Poison control, Stars
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of East Anglia1, University of Oslo2, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation3, University of Exeter4, Oak Ridge National Laboratory5, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration6, Woods Hole Research Center7, University of California, San Diego8, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology9, Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies10, Centre national de la recherche scientifique11, University of Maryland, College Park12, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research13, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution14, Flanders Marine Institute15, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research16, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency17, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign18, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences19, Max Planck Society20, University of Paris21, Hobart Corporation22, University of Bern23, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research24, National Center for Atmospheric Research25, University of Miami26, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research27, University of Colorado Boulder28, National Institute for Environmental Studies29, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean30, Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen31, Montana State University32, Goddard Space Flight Center33, University of New Hampshire34, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research35, Imperial College London36, Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory37, Auburn University38, Wageningen University and Research Centre39, VU University Amsterdam40, Met Office41
TL;DR: In this article, the authors quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics, and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community.
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 all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics, and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community. We discuss changes compared to previous estimates and consistency within and among components, alongside methodology and data limitations. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, respectively, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on combined evidence from land-cover change data, fire activity associated with deforestation, and models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The mean ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is based on observations from the 1990s, while the annual anomalies and trends are estimated with ocean models. The variability in SOCEAN is evaluated with data products based on surveys of ocean CO2 measurements. The global residual terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated by the difference of the other terms of the global carbon budget and compared to results of independent dynamic global vegetation models. We compare the mean land and ocean fluxes and their variability to estimates from three atmospheric inverse methods for three broad latitude bands. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ, reflecting the current capacity to characterise the annual estimates of each component of the global carbon budget. For the last decade available (2006–2015), EFF was 9.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.5 ± 0.1 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.1 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1. For year 2015 alone, the growth in EFF was approximately zero and emissions remained at 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, showing a slowdown in growth of these emissions compared to the average growth of 1.8 % yr−1 that took place during 2006–2015. Also, for 2015, ELUC was 1.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM was 6.3 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 3.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 1.9 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1. GATM was higher in 2015 compared to the past decade (2006–2015), reflecting a smaller SLAND for that year. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 399.4 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2015. For 2016, preliminary data indicate the continuation of low growth in EFF with +0.2 % (range of −1.0 to +1.8 %) based on national emissions projections for China and USA, and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. In spite of the low growth of EFF in 2016, the growth rate in atmospheric CO2 concentration is expected to be relatively high because of the persistence of the smaller residual terrestrial sink (SLAND) in response to El Nino conditions of 2015–2016. From this projection of EFF and assumed constant ELUC for 2016, cumulative emissions of CO2 will reach 565 ± 55 GtC (2075 ± 205 GtCO2) for 1870–2016, about 75 % from EFF and 25 % from ELUC. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quere et al., 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). All observations presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center ( doi:10.3334/CDIAC/GCP_2016 ).
1,224 citations
••
25 Feb 2016
TL;DR: Modification of modified 16S rRNA gene and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) primers for archaea/bacteria and fungi with nonaquatic samples demonstrated that two recently modified primer pairs that target taxonomically discriminatory regions of bacterial and fungal genomic DNA do not introduce new biases when used on a variety of sample types.
Abstract: Designing primers for PCR-based taxonomic surveys that amplify a broad range of phylotypes in varied community samples is a difficult challenge, and the comparability of data sets amplified with varied primers requires attention. Here, we examined the performance of modified 16S rRNA gene and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) primers for archaea/bacteria and fungi, respectively, with nonaquatic samples. We moved primer bar codes to the 5' end, allowing for a range of different 3' primer pairings, such as the 515f/926r primer pair, which amplifies variable regions 4 and 5 of the 16S rRNA gene. We additionally demonstrated that modifications to the 515f/806r (variable region 4) 16S primer pair, which improves detection of Thaumarchaeota and clade SAR11 in marine samples, do not degrade performance on taxa already amplified effectively by the original primer set. Alterations to the fungal ITS primers did result in differential but overall improved performance compared to the original primers. In both cases, the improved primers should be widely adopted for amplicon studies. IMPORTANCE We continue to uncover a wealth of information connecting microbes in important ways to human and environmental ecology. As our scientific knowledge and technical abilities improve, the tools used for microbiome surveys can be modified to improve the accuracy of our techniques, ensuring that we can continue to identify groundbreaking connections between microbes and the ecosystems they populate, from ice caps to the human body. It is important to confirm that modifications to these tools do not cause new, detrimental biases that would inhibit the field rather than continue to move it forward. We therefore demonstrated that two recently modified primer pairs that target taxonomically discriminatory regions of bacterial and fungal genomic DNA do not introduce new biases when used on a variety of sample types, from soil to human skin. This confirms the utility of these primers for maintaining currently recommended microbiome research techniques as the state of the art.
1,222 citations
••
Roswell Park Cancer Institute1, Johns Hopkins University2, Duke University3, Brigham and Women's Hospital4, Mayo Clinic5, City of Hope National Medical Center6, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center7, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center8, Fox Chase Cancer Center9, Yale Cancer Center10, Washington University in St. Louis11, University of California, San Diego12, University of Wisconsin-Madison13, University Hospitals of Cleveland14, University of Alabama at Birmingham15, Vanderbilt University16, Moffitt Cancer Center17, University of Colorado Boulder18, University of Tennessee Health Science Center19, University of California, San Francisco20, Northwestern University21, Ohio State University22, University of Michigan23, Stanford University24, University of Utah25, National Comprehensive Cancer Network26
TL;DR: The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations regarding diagnosis, risk stratification and workup, treatment options for localized disease, and management of recurrent and advanced disease for clinicians who treat patients with prostate cancer.
Abstract: The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations regarding diagnosis, risk stratification and workup, treatment options for localized disease, and management of recurrent and advanced disease for clinicians who treat patients with prostate cancer. The portions of the guidelines included herein focus on the roles of germline and somatic genetic testing, risk stratification with nomograms and tumor multigene molecular testing, androgen deprivation therapy, secondary hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.
1,218 citations
••
University of Leeds1, Jet Propulsion Laboratory2, University of Colorado Boulder3, Technical University of Denmark4, Durham University5, University of Texas at Austin6, Ohio State University7, University College London8, Technische Universität München9, Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory10, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory11, Newcastle University12, University of Tasmania13, Utrecht University14, University of Kansas15, Swansea University16, Goddard Space Flight Center17, University of Ottawa18, University of California, Irvine19, University of Bristol20, British Antarctic Survey21, University of Innsbruck22, Delft University of Technology23
TL;DR: There is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty, and the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets is estimated by combining the results of existing independent techniques.
Abstract: We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets. We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.
1,215 citations
••
University of Wisconsin-Madison1, United States Geological Survey2, Virginia Tech3, Rissho University4, Great Lakes Institute of Management5, University of Colorado Boulder6, Florida State University College of Arts and Sciences7, Finnish Environment Institute8, National Water Research Institute9, University at Buffalo10, State Hydrological Institute11
TL;DR: Interannual variability in both freeze and breakup dates has increased since 1950 and a few longer time series reveal reduced ice cover (a warming trend) beginning as early as the 16th century, with increasing rates of change after about 1850.
Abstract: Freeze and breakup dates of ice on lakes and rivers provide consistent evidence of later freezing and earlier breakup around the Northern Hemisphere from 1846 to 1995. Over these 150 years, changes in freeze dates averaged 5.8 days per 100 years later, and changes in breakup dates averaged 6.5 days per 100 years earlier; these translate to increasing air temperatures of about 1.2°C per 100 years. Interannual variability in both freeze and breakup dates has increased since 1950. A few longer time series reveal reduced ice cover (a warming trend) beginning as early as the 16th century, with increasing rates of change after about 1850.
1,214 citations
Authors
Showing all 49233 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Yi Chen | 217 | 4342 | 293080 |
Robert J. Lefkowitz | 214 | 860 | 147995 |
Rob Knight | 201 | 1061 | 253207 |
Charles A. Dinarello | 190 | 1058 | 139668 |
Jie Zhang | 178 | 4857 | 221720 |
David Haussler | 172 | 488 | 224960 |
Bradley Cox | 169 | 2150 | 156200 |
Gang Chen | 167 | 3372 | 149819 |
Rodney S. Ruoff | 164 | 666 | 194902 |
Menachem Elimelech | 157 | 547 | 95285 |
Jay Hauser | 155 | 2145 | 132683 |
Robert E. W. Hancock | 152 | 775 | 88481 |
Robert Plomin | 151 | 1104 | 88588 |
Thomas E. Starzl | 150 | 1625 | 91704 |
Rajesh Kumar | 149 | 4439 | 140830 |