Institution
University of East Anglia
Education•Norwich, Norfolk, United Kingdom•
About: University of East Anglia is a education organization based out in Norwich, Norfolk, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Climate change. The organization has 13250 authors who have published 37504 publications receiving 1669060 citations. The organization is also known as: UEA.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Ljubljana University Medical Centre1, King's College London2, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University3, Stanford University4, American Diabetes Association5, University of Padua6, Harvard University7, University of Amsterdam8, University of Sydney9, University of Colorado Denver10, University of Sheffield11, University of Washington12, University of Cambridge13, Shanghai Jiao Tong University14, University of Virginia15, JDRF16, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven17, University of East Anglia18, San Antonio River Authority19, Steno Diabetes Center20, University of Montpellier21, University of Florida22, Nihon University23, Yale University24, Tel Aviv University25
TL;DR: This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations for relevant aspects of CGM data utilization and reporting among the various diabetes populations.
Abstract: Improvements in sensor accuracy, greater convenience and ease of use, and expanding reimbursement have led to growing adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). However, successful utilization of CGM technology in routine clinical practice remains relatively low. This may be due in part to the lack of clear and agreed-upon glycemic targets that both diabetes teams and people with diabetes can work toward. Although unified recommendations for use of key CGM metrics have been established in three separate peer-reviewed articles, formal adoption by diabetes professional organizations and guidance in the practical application of these metrics in clinical practice have been lacking. In February 2019, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address this issue. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations for relevant aspects of CGM data utilization and reporting among the various diabetes populations.
1,776 citations
••
University of Exeter1, École Normale Supérieure2, Norwich Research Park3, University of Groningen4, Wageningen University and Research Centre5, Max Planck Society6, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich7, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation8, Université Paris-Saclay9, Stanford University10, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration11, National Institute for Space Research12, University of Southampton13, Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences14, PSL Research University15, National Institute for Environmental Studies16, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology17, University of Maryland, College Park18, University of Leeds19, International Institute of Minnesota20, Flanders Marine Institute21, ETH Zurich22, University of East Anglia23, German Aerospace Center24, Woods Hole Research Center25, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign26, University of Toulouse27, Japan Meteorological Agency28, Plymouth Marine Laboratory29, University of Paris30, Hobart Corporation31, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research32, Tsinghua University33, National Center for Atmospheric Research34, Appalachian State University35, University of Colorado Boulder36, University of Washington37, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory38, Princeton University39, Met Office40, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences41, Auburn University42, University of Tasmania43, VU University Amsterdam44, Oak Ridge National Laboratory45, Sun Yat-sen University46, Nanjing University47
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe and synthesize 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 in a changing climate – 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 and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) 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 (2010–2019), EFOS was 9.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.6 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1. For the same decade, GATM was 5.1 ± 0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.4 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of −0.1 GtC yr−1 indicating a near balance between estimated sources and sinks over the last decade. For the year 2019 alone, the growth in EFOS was only about 0.1 % with fossil emissions increasing to 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.7 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.8 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.2 ± 3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2019, GATM was 5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.1 ± 1.2 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 409.85 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2019. Preliminary data for 2020, accounting for the COVID-19-induced changes in emissions, suggest a decrease in EFOS relative to 2019 of about −7 % (median estimate) based on individual estimates from four studies of −6 %, −7 %, −7 % (−3 % to −11 %), and −13 %. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2019, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from diverse approaches and 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 discrepancy between the different methods for the ocean sink outside the tropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean. 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 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Le Quere et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2020 (Friedlingstein et al., 2020).
1,764 citations
••
University of Lisbon1, University of Paris-Sud2, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency3, United Nations Environment Programme4, Spanish National Research Council5, University of Évora6, National Autonomous University of Mexico7, Stockholm University8, University of East Anglia9, University of Maryland, College Park10, Hawaii Pacific University11, University of British Columbia12, Joint Global Change Research Institute13, Imperial College London14, The Nature Conservancy15, Virginia Tech College of Natural Resources and Environment16
TL;DR: Scenarios consistently indicate that biodiversity will continue to decline over the 21st century, however, the range of projected changes is much broader than most studies suggest, partly because there are major opportunities to intervene through better policies, but also because of large uncertainties in projections.
Abstract: Quantitative scenarios are coming of age as a tool for evaluating the impact of future socioeconomic development pathways on biodiversity and ecosystem services. We analyze global terrestrial, freshwater, and marine biodiversity scenarios using a range of measures including extinctions, changes in species abundance, habitat loss, and distribution shifts, as well as comparing model projections to observations. Scenarios consistently indicate that biodiversity will continue to decline over the 21st century. However, the range of projected changes is much broader than most studies suggest, partly because there are major opportunities to intervene through better policies, but also because of large uncertainties in projections.
1,725 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors report on the barriers that members of the UK public perceive to engaging with climate change and argue that targeted and tailored information provision should be supported by wider structural change to enable citizens and communities to reduce carbon dependency.
Abstract: This paper reports on the barriers that members of the UKpublic perceive to engaging with climatechange. It draws upon three mixed-method studies, with an emphasis on the qualitative data which offer an in-depth insight into how people make sense of climatechange. The paper defines engagement as an individual's state, comprising three elements: cognitive, affective and behavioural. A number of common barriers emerge from the three studies, which operate broadly at ‘individual’ and ‘social’ levels. These major constraints to individual engagement with climatechange have implications for achieving significant reductions in greenhouse gases in the UK. We argue that targeted and tailored information provision should be supported by wider structural change to enable citizens and communities to reduce their carbon dependency. Policyimplications for effective engagement are discussed.
1,722 citations
••
TL;DR: Early instrumental pressure measurements from Gibraltar and the Reykjavik area of Iceland have been used to extend to 1821 the homogeneous pressure series at the two locations In winter the two sites are located close to the centres of action that comprise the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Early instrumental pressure measurements from Gibraltar and the Reykjavik area of Iceland have been used to extend to 1821 the homogeneous pressure series at the two locations In winter the two sites are located close to the centres of action that comprise the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). The extended 'winter half-year' record of the NAO enables recent changes in the record to be placed in the context of the period 1823-1996 The period since the early 1970s is the most prolonged positive phase of the oscillation and the late 1980s and early 1990s is the period with the highest values (strongest westerlies) The winter of 1995-1996 marked a dramatic switch in the index, with the change from 1994-1995 being the greatest change recorded from one year to the next since the series began in 1923. (The extended Gibraltar and Reykjavik monthly pressures and the NAO series can be found on the Climatic Research Unit home page. www.cru.uea-ac.uk.
1,717 citations
Authors
Showing all 13512 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
George Davey Smith | 224 | 2540 | 248373 |
Nicholas J. Wareham | 212 | 1657 | 204896 |
Cyrus Cooper | 204 | 1869 | 206782 |
Kay-Tee Khaw | 174 | 1389 | 138782 |
Phillip A. Sharp | 172 | 614 | 117126 |
Rory Collins | 162 | 489 | 193407 |
William J. Sutherland | 148 | 966 | 94423 |
Shah Ebrahim | 146 | 733 | 96807 |
Kenneth M. Yamada | 139 | 446 | 72136 |
Martin McKee | 138 | 1732 | 125972 |
David Price | 138 | 1687 | 93535 |
Sheila Bingham | 136 | 519 | 67332 |
Philip Jones | 135 | 644 | 90838 |
Peter M. Rothwell | 134 | 779 | 67382 |
Ivan Reid | 131 | 1318 | 85123 |