University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Education•Baltimore, Maryland, United States•
About: University of Maryland, Baltimore County is a(n) education organization based out in Baltimore, Maryland, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topic(s): Population & Aerosol. The organization has 8749 authors who have published 20843 publication(s) receiving 795706 citation(s). The organization is also known as: UMBC.
Papers published on a yearly basis
01 Feb 2007-Journal of Hydrometeorology
TL;DR: The TRMM Multi-Satellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA) as discussed by the authors provides a calibration-based sequential scheme for combining precipitation estimates from multiple satellites, as well as gauge analyses where feasible, at fine scales.
Abstract: The Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Multisatellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA) provides a calibration-based sequential scheme for combining precipitation estimates from multiple satellites, as well as gauge analyses where feasible, at fine scales (0.25° × 0.25° and 3 hourly). TMPA is available both after and in real time, based on calibration by the TRMM Combined Instrument and TRMM Microwave Imager precipitation products, respectively. Only the after-real-time product incorporates gauge data at the present. The dataset covers the latitude band 50°N–S for the period from 1998 to the delayed present. Early validation results are as follows: the TMPA provides reasonable performance at monthly scales, although it is shown to have precipitation rate–dependent low bias due to lack of sensitivity to low precipitation rates over ocean in one of the input products [based on Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit-B (AMSU-B)]. At finer scales the TMPA is successful at approximately reproducing the s...
01 Dec 2003-Journal of Hydrometeorology
TL;DR: The Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) version 2 Monthly Precise Analysis as discussed by the authors is a merged analysis that incorporates precipitation estimates from low-orbit satellite microwave data, geosynchronous-orbit-satellite infrared data, and rain gauge observations.
Abstract: The Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Version 2 Monthly Precipitation Analysis is described. This globally complete, monthly analysis of surface precipitation at 2.5 degrees x 2.5 degrees latitude-longitude resolution is available from January 1979 to the present. It is a merged analysis that incorporates precipitation estimates from low-orbit-satellite microwave data, geosynchronous-orbit-satellite infrared data, and rain gauge observations. The merging approach utilizes the higher accuracy of the low-orbit microwave observations to calibrate, or adjust, the more frequent geosynchronous infrared observations. The data set is extended back into the premicrowave era (before 1987) by using infrared-only observations calibrated to the microwave-based analysis of the later years. The combined satellite-based product is adjusted by the raingauge analysis. This monthly analysis is the foundation for the GPCP suite of products including those at finer temporal resolution, satellite estimate, and error estimates for each field. The 23-year GPCP climatology is characterized, along with time and space variations of precipitation.
15 Jul 2011-Journal of Climate
TL;DR: The Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA) was undertaken by NASA's Global Modeling and Assimilation Office with two primary objectives: to place observations from NASA's Earth Observing System satellites into a climate context and to improve upon the hydrologic cycle represented in earlier generations of reanalyses as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA) was undertaken by NASA’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office with two primary objectives: to place observations from NASA’s Earth Observing System satellites into a climate context and to improve upon the hydrologic cycle represented in earlier generations of reanalyses. Focusing on the satellite era, from 1979 to the present, MERRA has achieved its goals with significant improvements in precipitation and water vapor climatology. Here, a brief overview of the system and some aspects of its performance, including quality assessment diagnostics from innovation and residual statistics, is given.By comparing MERRA with other updated reanalyses [the interim version of the next ECMWF Re-Analysis (ERA-Interim) and the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR)], advances made in this new generation of reanalyses, as well as remaining deficiencies, are identified. Although there is little difference between the new reanalyses i...
••01 May 2005
TL;DR: The three main categories explored in this paper are data-centric, hierarchical and location-based; each routing protocol is described and discussed under the appropriate category.
Abstract: Recent advances in wireless sensor networks have led to many new protocols specifically designed for sensor networks where energy awareness is an essential consideration. Most of the attention, however, has been given to the routing protocols since they might differ depending on the application and network architecture. This paper surveys recent routing protocols for sensor networks and presents a classification for the various approaches pursued. The three main categories explored in this paper are data-centric, hierarchical and location-based. Each routing protocol is described and discussed under the appropriate category. Moreover, protocols using contemporary methodologies such as network flow and quality of service modeling are also discussed. The paper concludes with open research issues. � 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Fábio Camargo Abdalla2, Hagai Abeliovich3, Robert T. Abraham4 +1284 more•Institutions (463)
TL;DR: These guidelines are presented for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
Showing all 8749 results
|Robert C. Gallo||145||825||68212|
|Paul T. Costa||133||406||88454|
|Igor V. Moskalenko||132||542||58182|
|Alex K.-Y. Jen||128||921||61811|
|Alan R. Shuldiner||120||557||71737|
|Richard N. Zare||120||1201||67880|
|Vince D. Calhoun||117||1234||62205|
|Rita R. Colwell||115||781||55229|
|Kendall N. Houk||112||997||54877|
|Elliot K. Fishman||112||1335||49298|
|Yoram J. Kaufman||111||263||59238|
|Braxton D. Mitchell||102||558||49599|
Related Institutions (5)
Pennsylvania State University
196.8K papers, 8.3M citations
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
225.1K papers, 10.1M citations
University of Washington
305.5K papers, 17.7M citations
University of California, San Diego
204.5K papers, 12.3M citations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
268K papers, 18.2M citations