Sentences with phrase «global literature at»

Not exact matches

Dr. Miriam Labbok, Director of the Carolina Global Breastfeeding Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and author of the Infant & Young Child Nutrition Project's latest review of breastfeeding literature, reflects on her findings.

Dr. Miriam Labbok, Director of the Carolina Global Breastfeeding Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and author of the Infant & Young Child Nutrition Project's latest review of breastfeeding literature, reflects -LSB-...]

«I think this paper strengthens, substantially, the available body of literature that we have concerning the question of whether humans are having an effect on precipitation at the global scale,» Zwiers wrote in an email.

Scientists at the School of Ocean Sciences, Bangor University have completed a comprehensive review of the literature on the mechanisms of potential coral resistance and recovery across scales from global reef areas to the microbial level within individual corals.

All new research literature is born digital, and the internet can share it with a global audience at zero marginal cost.

For nine years I taught Year 8 Anglophone English, IGCSE World Literature, IGCSE Global Perspectives and IB English A (L&L) at a bilingual secondary school in France.

Anis Shavani is the author of several books, including Literature at the Global Crossroads and Plastic Realism: Neoliberal Discourse in the New American Novel.

Sarah's passion for politics, literature and for supporting authors at large has led to the establishment of Speak Out Global, a small business specializing in helping writers transform their activist and fictional ideas into pieces bound for publication.

Building on lessons learned throughout my professional and academic history, from a focus in world literature (I was named the 2009 Outstanding Graduate in English and Comparative Literature at San Diego State University), to high - level Technical support for global teams at Apple in Cupertino, to my experiences filming, writing about, and sharing our world as a travel blogger with «The Radical Dreamer», I'm currently studying to build transformative game experiences at one of the United Kingdom's top universities for digital humanities with the MA Independent Games and Playable Experience Design program at Goldsmiths, University literature (I was named the 2009 Outstanding Graduate in English and Comparative Literature at San Diego State University), to high - level Technical support for global teams at Apple in Cupertino, to my experiences filming, writing about, and sharing our world as a travel blogger with «The Radical Dreamer», I'm currently studying to build transformative game experiences at one of the United Kingdom's top universities for digital humanities with the MA Independent Games and Playable Experience Design program at Goldsmiths, University Literature at San Diego State University), to high - level Technical support for global teams at Apple in Cupertino, to my experiences filming, writing about, and sharing our world as a travel blogger with «The Radical Dreamer», I'm currently studying to build transformative game experiences at one of the United Kingdom's top universities for digital humanities with the MA Independent Games and Playable Experience Design program at Goldsmiths, University of London.

While Naomi Oreskes first identified the consensus on human - caused global warming in the peer - reviewed literature in 2004, the first study to quantify it at 97 % came in 2009, reinforced by 97 % studies in 2010 and 2013.

«There's a recent paper by John Cook and co-authors who looked at thousands of research papers which have been published in the scientific literature to see what fraction support the scientific consensus on global warming.

About your many interesting links to and quotes from the dynamic systems literature the most pertinent thing you wrote is that they do not (at least not yet) illuminate the discussion of whether increasing CO2 will increase or decrease or be independent of global mean temperature.

While the IPCC first made statements attributing global warming to humans in 1995, Cook et al. (2013) found that there has been over a 90 % consensus in the peer - reviewed scientific literature that humans are causing global warming since at least 1991.

Based on «a leading aggregate damage estimate in the climate economics literature,» the report found that the nation will suffer at least $ 150 billion in additional economic damages each year if global temperatures increase by three degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, rather than two degrees Celsius:

The AR4 was, at the time, the most comprehensive review available of the global scientific literature on climate impacts.

A new survey conducted by a team of volunteers at Skeptical Science has definitively confirmed the scientific consensus in climate science literature - 97 percent of peer - reviewed papers agree that global warming is happening and human activities are responsible.

Siberian husky The proposition is false that «nobody at WUWT can get anything published in the real world» is refuted by the fact that I have published four peer reviewed articles in the literature of global warming climatology.

The proposition is false that «nobody at WUWT can get anything published in the real world,» This proposition is falsified by the fact that I have published four peer reviewed articles in the literature of global warming climatology.

However, given the many conventions in the literature for baseline periods, the reader is advised to check carefully and to adjust baseline levels for consistency every time a number is given for impacts at some specified level of global mean temperature change.

Our peer - reviewed paper Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature is freely available at the Environmental Research Letters (ERL) website.

A new survey of over 12,000 peer - reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97 % consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer - reviewed literature that humans are responsible.

Lower case a-h refer to how the literature was addressed in terms of up / downscaling (a — clearly defined global impact for a specific ΔT against a specific baseline, upscaling not necessary; b — clearly defined regional impact at a specific regional ΔT where no GCM used; c — clearly defined regional impact as a result of specific GCM scenarios but study only used the regional ΔT; d — as c but impacts also the result of regional precipitation changes; e — as b but impacts also the result of regional precipitation change; f — regional temperature change is off - scale for upscaling with available GCM patterns to 2100, in which case upscaling is, where possible, approximated by using Figures 10.5 and 10.8 from Meehl et al., 2007; g — studies which estimate the range of possible outcomes in a given location or region considering a multi-model ensemble linked to a global temperature change.

Assuming the IPCC's value for climate sensitivity (i.e. disregarding the recent scientific literature) and completely stopping all carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. between now and the year 2050 and keeping them at zero, will only reduce the amount of global warming by just over a tenth of a degree (out of a total projected rise of 2.619 °C between 2010 and 2100).

A new survey of over 12,000 peer - reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97 % consensus in the peer - reviewed literature that humans are causing global warming.

Figure 1 - 6 shows that the SRES scenarios cover most of the range of global energy - related CO2 emissions from the literature, from the 95th percentile at the high end of the distribution down to low emissions just above the 5th percentile of the distribution.

The authors, and many others, have discussed the LIA, and without trying to completely summarize an extensive literature, there appears to be agreement that the LIA was not a single, uniform global phenomenon, but a series of events happening at different times in different regions, not always coincident with sunspot minima, and that multiple factors contributed to the cooling.

But despite such subterfuges, Hoggan and Littlemore document that Exxon has spent at least $ 20 million to counter what the scientific literature has to say about global warming since the signing of the Kyoto accord.

That appears to be the first use of the term «global warming» in the scientific literature (at least it's the first of over 10,000 papers for this search term according to the ISI database of journal articles).

For example, regarding the validity of the evidence that the basic greenhouse gas mechanism is causing recent global warming, there is near - unanimous scientific consensus among the experts that have real climate credentials, are working in the field with a position in a recognized scientific department at a university or laboratory (not a right - wing think tank), and who publish in the peer - reviewed scientific literature (non-peer reviewed think tank papers don't count).

She studied English Literature and Global Development at Queen's University and is excited by media that digs deep, asks questions and shares narratives.