Sentences with phrase «in pnas»

Consequently, we had a simple goal for the three studies featured in the PNAS article: finding out whether these growth mindset and belonging interventions could be replicated successfully in other settings, and when delivered as preparation, prior to students» entrance in college.

We hope this will lead to even better outcomes than we reported in PNAS.

I've seen a paper in pnas that I can't find that details a way to make gas a safe product, so I don't doubt it, the question is whether we will do and who can we trust to make it so.

The brief history is that in 2007, Firestone and others published an article in PNAS showing evidence of various materials that may be diagnostic of extraterrestrial origin (and hence an impact) in layers of sediment dating to 12.9 thousand years ago, just before the beginning of the Younger Dryas cold event.

The ozone losses predicted in the study are much larger than losses estimated in previous «nuclear winter» and «ultraviolet spring» scenario calculations following nuclear conflicts -LSB-...] A 1985 National Research Council Report predicted a global nuclear exchange involving thousands of megatons of explosions, rather than the 1.5 megatons assumed in the PNAS study, would deplete only 17 percent of the Northern Hemisphere's stratospheric ozone, which would recover by half in three years.

More usefully in terms of future predictions, a recent paper in PNAS by Van Vuuren and co-workers (including a friend of mine, Tom Wigley, who is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Adelaide), assessed the impact on climate change of some plausible real - world actions.

Prof HJ Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute, commented formally in PNAS on the R&F paper here: «Global warming: Stop worrying, start panicking?

«The climate dice are now loaded to a degree that a perceptive person old enough to remember the climate of 1951 — 1980 should recognize the existence of climate change, especially in summer,» the scientists write in the PNAS paper.

A 1985 National Research Council Report predicted a global nuclear exchange involving thousands of megatons of explosions, rather than the 1.5 megatons assumed in the PNAS study, would deplete only 17 percent of the Northern Hemisphere's stratospheric ozone, which would recover by half in three years.

Have you seen «Satellite methods underestimate indirect climate forcing by aerosols» published in PNAS by Penner et al.?

Last year, Ramanathan and co-author Y. Feng published a remarkable paper in PNAS called «On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: Formidable challenges ahead «-RRB-.

See the paper in PNAS, freely available.

Could better methods been employed by the authors on how to group the scientists in the PNAS paper?

Members» submissions must be accompanied by the names and contact information, including e-mails, of knowledgeable colleagues who reviewed the paper, along with all of the reviews received and the authors» response for each round of review, and a brief statement endorsing publication in PNAS.

When you publish in PNAS do you get in on the «scam» by picking your own reviewers?

The member must include a brief statement endorsing publication in PNAS along with all of the referee reports received for each round of review.

Have you ever published in PNAS?

There is a lot of discussion this week about a new paper in PNAS (Anderegg et al, 2010) that tries to assess the credibility of scientists who have made public declarations about policy directions.

As I understand it (from the IPCC report and from Ramanathan en Feng, Sept 23 2008 in PNAS) stopping all emissions suddenly would cause about 1.6 degree Celsius of extra warming, because short - lived pollution would quickly be removed from the atmosphere.

«If skeptics are being shut out of journals, their publication counts would go down, which would produce precisely the results shown in the PNAS paper.»

The name of the editor, who may remain anonymous to the author until the paper is accepted, will be published in PNAS as editor of the article.

Apparently this is a privilege accorded to members of the National Academy of Sciences for publication in PNAS.

«Even [Michael] Mann and [Peter] Gleik have published in PNAS and they clearly have conflicts of interest in terms of the subject, in terms of the stuff that they are receiving money for doing what their work is.»

It's just that instead of so much ego - publishing in PNAS / Nature / Science and so much emphasis on the answer (the recon) and in backing up his earlier work, it out to be explored as an approach that may extract signal out of noise.

Don't forget Steve's comment in PNAS in response to Mann's paper and Mann's reply.

The next 10 years — as in the PNAS paper — is likely to see more intense and frequent La Nina and to be cooler — thus falsifying AGW in the minds of just about everyone.

It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of «right» and «wrong» to that adopted in Anderegg et al.'s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into «believers» and «non-believers».

In the PNAS paper, Mann clearly states that for sediments that «the sign of the correlation could a priori be specified».

For the varve usage, it appears that he erred by not having someone who had better understanding of these series and their backgrounds (especially given how critical they end up being to the 1300 no - tree claims, which I agree were prominent in PNAS and a lot of what made that paper additive).

A paper just out in PNAS offers a new argument that aims to bring these troubling emissions into the fold of a global climate deal — while preserving a sense of equity and the right of the planet's poorest to seek prosperity.

The hockey stick holds up [Mann et al. published a new compilation of proxies in PNAS, which extended the length of the stick and confirmed the original form of the reconstruction from 1998, except that the handle is now a little more twisted]

Certain species have declined sharply over the last decades a big survey, published in PNAS three days ago, shows.

Hansen's alternative scenario Hansen et al. tabled this idea of an alternative scenario, focusing on non-CO2 greenhouse gases and black carbon, in a 2000 paper in PNAS.

I suspect if Mann had conceded the error in PNAS, then things would have gone differently here.

Re: CB (# 202), The Salzer paper does not deserrve to be in PNAS.

In a seminal paper - just published in PNAS - Glen Peters, Jan Minx and colleagues investigate the temporal change in consumption - based CO2 emissions across world regions.

«We wrote an opinion piece in PNAS not too long ago about the need for international policy,» Rochman said.

Yet the first author of the paper was described in an August 21, 2002 New York Times article5 as «among the 10 biggest recipients of National Institutes of Health grants,» and the research reported in the PNAS article was also NIH supported.

It is not from coming out of the Little Ice Age or the Sun, as Tung and Zhou discussed in our PNAS paper.

«The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Mediaeval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels,» write the researchers in their paper in PNAS.

Unfortunately you can only use 5 refs in a PNAS letter and the point is not made overtly by Schneider.

Note: The data used in Anderegg et al 2010 in PNAS included signers of all statements shown here except CCC09 and EPA10, which were published after the analysis was done for the paper.

With regards to climate models, there is a new paper by Jiping Liu in PNAS that infers from CMIP5 climate model simulations that the Arctic will be ice free in September by around 2054 - 58.

In their their PNAS publication they start off by incorrectly stating the Earth hasn't warmed over the decade since 1998.

In their PNAS publication, the one that prompted Jacobson to hint at a lawsuit, Clack et al. critically examined two Jacobson papers from 2015, one of which was a widely hailed «roadmap» for plentiful, 100 - percent renewable energy in all 50 United States.

As I mentioned, McIntyre has submitted only one of those letters or comments, as far as I know (the letter concerning Mann et al 2008 in PNAS.]

That love, and respect, continues; I don't have the expertise to critique J Hansen et al's latest paper in detail, but certainly I'm worried by the fact that a paper in PNAS has the word «perception» in its title and its focus; this is «post-modern» «science», which I would argue is not science as understood in the grand tradition of science.

This study was conducted by the Georgia Institute of Technology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences and was published in PNAS two days ago.

There's nothing about «increased drought in the US» in the PNAS paper.»

Recent research published in PNAS suggests that decentralizing forest carbon management - putting local communities in charge of the «forest commons» may be a very useful strategy for implementing forest carbon policies, though the authors offer that more and better data is needed for more concrete conclusions (Chhatre 2009).