User Tools

Site Tools

Trace:
working_groups:cp:collection_of_publications

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision 		Previous revision
working_groups:cp:collection_of_publications [2021/12/16 11:51]
ameier 		working_groups:cp:collection_of_publications [2021/12/22 11:53] (current)
ameier
Line 1: Line 1:
-==== Collection of Publications ====+==== Collection of Publications and access to non-open-access publications ====
  
  
Line 8: Line 8:
 Here is a quick and dirty hack to access non-open-access articles in case they are included in the journals that the UPC has subscriptions for and supposing that you have UPC credentials. This method is particularly useful for DOI searches (That the UPC Library tries to keep a secret it seemed to me...): Here is a quick and dirty hack to access non-open-access articles in case they are included in the journals that the UPC has subscriptions for and supposing that you have UPC credentials. This method is particularly useful for DOI searches (That the UPC Library tries to keep a secret it seemed to me...):
  
-[[https://doi-org.recursos.biblioteca.upc.edu/ | UPC Library DOI search portal (https://doi-org.recursos.biblioteca.upc.edu/)]]+1) Visit: [[https://doi-org.recursos.biblioteca.upc.edu/ | UPC Library DOI search portal (https://doi-org.recursos.biblioteca.upc.edu/)]] (You may need to login first.)
  
-Then grab the tail of your DOI html address like "10.1111/gcb.14917" from+2) Then grab the DOI of interest as in this example "https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14917" and paste it into the search field from step 1 and hit Enter. Heureka! (hopefully).
  
-   https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14917 +If that fails, then try this hack [[.collection_of_publications:ups_doi_access_hack| UPC DOI access hack]]
-or directly from (restrictive) publisher site like this one +
-   https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.14917+
  
-and paste it in the DOI search field and hit enter.  +  
-If you are lucky your publication may be found and accessed that way as in this example.... +
  
 +== Tables of Literature potentially useful to our work... ==
 +Feel free to create more sub-pages as you see fit.
 +Please insert any additions alphabetically by sir name of the first author.
  
-   https://doi-org.recursos.biblioteca.upc.edu/10.1111/gcb.14917+[[.collection_of_publications:carbon_cycle  | Carbon Cycle related publications ]]
  
-== Table of Literature potentially useful to our work... == +[[.collection_of_publications:ecearth_inner_functioning  | EC-Earth inner functioning related publications ]] 
-Please insert any additions alphabetically by sir name of the first author.+ 
 +[[.collection_of_publications:LPJGUESS_inner_functioning_and_applications  | LPJGUESS inner functioning and application related publications ]] 
 + 
 +[[.collection_of_publications:lai_publications  | LAI Leaf Area Index related publications ]] 
 + 
 +[[.collection_of_publications:lulcc_publications  | LULCC Land Use & Land Cover Change publications ]]
  
 ^ Author      ^ Title, Description, DOI, Document ^ ^ Author      ^ Title, Description, DOI, Document ^
-| Masayuki Kondo | State of the science in reconciling top-down and bottom-up approaches for terrestrial CO2 budget | +| Pete Smith | Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification? | 
-| 2019 | Their set of atmospheric inversions and bio-sphere models, showed a high level of agreement for global and hemispheric CO2 budgets in the 2000s as well as for the regions of North America and South-east Asia.  Differences in budget estimates are substantial for East Asia and South America. There is uncertainty in several regions as to whether these represent a carbon sink or source. Given these findings, caution should be taken when interpreting regional CO2 budgets.Those uncertainties continue to limit our ability to project the mitigation potential by the terrestrial biosphere. | +| 2019 |  | 
-|  | https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14917 | +|  | https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14878 | 
-|  | {{ :working_groups:cp:kondo_-_status_of_reconciling_top-down_and_bottom-up_approaches_for_co2_-_2019.pdf |}} | +|  | {{ :working_groups:cp:smith_which_practices_co-deliver_food_security_climate_change_mitigation_and_adaptation-2019.pdf |}} |
-| A. Krause | Legacy Effects from Historical Environmental Changes Dominate Future Terrestrial Carbon Uptake | +
-| 2020 | They use LPJ‐GUESS to quantify legacy effects for the 21st century. LUH2 (historic) and bias-corrected IPSL‐CM5A‐LR climate mode (future) are employed to provide land use forcing. The combined legacy effects of historical (1850–2015) environmental changes result in a land carbon uptake of +126 Gt C over the future (2015–2099) period. This by far exceeds the impacts of future environmental changes (range −53 Gt C to +16 Gt C for three scenarios) and is comparable in magnitude to historical carbon losses (−154 Gt C). The response of the biosphere to historical environmental changes dominates future terrestrial carbon cycling at least until mid-century. | +
-|  | https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001674 | +
-|  | {{ :working_groups:cp:krause-legacy_effects_from_historical_environmental_changes_2020ef001674.pdf |}} | +
-| Philip Vergragt et al  | Comparison of forest above-ground biomass from dynamic global vegetation models with spatially explicit remotely sensed observation-based estimates |  +
-| 2011 | This paper investigates if and how carbon capture and storage (CCS) could help to avoid reinforcing fossil fuel lock-in. The outcome is that a large-scale BECCS development could be feasible under certain conditions, thus largely avoiding the risk of reinforced fossil fuel lock-in. //Keywords: Carbon capture and storage, Biomass, Fossil fuel// | +
-| | https://doi-org.recursos.biblioteca.upc.edu/10.1111/gcb.15117      |  +
-| | {{ :working_groups:cp:vergragt-comparison_of_forest_above-ground_biomass_from_dgvms-1-s2.0-s0959378011000215-main.pdf |}} | +
-| Hui Yang | Comparison of forest above-ground biomass from dynamic global vegetation models with spatially explicit remotely sensed observation-based estimates | +
-| 2020 | Uses the GlobBiomass data set of forest above-ground biomass (AGB) density for the year 2010, obtained from multiple remote sensing and in situ observations at 100 m spatial resolution to evaluate AGB estimated by nine dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs).Model estimates are 365 ± 66 Pg C compared to 275 (±13.5%) Pg C from GlobBiomass. The results suggest that TRENDY v6 DGVMs tend to underestimate biomass loss from anthropogenic disturbances.| +
-| | https://doi-org.recursos.biblioteca.upc.edu/10.1111/gcb.15117 |  +
-| | {{ :working_groups:cp:globchangebiol_-_2020_-_yang_-_comparison_of_forest_above_ground_biomass.pdf |}}|+
  
working_groups/cp/collection_of_publications.1639655504.txt.gz · Last modified: 2021/12/16 11:51 by ameier

Page Tools

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki