GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
Document type
Language
  • 1
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    New York :Manning Publications Co. LLC,
    Keywords: Machine learning. ; Computer networks-Security measures. ; Electronic books.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    Pages: 1 online resource (264 pages)
    Edition: 1st ed.
    ISBN: 9781638352754
    DDC: 006.31
    Language: English
    Note: Intro -- inside front cover -- Privacy-Preserving Machine Learning -- Copyright -- contents -- front matter -- preface -- acknowledgments -- about this book -- Who should read this book -- How this book is organized: A road map -- About the code -- liveBook discussion forum -- about the authors -- about the cover illustration -- Part 1 Basics of privacy-preserving machine learning with differential privacy -- 1 Privacy considerations in machine learning -- 1.1 Privacy complications in the AI era -- 1.2 The threat of learning beyond the intended purpose -- 1.2.1 Use of private data on the fly -- 1.2.2 How data is processed inside ML algorithms -- 1.2.3 Why privacy protection in ML is important -- 1.2.4 Regulatory requirements and the utility vs. privacy tradeoff -- 1.3 Threats and attacks for ML systems -- 1.3.1 The problem of private data in the clear -- 1.3.2 Reconstruction attacks -- 1.3.3 Model inversion attacks -- 1.3.4 Membership inference attacks -- 1.3.5 De-anonymization or re-identification attacks -- 1.3.6 Challenges of privacy protection in big data analytics -- 1.4 Securing privacy while learning from data: Privacy-preserving machine learning -- 1.4.1 Use of differential privacy -- 1.4.2 Local differential privacy -- 1.4.3 Privacy-preserving synthetic data generation -- 1.4.4 Privacy-preserving data mining techniques -- 1.4.5 Compressive privacy -- 1.5 How is this book structured? -- Summary -- 2 Differential privacy for machine learning -- 2.1 What is differential privacy? -- 2.1.1 The concept of differential privacy -- 2.1.2 How differential privacy works -- 2.2 Mechanisms of differential privacy -- 2.2.1 Binary mechanism (randomized response) -- 2.2.2 Laplace mechanism -- 2.2.3 Exponential mechanism -- 2.3 Properties of differential privacy -- 2.3.1 Postprocessing property of differential privacy. , 2.3.2 Group privacy property of differential privacy -- 2.3.3 Composition properties of differential privacy -- Summary -- 3 Advanced concepts of differential privacy for machine learning -- 3.1 Applying differential privacy in machine learning -- 3.1.1 Input perturbation -- 3.1.2 Algorithm perturbation -- 3.1.3 Output perturbation -- 3.1.4 Objective perturbation -- 3.2 Differentially private supervised learning algorithms -- 3.2.1 Differentially private naive Bayes classification -- 3.2.2 Differentially private logistic regression -- 3.2.3 Differentially private linear regression -- 3.3 Differentially private unsupervised learning algorithms -- 3.3.1 Differentially private k-means clustering -- 3.4 Case study: Differentially private principal component analysis -- 3.4.1 The privacy of PCA over horizontally partitioned data -- 3.4.2 Designing differentially private PCA over horizontally partitioned data -- 3.4.3 Experimentally evaluating the performance of the protocol -- Summary -- Part 2 Local differential privacy and synthetic data generation -- 4 Local differential privacy for machine learning -- 4.1 What is local differential privacy? -- 4.1.1 The concept of local differential privacy -- 4.1.2 Randomized response for local differential privacy -- 4.2 The mechanisms of local differential privacy -- 4.2.1 Direct encoding -- 4.2.2 Histogram encoding -- 4.2.3 Unary encoding -- Summary -- 5 Advanced LDP mechanisms for machine learning -- 5.1 A quick recap of local differential privacy -- 5.2 Advanced LDP mechanisms -- 5.2.1 The Laplace mechanism for LDP -- 5.2.2 Duchi's mechanism for LDP -- 5.2.3 The Piecewise mechanism for LDP -- 5.3 A case study implementing LDP naive Bayes classification -- 5.3.1 Using naive Bayes with ML classification -- 5.3.2 Using LDP naive Bayes with discrete features -- 5.3.3 Using LDP naive Bayes with continuous features. , 5.3.4 Evaluating the performance of different LDP protocols -- Summary -- 6 Privacy-preserving synthetic data generation -- 6.1 Overview of synthetic data generation -- 6.1.1 What is synthetic data? Why is it important? -- 6.1.2 Application aspects of using synthetic data for privacy preservation -- 6.1.3 Generating synthetic data -- 6.2 Assuring privacy via data anonymization -- 6.2.1 Private information sharing vs. privacy concerns -- 6.2.2 Using k-anonymity against re-identification attacks -- 6.2.3 Anonymization beyond k-anonymity -- 6.3 DP for privacy-preserving synthetic data generation -- 6.3.1 DP synthetic histogram representation generation -- 6.3.2 DP synthetic tabular data generation -- 6.3.3 DP synthetic multi-marginal data generation -- 6.4 Case study on private synthetic data release via feature-level micro-aggregation -- 6.4.1 Using hierarchical clustering and micro-aggregation -- 6.4.2 Generating synthetic data -- 6.4.3 Evaluating the performance of the generated synthetic data -- Summary -- Part 3 Building privacy-assured machine learning applications -- 7 Privacy-preserving data mining techniques -- 7.1 The importance of privacy preservation in data mining and management -- 7.2 Privacy protection in data processing and mining -- 7.2.1 What is data mining and how is it used? -- 7.2.2 Consequences of privacy regulatory requirements -- 7.3 Protecting privacy by modifying the input -- 7.3.1 Applications and limitations -- 7.4 Protecting privacy when publishing data -- 7.4.1 Implementing data sanitization operations in Python -- 7.4.2 k-anonymity -- 7.4.3 Implementing k-anonymity in Python -- Summary -- 8 Privacy-preserving data management and operations -- 8.1 A quick recap of privacy protection in data processing and mining -- 8.2 Privacy protection beyond k-anonymity -- 8.2.1 l-diversity -- 8.2.2 t-closeness. , 8.2.3 Implementing privacy models with Python -- 8.3 Protecting privacy by modifying the data mining output -- 8.3.1 Association rule hiding -- 8.3.2 Reducing the accuracy of data mining operations -- 8.3.3 Inference control in statistical databases -- 8.4 Privacy protection in data management systems -- 8.4.1 Database security and privacy: Threats and vulnerabilities -- 8.4.2 How likely is a modern database system to leak private information? -- 8.4.3 Attacks on database systems -- 8.4.4 Privacy-preserving techniques in statistical database systems -- 8.4.5 What to consider when designing a customizable privacy-preserving database system -- Summary -- 9 Compressive privacy for machine learning -- 9.1 Introducing compressive privacy -- 9.2 The mechanisms of compressive privacy -- 9.2.1 Principal component analysis (PCA) -- 9.2.2 Other dimensionality reduction methods -- 9.3 Using compressive privacy for ML applications -- 9.3.1 Implementing compressive privacy -- 9.3.2 The accuracy of the utility task -- 9.3.3 The effect of ρ' in DCA for privacy and utility -- 9.4 Case study: Privacy-preserving PCA and DCA on horizontally partitioned data -- 9.4.1 Achieving privacy preservation on horizontally partitioned data -- 9.4.2 Recapping dimensionality reduction approaches -- 9.4.3 Using additive homomorphic encryption -- 9.4.4 Overview of the proposed approach -- 9.4.5 How privacy-preserving computation works -- 9.4.6 Evaluating the efficiency and accuracy of the privacy-preserving PCA and DCA -- Summary -- 10 Putting it all together: Designing a privacy-enhanced platform (DataHub) -- 10.1 The significance of a research data protection and sharing platform -- 10.1.1 The motivation behind the DataHub platform -- 10.1.2 DataHub's important features -- 10.2 Understanding the research collaboration workspace -- 10.2.1 The architectural design. , 10.2.2 Blending different trust models -- 10.2.3 Configuring access control mechanisms -- 10.3 Integrating privacy and security technologies into DataHub -- 10.3.1 Data storage with a cloud-based secure NoSQL database -- 10.3.2 Privacy-preserving data collection with local differential privacy -- 10.3.3 Privacy-preserving machine learning -- 10.3.4 Privacy-preserving query processing -- 10.3.5 Using synthetic data generation in the DataHub platform -- Summary -- Appendix A. More details about differential privacy -- A.1 The formal definition of differential privacy -- A.2 Other differential privacy mechanisms -- A.2.1 Geometric mechanism -- A.2.2 Gaussian mechanism -- A.2.3 Staircase mechanism -- A.2.4 Vector mechanism -- A.2.5 Wishart mechanism -- A.3 Formal definitions of composition properties of DP -- A.3.1 The formal definition of sequential composition DP -- A.3.2 The formal definition of parallel composition DP -- references -- Appendix -- index -- inside back cover.
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    ISSN: 0942-0940
    Keywords: Keywords: Hemifacial spasm; microvascular decompression; magnetic resonance angiography; facial nerve.
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Medicine
    Notes: Summary  Background. The objective of this study was to investigate the role of preoperative three dimensional short-range magnetic resonance angiography (3D-TOF MRA) in predicting the clinical outcomes following microvascular decompression for the treatment of hemifacial spasm.  Method. Preoperative magnetic resonance (MR) imaging was performed on all patients with hemifacial spasm (564 cases) between January 1992 and September 1998. Of the 564 patients, 440 patients were included in this retrospective study. The presence of vascular contact, offenders, and anomalies in the vertebro-basilar system, were determined by 3D-TOF MRA prior to microvascular decompression of the facial nerve. The preoperative findings were compared with the surgical findings and clinical outcomes.  Findings. A correlation was found between the clinical outcome (p〈0.01) and the presence of a vascular indentation at the root entry zone (REZ) of the facial nerve. A shift of the vertebrobasilar system to the symptomatic side was found in 214 (48.6%) patients with hemifacial spasm, compared to only 10 (13.5%) patients in the control group (p〈0.01). The unilateral vertebral artery was observed in 43 (9.8%) patients with hemifacial spasm and in 8 (10.8%) of the control patients. A hypoplasia of the artery was found in 8 (1.8%) patients with hemifacial spasm and in 1 (1.4%) control patient. The compressing offenders in the patients, discovered by MRI in conjunction with MRA, were as follows: 45.9% (202 patients) in the anterior inferior cerebellar artery (AICA), 34.8% (153 patients) in the posterior inferior cerebellar artery (PICA), 12.5% (55 patients) in the vertebral artery (VA) and 6.8% (30 patients) in multiple vessels. In contrast to the compressing offenders seen on the MRA, the offenders confirmed during surgery were as follows: 43% (189 patients) in the AICA, 36.4% (160 patients) in the PICA, 1.4% (6 patients) in the VA, 19% (84 patients) in multiple vessels, and 0.2% (1 patient) in the vein.  In our long-term follow-up series of the 440 patients with hemifacial spasm, an excellent surgical outcome was obtained in 86.3% of cases and a good outcome was achieved in 6.4% (mean follow-up duration, 45.5 months).  Interpretation. Preoperative 3D-TOF MRA can identify the relationship between the facial nerve and adjacent vessels in patients with a hemifacial spasm and assist in preoperative planning. This study suggests that 3D-TOF MRA is useful for selecting appropriate patients for surgical treatment and, to some extent, as an additional role for predicting the clinical outcome.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    facet.materialart.
    Unknown
    Earth System Science Data
    In:  EPIC3Earth System Science Data, Earth System Science Data, 7, pp. 349-396, ISSN: 1866-3508
    Publication Date: 2018-02-16
    Description: Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere is important to better understand the global carbon cy- cle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and a methodology to quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics, and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community. We discuss changes compared to previous estimates as well as consistency within and among components, alongside methodology and data limitations. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on combined evidence from land-cover-change data, fire activ- ity associated with deforestation, and models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The mean ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is based on observations from the 1990s, while the annual anomalies and trends are estimated with ocean models. The variability in SOCEAN is evaluated with data products based on surveys of ocean CO2 measurements. The global residual terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated by the difference of the other terms of the global carbon budget and compared to results of independent dynamic global vegetation models forced by observed climate, CO2, and land-cover change (some including nitrogen–carbon interactions). We compare the mean land and ocean fluxes and their variability to estimates from three atmospheric inverse methods for three broad latitude bands. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ, reflecting the current capacity to charac- terise the annual estimates of each component of the global carbon budget. For the last decade available (2005– 2014), EFF was 9.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC was 0.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM was 4.4 ± 0.1 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.0 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1. For the year 2014 alone, EFF grew to 9.8 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, 0.6 % above 2013, continuing the growth trend in these emissions, albeit at a slower rate compared to the average growth of 2.2 % yr−1 that took place during 2005–2014. Also, for 2014, ELUC was 1.1 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM was 3.9 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 4.1 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1. GATM was lower in 2014 compared to the past decade (2005–2014), reflecting a larger SLAND for that year. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 397.15 ± 0.10 ppm averaged over 2014. For 2015, preliminary data indicate that the growth in EFF will be near or slightly below zero, with a projection of −0.6 [range of −1.6 to +0.5] %, based on national emissions projections for China and the USA, and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the global economy for the rest of the world. From this projec- tion of EFF and assumed constant ELUC for 2015, cumulative emissions of CO2 will reach about 555 ± 55 GtC (2035 ± 205 GtCO2) for 1870–2015, about 75 % from EFF and 25 % from ELUC. This living data update docu- ments changes in the methods and data sets used in this new carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2015, 2014, 2013). All observations presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (doi:10.3334/CDIAC/GCP_2015).
    Repository Name: EPIC Alfred Wegener Institut
    Type: Article , isiRev
    Format: application/pdf
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    Publication Date: 2019-07-16
    Repository Name: EPIC Alfred Wegener Institut
    Type: Article , isiRev
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    Publication Date: 2020-02-17
    Repository Name: EPIC Alfred Wegener Institut
    Type: Conference , notRev
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    Publication Date: 2019-07-16
    Repository Name: EPIC Alfred Wegener Institut
    Type: Article , peerRev
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    Publication Date: 2022-05-26
    Description: © The Author(s), 2015. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Earth System Science Data 7 (2015): 349–396, doi:10.5194/essd-7-349-2015.
    Description: Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and a methodology to quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics, and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community. We discuss changes compared to previous estimates as well as consistency within and among components, alongside methodology and data limitations. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on combined evidence from land-cover-change data, fire activity associated with deforestation, and models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The mean ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is based on observations from the 1990s, while the annual anomalies and trends are estimated with ocean models. The variability in SOCEAN is evaluated with data products based on surveys of ocean CO2 measurements. The global residual terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated by the difference of the other terms of the global carbon budget and compared to results of independent dynamic global vegetation models forced by observed climate, CO2, and land-cover change (some including nitrogen–carbon interactions). We compare the mean land and ocean fluxes and their variability to estimates from three atmospheric inverse methods for three broad latitude bands. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ, reflecting the current capacity to characterise the annual estimates of each component of the global carbon budget. For the last decade available (2005–2014), EFF was 9.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC was 0.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM was 4.4 ± 0.1 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.0 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1. For the year 2014 alone, EFF grew to 9.8 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, 0.6 % above 2013, continuing the growth trend in these emissions, albeit at a slower rate compared to the average growth of 2.2 % yr−1 that took place during 2005–2014. Also, for 2014, ELUC was 1.1 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM was 3.9 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 4.1 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1. GATM was lower in 2014 compared to the past decade (2005–2014), reflecting a larger SLAND for that year. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 397.15 ± 0.10 ppm averaged over 2014. For 2015, preliminary data indicate that the growth in EFF will be near or slightly below zero, with a projection of −0.6 [range of −1.6 to +0.5] %, based on national emissions projections for China and the USA, and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the global economy for the rest of the world. From this projection of EFF and assumed constant ELUC for 2015, cumulative emissions of CO2 will reach about 555 ± 55 GtC (2035 ± 205 GtCO2) for 1870–2015, about 75 % from EFF and 25 % from ELUC. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2015, 2014, 2013). All observations presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (doi:10.3334/CDIAC/GCP_2015).
    Description: NERC provided funding to C. Le Quéré, R. Moriarty, and the GCP through their International Opportunities Fund specifically to support this publication (NE/103002X/1). G. P. Peters and R. M. Andrew were supported by the Norwegian Research Council (236296). J. G. Canadell was supported by the Australian Climate Change Science Programme. S. Sitch was supported by EU FP7 for funding through projects LUC4C (GA603542). R. J. Andres was supported by US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research (BER) programmes under US Department of Energy contract DE-AC05- 00OR22725. T. A. Boden was supported by US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research (BER) programmes under US Department of Energy contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. J. I. House was supported by the Leverhulme foundation and the EU FP7 through project LUC4C (GA603542). P. Friedlingstein was supported by the EU FP7 for funding through projects LUC4C (GA603542) and EMBRACE (GA282672). A. Arneth was supported by the EU FP7 for funding through LUC4C (603542), and the Helmholtz foundation and its ATMO programme. D. C. E. Bakker was supported by the EU FP7 for funding through project CARBOCHANGE (284879), the UK Ocean Acidification Research Programme (NE/H017046/1; funded by the Natural Environment Research Council, the Department for Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). L. Barbero was supported by NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Program and acknowledges support for this work from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) ROSES Carbon Cycle Science under NASA grant 13-CARBON13_2-0080. P. Ciais acknowledges support from the European Research Council through Synergy grant ERC-2013-SyG-610028 “IMBALANCE-P”. M. Fader was supported by the EU FP7 for funding through project LUC4C (GA603542). J. Hauck was supported by the Helmholtz Postdoc Programme (Initiative and Networking Fund of the Helmholtz Association). R. A. Feely and A. J. Sutton were supported by the Climate Observation Division, Climate Program Office, NOAA, US Department of Commerce. A. K. Jain was supported by the US National Science Foundation (NSF AGS 12-43071) the US Department of Energy, Office of Science and BER programmes (DOE DE-SC0006706) and NASA LCLUC programme (NASA NNX14AD94G). E. Kato was supported by the ERTDF (S-10) from the Ministry of Environment, Japan. K. Klein Goldewijk was supported by the Dutch NWO VENI grant no. 863.14.022. S. K. Lauvset was supported by the project “Monitoring ocean acidification in Norwegian waters” from the Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment. V. Kitidis was supported by the EU FP7 for funding through project CARBOCHANGE (264879). C. Koven was supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research of the US Department of Energy under contract no. DE-AC02-05CH11231 as part of their Regional and Global Climate Modeling Program. P. Landschützer was supported by GEOCarbon. I. T. van der Lann-Luijkx received financial support from OCW/NWO for ICOS-NL and computing time from NWO (SH-060-13). I. D. Lima was supported by the US National Science Foundation (NSF AGS-1048827). N. Metzl was supported by Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers (INSU) and Institut Paul Emile Victor (IPEV) for OISO cruises. D. R. Munro was supported by the US National Science Foundation (NSF PLR-1341647 and NSF AOAS-0944761). J. E. M. S. Nabel was supported by the German Research Foundation’s Emmy Noether Programme (PO1751/1-1) and acknowledges Julia Pongratz and Kim Naudts for their contributions. Y. Nojiri and S. Nakaoka were supported by the Global Environment Research Account for National Institutes (1432) by the Ministry of Environment of Japan. A. Olsen appreciates support from the Norwegian Research Council (SNACS, 229752). F. F. Pérez were supported by BOCATS (CTM2013-41048-P) project co-founded by the Spanish government and the Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER). B. Pfeil was supported through the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme AtlantOS under grant agreement no. 633211. D. Pierrot was supported by NOAA through the Climate Observation Division of the Climate Program Office. B. Poulter was supported by the EU FP7 for funding through GEOCarbon. G. Rehder was supported by BMBF (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) through project ICOS, grant no. 01LK1224D. U. Schuster was supported by NERC UKOARP (NE/H017046/1), NERC RAGANRoCC (NE/K002473/1), the European Space Agency (ESA) OceanFlux Evolution project, and EU FP7 CARBOCHANGE (264879). T. Steinhoff was supported by ICOS-D (BMBF FK 01LK1101C) and EU FP7 for funding through project CARBOCHANGE (264879). J. Schwinger was supported by the Research Council of Norway through project EVA (229771), and acknowledges the Norwegian Metacenter for Computational Science (NOTUR, project nn2980k), and the Norwegian Storage Infrastructure (NorStore, project ns2980k) for supercomputer time and storage resources. T. Takahashi was supported by grants from NOAA and the Comer Education and Science Foundation. B. Tilbrook was supported by the Australian Department of Environment and the Integrated Marine Observing System. B. D. Stocker was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and FP7 funding through project EMBRACE (282672). S. van Heuven was supported by the EU FP7 for funding through project CARBOCHANGE (264879). G. R. van der Werf was supported by the European Research Council (280061). A. Wiltshire was supported by the Joint UK DECC/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101) and EU FP7 Funding through project LUC4C (603542). S. Zaehle was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (QUINCY; grant agreement no. 647204). ISAM (PI: Atul K. Jain) simulations were carried out at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), which is supported by the US DOE under contract DE-AC02-05CH11231.
    Repository Name: Woods Hole Open Access Server
    Type: Article
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 8
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    s.l. : American Chemical Society
    The @journal of physical chemistry 〈Washington, DC〉 82 (1978), S. 1683-1687 
    Source: ACS Legacy Archives
    Topics: Chemistry and Pharmacology , Physics
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 9
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    s.l. : American Chemical Society
    The @journal of physical chemistry 〈Washington, DC〉 83 (1979), S. 3059-3064 
    Source: ACS Legacy Archives
    Topics: Chemistry and Pharmacology , Physics
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 10
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    s.l. : American Chemical Society
    The @journal of physical chemistry 〈Washington, DC〉 85 (1981), S. 2562-2567 
    Source: ACS Legacy Archives
    Topics: Chemistry and Pharmacology , Physics
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...