Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Kenneth L. Greene, Tax Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Also appearing on the brief were Eileen J. O'Connor and Ellen Page Delsole.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Judith M. O'Donohoe of Charles City, Iowa.
The United States appeals the order of the bankruptcy appellate panel1 affirming a judgment of the bankruptcy court,2 which held that Gary Wayne Colsen's debts to the IRS were dischargeable. In re Colsen, 322 B.R. 118 (8th Cir. BAP 2005), aff'g, 311 B.R. 765 (Bankr.N.D. Iowa 2004). We affirm.
After Mr. Colsen failed to file timely tax returns for the years 1992 through 1996, the IRS prepared substitutes for the missing returns and issued notices of deficiency. By the middle of 1999, the IRS had assessed taxes, interest, and penalties against Mr. Colsen for the tax years 1992 through 1996. In late 1999, Mr. Colsen filed 1040 forms for 1992 through 1998, and four years later he filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. He then initiated an adversary proceeding claiming that his federal income tax liabilities for tax years 1992 through 1996 were dischargeable despite 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) (1) (B) (i). That statute provides that " [a] discharge ... does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt ... for a tax ... with respect to which a return, or equivalent report or notice, if required... was not filed or given." The United States moved for summary judgment, asserting that the 1040 forms that Mr. Colsen filed were not "returns" under the statute because they were filed after the IRS's assessment had taken place. The bankruptcy court disagreed and held that the 1040 forms qualified as returns and therefore Mr. Colsen's tax liabilities from 1992 through 1996 were dischargeable; the bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed.
Both parties agree that the appropriate criteria for determining whether a document is a return for present purposes are summarized in Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766, 774-79, 1984 WL 15573 (1984), aff'd, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam), which itself drew from the Supreme Court's opinions in Germantown Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 309 U.S. 304, 309, 60 S. Ct. 566, 84 L. Ed. 770 (1940), and Zellerbach Paper Co. v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 172, 180, 55 S. Ct. 127, 79 L. Ed. 264 (1934). According to the tax court in Beard, if a document "contains sufficient information to permit a tax to be calculated," and "`purports to be a return, is sworn to as such, and evinces an honest and genuine endeavor to satisfy the law,'" it is a return. Beard, 82 T.C. at 777, 778 (quoting Zellerbach, 293 U.S. at 180, 55 S. Ct. 127 (internal citation omitted)).
The United States asserts that a 1040 form filed after the IRS has gone to the trouble and expense of preparing substitute returns and assessing the relevant tax liability serves no purpose under the tax laws and thus cannot have been an "honest and genuine endeavor" to satisfy the tax laws as Beard requires. The Sixth Circuit has ruled for the government in a similar situation, holding that "when the debtor has failed to respond to both the thirty-day and the ninety-day deficiency letters sent by the IRS, and the government has assessed the deficiency, then the Forms 1040 serve no tax purpose, and the government has met its burden of showing that the debtor's actions were not an honest and reasonable effort to satisfy the tax law." United States v. Hindenlang (In re Hindenlang), 164 F.3d 1029, 1034-35 (6th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 810, 120 S. Ct. 41, 145 L. Ed. 2d 37 (1999).
Along similar lines, the Fourth Circuit held that a debtor's tardiness is relevant to the question of whether a 1040 form should be considered an honest and genuine attempt to comply with the tax laws, and decided that a purported return filed by a nonchalantly noncompliant debtor after the IRS estimated his tax liability did not meet the requirements of Beard. Moroney v. United States (In re Moroney), 352 F.3d 902, 906 (4th Cir. 2003). The court in Moroney explicitly refused to hold that 1040 forms serve a tax purpose if they cause an abatement of a debtor's estimated tax liabilities, since that would mean that "the availability of discharge would turn on the IRS's accuracy in assessing taxes, rather than on [the debtor's] sincerity and diligence in complying with the tax code." Id. The court further reasoned that the IRS would be discouraged from abating taxes if doing so meant that the tax liabilities would be eligible for discharge in bankruptcy. Id. The Seventh Circuit has also refused to recognize a post-assessment filing as a return for purposes of § 523(a) (1) (B) (i). See Payne, 431 F.3d at 1057. In his opinion for the court, Judge Posner asserted that the main purpose of the filing requirement is to spare the government the burden of calculating what tax is owed. Id. He concluded that since the debtor filed a purported return only after the IRS made an assessment, the document was not a reasonable attempt to comply with the tax law "requirements of filing a timely return and paying the amount of tax calculated on the return" and thus was not a return under § 523(a) (1) (B) (i), whether or not it yielded useful information. Id. Judge Easterbrook, however, dissented from this view: He pointed out that "timely filing and satisfaction of one's financial obligations are requirements distinct from the definition of a `return'" and argued that the relevant legal provisions were the ones that require that taxpayers yield all financial information necessary for calculation of their tax liabilities. Id. at 1060-61 (Easterbrook, J., dissenting); see 26 U.S.C. §§ 6011(a), 6012(a). The court, he contended, had conflated the objectives of obtaining accurate financial data and maximizing tax revenues, and had insinuated a motive requirement into the definition of "return" that the cases used to formulate that definition do not support. "Motive may affect the consequences of a return," Judge Easterbrook said, "but not the definition." Payne, 431 F.3d at 1061-62 (Easterbrook, J., dissenting). With due regard to the opinions of the other circuits, we find Judge Easterbrook's arguments persuasive.
To be a return, a form is required to "evince" an honest and genuine attempt to satisfy the laws. This does not require inquiry into the circumstances under which a document was filed. The Supreme Court has observed that even admittedly fraudulent returns can be returns under the tax laws, if they "appeared on their faces to constitute endeavors to satisfy the law." Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386, 397, 104 S. Ct. 756, 78 L. Ed. 2d 549 (1984). That case dealt only with defining returns for purposes of the statute of limitations; neither party denied that a fraudulent filing that actively hindered calculation of accurate tax liability was considered a return under numerous sections of the tax code. Id. at 396-97, 104 S. Ct. 756. The Supreme Court's objective assessment in Badaracco is compatible with the requirements of Beard; the fourth Beard criterion contains no mention of timeliness or the filer's intent. We have been offered no persuasive reason to create a more subjective definition of "return" that is dependent on the facts and circumstances of a taxpayer's filing. We think that to do so would increase the difficulty of administration and introduce an inconsistency into the terminology of the tax laws. We therefore hold that the honesty and genuineness of the filer's attempt to satisfy the tax laws should be determined from the face of the form itself, not from the filer's delinquency or the reasons for it. The filer's subjective intent is irrelevant.
The government's essential position is that because Mr. Colsen's 1040 forms were filed after the IRS's assessment, they do not evince an honest, genuine attempt to satisfy the law and thus he has not satisfied the requirement that returns be filed in order for tax liabilities to be dischargeable. But we have no evidence to suggest that the forms appeared obviously inaccurate or fabricated; indeed, Mr. Colsen's 1040 forms contained data that allowed the IRS to calculate his tax obligation more accurately: The information contained in the forms was honest and genuine enough to result in thousands of dollars of abatements of tax and interest. This contrasts, incidentally, with the situation in Hindenlang, 164 F.3d at 1031, where the taxpayer's forms contained essentially the same information as the substitute forms that the IRS prepared and the calculation of tax did not change substantially.
The IRS apparently has found post-assessment returns useful, as it has required taxpayers to file them before the agency would consider proposed offers to compromise tax liabilities. See Payne, 431 F.3d at 1060. Filing the forms served an important purpose under the tax laws for Mr. Colsen. That the IRS did not also collect more tax as a result of Mr. Colsen's filings does not undermine their role in determining Mr. Colsen's ultimate liabilities. The theory of the case that the government espouses holds only if we consider the accurate calculation of a taxpayer's obligations not to be a valid purpose that satisfies the tax laws, which we decline to do. Our confidence in this result derives strength from the principle that "exceptions from discharge are to be strictly construed so as to give maximum effect to the policy of the bankruptcy code to provide debtors with a `fresh start.'" In re Geiger, 113 F.3d 848, 853 (8th Cir. 1997) (en banc), aff'd sub nom. Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 118 S. Ct. 974, 140 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1998).
We affirm the judgment of the bankruptcy appellate panel.


416 APPROPRIATION OF WATER merit if substantially revised, it need not be rejected altogether. Instead, if a qualified and limited right of appropriation appears justified, the State agency may approve a proposal modified to an extent consonant with conditions that actually exist.926 The statutory duty of water which prevails in some States is discussed in chapter 8, under "Elements of the Appropriative Right-Measure of the Appropriative Right-Duty of Water." In these jurisdictions an applicant may apply for the maximum allowed by law. However, if in his particular situation such quantity is patently more than he can apply to beneficial use, the administrator would not be justified in authorizing such quantity and it is doubtful if he would do so. Several statutes specifically authorize the State agency to approve an application for a lesser quantity of water than is applied for if there exist substantial reasons therefor.927 The California Water Code provides that "The issuance of a permit gives the right to take and use water only to the extent and for the purpose allowed in the permit."928 In view of this, a district court of appeal held that an application to appropriate water may be granted in part and denied in part.929 Even without such specific authorization, the statutory power to grant or to completely deny an application, according to the conditions that exist respecting it, would include by necessary implication the power to approve less water than asked for. A contrary construction of the legislation would be unreasonable. The cumulative effect of the administrative discretionary powers in issuing and refusing permits, granted by western legislatures and authorized by the courts, and of the prevailing policies of limiting water uses to beneficial requirements and forbidding unnecessary waste of water, negatives any likelihood that any western administrative statute would be so construed as to require the State to grant to an applicant a permit for a quantity of water substantially in excess of his needs, simply because he applies for it. The same comments apply to the imposition of other qualifications and limitations in the issuance of permits. For example, certain statutes provide specifically for the approval of applications under terms and on conditions necessary to protect the public interest.930 Others authorize the administrator 926Kirk v. State Board of In., 90 Nebr. 627, 631-632, 134 N.W. 167 (1912); East Bay Municipal Utility Dist. v. State Department of Public Works, 1 Cal. (2d) 476, 481, 35 Pac. (2d) 1027 (1934). 927 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §45-143 (1956); Idaho Code Ann. §42-203 (Supp. 1969); Nebr. Rev. Stat. §46-235 (1968); Nev. Rev. Stat. §533.380 (Supp. 1967); N. Mex. Stat. Ann. §75-5-5 (1968); Oreg. Rev. Stat. §537.190(1) (Supp. 1969); S. Dak. Comp. Laws Ann. §46-5-21 (1967); Wash. Rev. Code §90.03.290 (Supp. 1961). 928 Cal. Water Code §1381 (West 1956). 919Rich v. McClure, 78 Cal. App. 209, 213, 248 Pac. 275 (1926). 930Cal. Water Code §1253 (West Supp. 1970); Oreg. Rev. Stat. §537.190(1) (Supp. 1969).


text:
Home » Can Undercover Officers Pose as Cellmates to Elicit Incriminating Statements?
In Illinois v. Perkins, the U.S. Supreme Court held that statements deliberately elicited by an undercover officer posing as the defendant’s cellmate were not inadmissible under Miranda, even though no warnings had been given. Rationale: If the prisoner is unaware he/she is talking to a government agent, there is no reason to presume he will feel compelled to answer questions or make statements, so no compulsion-neutralizing warnings are needed. “We hold that the statements are admissible. Miranda warnings are not required when the suspect is unaware that he is speaking to a law enforcement officer and gives a voluntary statement” (Illinois v. Perkins 1990).
This tactic can be particularly helpful when police are investigating a serious offense, as to which the suspect is more likely to invoke or inhibit overt interrogation once he or she is mirandized by an identifiable officer. The Perkins technique may also be a better approach with a suspect who has a known history of invoking when warned. Rather than give a Miranda warning and risk invocation in such cases, officers may decide to place the suspect into a prepared cell (equipped with audio-video recording), together with an undercover officer wearing jailhouse attire.
The Perkins technique may only be used before the suspects Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches (by indictment or first court appearance) to a case about which police intend to question him. This is because, unlike Miranda, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel can be violated by covert questioning, in or out of custody. US v. Henry (1980) ruled statements elicited from indicted defendant by government informant/cellmate are inadmissible and Maine v. Moulton (1983) confirmed statements elicited from indicted defendant by government informant during pretrial release are also inadmissible.
Also, unlike Miranda, the constitutional violation occurs when the statements are elicited—rather than only upon their use at trial (Kansas v. Ventris, 2009). This means officials could become subject to potential civil liability for violating a defendants Sixth Amendment rights by employing a Perkins operation after indictment or first court appearance (usually, arraignment) on a case.
Since unlike Miranda, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is “offense-specific,” officers could continue to use an undercover officer or informant to elicit statements about other uncharged crimes that are not lesser-included offences of the specific offense for which the defendant has been indicted or arraigned. This may prove problematic because cellmates often boast or exaggerate crimes as a defense mechanism.
The question still remains: can the Perkins technique still be used after the suspect has been Mirandized and has invoked? No US Supreme Court or published California appellate opinion has directly considered this question. However, several cases (People v. Thorton 2007, People v. Davis 2005, People v. Jefferson 2008) have applied Perkins to allow admission of statements obtained by covert agents or others after invocation.
Bottom line: The “Perkins technique” may not be used to elicit statements on a specific crime (or lesser included offenses) as to which the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached.
*This article was originally published in The Official Publication of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs Incorporated (ALADS) and has been adopted for educational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice, and is only considered “current” as of the published date.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Global Merchandising Services, Ltd. v. Various John Does et al. (18-cv-11861).
Global merchandising, who had exclusive rights to the OZZY OSBOURNE mark, filed a preemptive trademark suit in advance of Osbourne’s upcoming show at the Xfinity Center in Mansfield, MA. Global seeks a TRO and preliminary injunction prohibiting the unknown defendants from making, distributing or selling merchandise bearing the mark or Osbourne’s likeness. As with the majority of these types of cases, Judge Zobel has been assigned to handle this matter.
Author dmassiplitigationPosted on August 30, 2018 Categories Complaint, Copyright, Preliminary Injunction, ZobelLeave a comment on Global Merchandising Services, Ltd. v. Various John Does et al. (18-cv-11861).
Three Ten Merchandising Services, inc. v. Does 1-100 et al. (18-cv-11605).
Three Ten Merchandising, a concert merchandising company for Beyonce, sued unnamed persons and corporations to preempt sales of counterfeit merchandise bearing any of Beyonce’s registered or pending trademarks – BEYONCE, BEYHIVE, BEYGOOD, #BEYGOOD, and YONCE – at or around Gillette Stadium during her August 5th concert. Three Ten seeks an injunction and an order that U.S. Marshalls and local and state police seize and impound any such merchandise. This preemptive, effectively ex-parte mechanism is permitted under 1984 amendments to the Lanham Act. Judge Zobel, who has been assigned to the case, seems to be the Massachusetts judge for such matters – she has had a number of similar cases involving artists such as Pink, Coldplay, Katy Perry and Lady Gaga .
Author dmassiplitigationPosted on August 1, 2018 Categories Complaint, Copyright, Preliminary Injunction, ZobelLeave a comment on Three Ten Merchandising Services, inc. v. Does 1-100 et al. (18-cv-11605).
Oomph Hair LLC v. Hair Illusions, LLC et al. (18-cv-10519).
Oomph Hair filed suit against Hair Illusions and its founder, Salvatore Passariello, accusing them of infringing Oomph’s trademark, cybersquatting, falsely disparaging Oomph products, and other forms of unfair competition, as well as seeking declaratory judgment that Hair Illusion’s “hairline enhancement” trademark application is invalid as merely descriptive. Hair Illusions is purported to control 90% of the real hair fiber market (real hair fiber is, as near as I can tell, small hair fibers, that are temporarily adhered to natural hair, making thinning hair look fuller). Oomph claims that Hair Illusions uses unfair and tortious means to maintain this market share, such as threatening Oomph and Oomph customers with patent lawsuits, despite having no patent to assert (Passariello had a pair of application undergoing prosecution at the time; they have since gone abandoned). Oomph also asserts that Hair Illusion registered domain names confusingly similar to Oomph’s registered HAIR FUSION trademark, which disparage Oomph’s product (e.g., alleging that the product contains parasites) and redirect customers to Hair Illusion’s on-line store. Oomph seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, transferal of the offending domain names, and monetary damages. Oomph filed a motion for a preliminary injunction concurrently with the filing of the complaint. Judge Zobel scheduled a hearing on the motion for March 28.
Author dmassiplitigationPosted on March 21, 2018 Categories Complaint, Cybersquatting, Declaratory Judgment, Domain Name, Preliminary Injunction, Trademark, Unfair business practice, ZobelLeave a comment on Oomph Hair LLC v. Hair Illusions, LLC et al. (18-cv-10519).
Bokhary v. Southern Foods (17-cv-11096).
Judge Capser denied Bokhary’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent Southern Foods from using the mark GODAVARI in connection with its Indian restaurants. Bokhary sells prepackaged rice-based food products under the mark, and has a registration, which serves as prima facie evidence that the mark is valid. Bohkary admits, however, that the products it sells originate from the Godavari River region of India, which is known as a major source of rice and rice products, which Judge Casper found sufficient to overcome the prima facie evidence based on the registration and to suggest that the mark is merely geographically descriptive. Bohkary propounded no evidence at this stage of the proceedings to show that the mark has secondary meaning; thus, it is not reasonably likely that Bohkary would succeed in proving that the mark is valid. Judge Casper also found that a likelihood of confusion had not been established, because restaurant services are sufficiently distinct from retail selling of pre-packaged foods, and that the rest of the evidence thus far put forth failed to overcome the weakness of the mark (assuming it were to be valid at all). (Full disclosure – Southern Foods is represented by Nate Harris here at my firm – congrats, Nate!).
Author dmassiplitigationPosted on January 20, 2018 Categories Preliminary Injunction, TrademarkLeave a comment on Bokhary v. Southern Foods (17-cv-11096).
Global Strategies, Inc. v. Interbulk USA, LLC d/b/a Interbulk Express (17-cv-12166).
Judge Stearns denied Global Strategies’ motion for a preliminary injunction for failure to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. Global alleges Interbulk infringes a Global patent and Global’s “DEMO BAGS” family of marks through sale of its “Ox Demolition Clean Up Bag” or “Ox Demo Bag.” Judge Stearns found that Interbulk had raised substantial questions concerning the validity of the asserted patent, because Interbulk had demonstrated that the accused product was on sale more than a year before the filing date of the asserted patent. He also indicated that there was a likelihood that at least some of the claims would be found obvious over the asserted prior art combined with common sense under KSR, which came out after the asserted patent had issued. With respect to the trademark, Judge Stearns found that “DEMO BAG” was an abbreviation for “demolition bag,” which would render the mark generic and unprotectable, which was enough to overcome the weak showing of likelihood of consumer confusion.
Author dmassiplitigationPosted on January 17, 2018 Categories Patent, Preliminary Injunction, TrademarkLeave a comment on Global Strategies, Inc. v. Interbulk USA, LLC d/b/a Interbulk Express (17-cv-12166).

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Bjorkman, Anne D., Isla H. Myers-Smith, Sarah C. Elmendorf, Signe Normand, Nadja Rüger, Pieter S. A. Beck, Anne Blach-Overgaard, et al. “Plant Functional Trait Change across a Warming Tundra Biome.” Nature562, no. 7725 (October 2018): 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0563-7.
Calvin, Katherine, Pralit Patel, Leon Clarke, Ghassem Asrar, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Ryna Yiyun Cui, Alan Di Vittorio, et al. “GCAM v5.1: Representing the Linkages between Energy, Water, Land, Climate, and Economic Systems.” Geoscientific Model Development12, no. 2 (February 15, 2019): 677–98. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-677-2019.
Collalti, Alessio, Carlo Trotta, Trevor F. Keenan, Andreas Ibrom, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Ruediger Grote, Sara Vicca, et al. “Thinning Can Reduce Losses in Carbon Use Efficiency and Carbon Stocks in Managed Forests Under Warmer Climate.” Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems10, no. 10 (October 2018): 2427–52. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001275.
Feijoo, Felipe, Gokul C. Iyer, Charalampos Avraam, Sauleh A. Siddiqui, Leon E. Clarke, Sriram Sankaranarayanan, Matthew T. Binsted, et al. “The Future of Natural Gas Infrastructure Development in the United States.” Applied Energy228 (October 2018): 149–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.037.
Gillingham, Kenneth, William Nordhaus, David Anthoff, Geoffrey Blanford, Valentina Bosetti, Peter Christensen, Haewon McJeon, and John Reilly. “Modeling Uncertainty in Integrated Assessment of Climate Change: A Multimodel Comparison.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists5, no. 4 (October 2018): 791–826. https://doi.org/10.1086/698910.
Hoesly, Rachel M, and Steven J Smith. “Informing Energy Consumption Uncertainty: An Analysis of Energy Data Revisions.” Environmental Research Letters13, no. 12 (December 17, 2018): 124023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaebc3.
Jones, Andrew D., Katherine V. Calvin, Xiaoying Shi, Alan V. Di Vittorio, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Peter E. Thornton, and William D. Collins. “Quantifying Human-Mediated Carbon Cycle Feedbacks.” Geophysical Research Letters45, no. 20 (October 28, 2018): 11,370-11,379. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079350.
Li, Xuecao, Yuyu Zhou, Lin Meng, Ghassem Asrar, Amir Sapkota, and Frances Coates. “Characterizing the Relationship between Satellite Phenology and Pollen Season: A Case Study of Birch.” Remote Sensing of Environment222 (March 2019): 267–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.12.036.
Liu, Dan, Elizabeth Toman, Zane Fuller, Gang Chen, Alexis Londo, Xuesong Zhang, and Kaiguang Zhao. “Integration of Historical Map and Aerial Imagery to Characterize Long-Term Land-Use Change and Landscape Dynamics: An Object-Based Analysis via Random Forests.” Ecological Indicators95 (December 2018): 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.004.
Liu, Liang, Taesung Hwang, Sungwon Lee, Yanfeng Ouyang, Bumsoo Lee, Steven J. Smith, Christopher W. Tessum, et al. “Health and Climate Impacts of Future United States Land Freight Modelled with Global-to-Urban Models.” Nature Sustainability2, no. 2 (February 2019): 105–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0224-3.
Lou, Sijia, Yang Yang, Hailong Wang, Steven J. Smith, Yun Qian, and Philip J. Rasch. “Black Carbon Amplifies Haze Over the North China Plain by Weakening the East Asian Winter Monsoon.” Geophysical Research Letters46, no. 1 (January 16, 2019): 452–60. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080941.
Lucena, André F.P., Mohamad Hejazi, Eveline Vasquez-Arroyo, Sean Turner, Alexandre C. Köberle, Kathryn Daenzer, Pedro R.R. Rochedo, et al. “Interactions between Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: The Case of Hydropower in Brazil.” Energy164 (December 2018): 1161–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.005.
Qi, Junyu, Xuesong Zhang, Gregory W. McCarty, Ali M. Sadeghi, Michael H. Cosh, Xubin Zeng, Feng Gao, et al. “Assessing the Performance of a Physically-Based Soil Moisture Module Integrated within the Soil and Water Assessment Tool.” Environmental Modelling & Software109 (November 2018): 329–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.08.024.
Qiu, Jiali, Zhenyao Shen, Maoyi Huang, and Xuesong Zhang. “Exploring Effective Best Management Practices in the Miyun Reservoir Watershed, China.” Ecological Engineering123 (November 2018): 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.08.020.
Qiu, Jiali, Qichun Yang, Xuesong Zhang, Maoyi Huang, Jennifer C. Adam, and Keyvan Malek. “Implications of Water Management Representations for Watershed Hydrologic Modeling in the Yakima River Basin.” Hydrology and Earth System Sciences23, no. 1 (January 3, 2019): 35–49. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-35-2019.
Saravia, Leonardo A., Santiago R. Doyle, and Ben Bond-Lamberty. “Power Laws and Critical Fragmentation in Global Forests.” Scientific Reports8, no. 1 (December 2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36120-w.
Turner, Sean W. D., Mohamad Hejazi, Catherine Yonkofski, Son H. Kim, and Page Kyle. “Influence of Groundwater Extraction Costs and Resource Depletion Limits on Simulated Global Nonrenewable Water Withdrawals Over the Twenty-First Century.” Earth’s Future, February 18, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF001105.
Vernon, Chris R., Mohamad I. Hejazi, Sean W. D. Turner, Yaling Liu, Caleb J. Braun, Xinya Li, and Robert P. Link. “A Global Hydrologic Framework to Accelerate Scientific Discovery.” Journal of Open Research Software7 (January 7, 2019). https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.245.
Wang, Xin, Jin Wu, Min Chen, Xiangtao Xu, Zhenhua Wang, Bin Wang, Chengzhang Wang, et al. “Field Evidences for the Positive Effects of Aerosols on Tree Growth.” Global Change Biology24, no. 10 (October 2018): 4983–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14339.
Weber, Christopher, David L. McCollum, Jae Edmonds, Pedro Faria, Alban Pyanet, Joeri Rogelj, Massimo Tavoni, Jakob Thoma, and Elmar Kriegler. “Mitigation Scenarios Must Cater to New Users.” Nature Climate Change8, no. 10 (October 2018): 845–48. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0293-8.
Yang, Qichun, Xuesong Zhang, James E. Almendinger, Maoyi Huang, Guoyong Leng, Yuyu Zhou, Kaiguang Zhao, Ghassem R. Asrar, Xia Li, and Jiali Qiu. “Improving the SWAT Forest Module for Enhancing Water Resource Projections: A Case Study in the St. Croix River Basin.” Hydrological Processes, December 16, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13370.
Yang, Yang, Steven J. Smith, Hailong Wang, Catrin M. Mills, and Philip J. Rasch. “Variability, Timescales, and Nonlinearity in Climate Responses to Black Carbon Emissions.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics19, no. 4 (February 25, 2019): 2405–20. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-2405-2019.
Yigzaw, Wondmagegn, Hong-Yi Li, Yonas Demissie, Mohamad I. Hejazi, L. Ruby Leung, Nathalie Voisin, and Rob Payn. “A New Global Storage-Area-Depth Data Set for Modeling Reservoirs in Land Surface and Earth System Models.” Water Resources Research54, no. 12 (December 2018): 10,372-10,386. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017WR022040.
Zhang, Liming, Qiaofeng Zheng, Yaling Liu, Shaogui Liu, Dongsheng Yu, Xuezheng Shi, Shihe Xing, Hanyue Chen, and Xieyu Fan. “Combined Effects of Temperature and Precipitation on Soil Organic Carbon Changes in the Uplands of Eastern China.” Geoderma337 (March 2019): 1105–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.11.026.
Zhou, Yuyu, Xuecao Li, Ghassem R. Asrar, Steven J. Smith, and Marc Imhoff. “A Global Record of Annual Urban Dynamics (1992–2013) from Nighttime Lights.” Remote Sensing of Environment219 (December 2018): 206–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.10.015.
Anderson-Teixeira, Kristina J., Maria M. H. Wang, Jennifer C. McGarvey, Valentine Herrmann, Alan J. Tepley, Ben Bond-Lamberty, and David S. LeBauer. “ForC: A Global Database of Forest Carbon Stocks and Fluxes.” Ecology99, no. 6 (June 2018): 1507–1507. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2229.
Bailey, Vanessa L., Ben Bond-Lamberty, Kristen DeAngelis, A. Stuart Grandy, Christine V. Hawkes, Kate Heckman, Kate Lajtha, et al. “Soil Carbon Cycling Proxies: Understanding Their Critical Role in Predicting Climate Change Feedbacks.” Global Change Biology24, no. 3 (March 2018): 895–905. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13926.
Barba, Josep, Alejandro Cueva, Michael Bahn, Greg A. Barron-Gafford, Benjamin Bond-Lamberty, Paul J. Hanson, Aline Jaimes, et al. “Comparing Ecosystem and Soil Respiration: Review and Key Challenges of Tower-Based and Soil Measurements.” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology249 (February 2018): 434–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.10.028.
Bauer, Nico, Steven K. Rose, Shinichiro Fujimori, Detlef P. van Vuuren, John Weyant, Marshall Wise, Yiyun Cui, et al. “Global Energy Sector Emission Reductions and Bioenergy Use: Overview of the Bioenergy Demand Phase of the EMF-33 Model Comparison.” Climatic Change, July 2, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2226-y.
Bond-Lamberty, B. “Data Sharing and Scientific Impact in Eddy Covariance Research.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences123, no. 4 (April 2018): 1440–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/2018JG004502.
Bond-Lamberty, Ben. “New Techniques and Data for Understanding the Global Soil Respiration Flux.” Earth’s Future6, no. 9 (September 2018): 1176–80. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF000866.
Bond-Lamberty, Ben, Vanessa L. Bailey, Min Chen, Christopher M. Gough, and Rodrigo Vargas. “Globally Rising Soil Heterotrophic Respiration over Recent Decades.” Nature560, no. 7716 (August 2018): 80–83. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0358-x.
Butler, Ethan E., Abhirup Datta, Habacuc Flores-Moreno, Ming Chen, Kirk R. Wythers, Farideh Fazayeli, Arindam Banerjee, et al. “Mapping Local and Global Variability in Plant Trait Distributions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114, no. 51 (December 19, 2017): E10937–46. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708984114.
Calvin, Kate, and Karen Fisher-Vanden. “Quantifying the Indirect Impacts of Climate on Agriculture: An Inter-Method Comparison.” Environmental Research Letters12, no. 11 (November 1, 2017): 115004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa843c.
Calvin, Katherine, and Ben Bond-Lamberty. “Integrated Human-Earth System Modeling—State of the Science and Future Directions.” Environmental Research Letters13, no. 6 (June 1, 2018): 063006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aac642.
Clarke, Leon, Jiyong Eom, Elke Hodson Marten, Russell Horowitz, Page Kyle, Robert Link, Bryan K. Mignone, Anupriya Mundra, and Yuyu Zhou. “Effects of Long-Term Climate Change on Global Building Energy Expenditures.” Energy Economics72 (May 2018): 667–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.01.003.
Cui, Ryna Yiyun, Katherine Calvin, Leon Clarke, Mohamad Hejazi, Son Kim, Page Kyle, Pralit Patel, Sean Turner, and Marshall Wise. “Regional Responses to Future, Demand-Driven Water Scarcity.” Environmental Research Letters13, no. 9 (August 31, 2018): 094006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad8f7.
Davis, Steven J., Nathan S. Lewis, Matthew Shaner, Sonia Aggarwal, Doug Arent, Inês L. Azevedo, Sally M. Benson, et al. “Net-Zero Emissions Energy Systems.” Science360, no. 6396 (June 29, 2018): eaas9793. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9793.
Edmonds, James A., Robert Link, Stephanie T. Waldhoff, and Ryna Cui. “A GLOBAL FOOD DEMAND MODEL FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF COMPLEX HUMAN-EARTH SYSTEMS.” Climate Change Economics08, no. 04 (November 2017): 1750012. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010007817500129.
Evans, Meredydd, Sha Yu, Aaron Staniszewski, Luting Jin, and Artur Denysenko. “The International Implications of National and Local Coordination on Building Energy Codes: Case Studies in Six Cities.” Journal of Cleaner Production191 (August 2018): 127–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.142.
Fragkos, Panagiotis, Kostas Fragkiadakis, Leonidas Paroussos, Roberta Pierfederici, Saritha S. Vishwanathan, Alexandre C. Köberle, Gokul Iyer, Chen-Min He, and Ken Oshiro. “Coupling National and Global Models to Explore Policy Impacts of NDCs.” Energy Policy118 (July 2018): 462–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.002.
Garvin, J. B., D. A. Slayback, V. Ferrini, J. Frawley, C. Giguere, G. R. Asrar, and K. Andersen. “Monitoring and Modeling the Rapid Evolution of Earth’s Newest Volcanic Island:Hunga Tonga Hunga Ha’apai(Tonga) Using High Spatial Resolution Satellite Observations.” Geophysical Research Letters45, no. 8 (April 28, 2018): 3445–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076621.
Gidden, Matthew J., Shinichiro Fujimori, Maarten van den Berg, David Klein, Steven J. Smith, Detlef P. van Vuuren, and Keywan Riahi. “A Methodology and Implementation of Automated Emissions Harmonization for Use in Integrated Assessment Models.” Environmental Modelling & Software105 (July 2018): 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.04.002.
Guan, Kaiyu, Stephen P Good, Kelly K Caylor, David Medvigy, Ming Pan, Eric F Wood, Hisashi Sato, et al. “Simulated Sensitivity of African Terrestrial Ecosystem Photosynthesis to Rainfall Frequency, Intensity, and Rainy Season Length.” Environmental Research Letters13, no. 2 (February 1, 2018): 025013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9f30.
Gulbeyaz, Onder, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Zuhal Akyurek, and Tristram O West. “A New Approach to Evaluate the MODIS Annual NPP Product (MOD17A3) Using Forest Field Data from Turkey.” International Journal of Remote Sensing39, no. 8 (April 18, 2018): 2560–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2018.1430913.
Harden, Jennifer W., Gustaf Hugelius, Anders Ahlström, Joseph C. Blankinship, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Corey R. Lawrence, Julie Loisel, et al. “Networking Our Science to Characterize the State, Vulnerabilities, and Management Opportunities of Soil Organic Matter.” Global Change Biology24, no. 2 (February 2018): e705–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13896.
Hasegawa, Tomoko, Shinichiro Fujimori, Petr Havlík, Hugo Valin, Benjamin Leon Bodirsky, Jonathan C. Doelman, Thomas Fellmann, et al. “Risk of Increased Food Insecurity under Stringent Global Climate Change Mitigation Policy.” Nature Climate Change8, no. 8 (August 2018): 699–703. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0230-x.
Hodson, Elke L., Maxwell Brown, Stuart Cohen, Sharon Showalter, Marshall Wise, Frances Wood, Justin Caron, Felipe Feijoo, Gokul Iyer, and Kathryne Cleary. “U.S. Energy Sector Impacts of Technology Innovation, Fuel Price, and Electric Sector CO2 Policy: Results from the EMF 32 Model Intercomparison Study.” Energy Economics73 (June 2018): 352–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.03.027.
Hoesly, Rachel M., Steven J. Smith, Leyang Feng, Zbigniew Klimont, Greet Janssens-Maenhout, Tyler Pitkanen, Jonathan J. Seibert, et al. “Historical (1750–2014) Anthropogenic Emissions of Reactive Gases and Aerosols from the Community Emissions Data System (CEDS).” Geoscientific Model Development11, no. 1 (January 29, 2018): 369–408. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-369-2018.
Huang, Zhongwei, Mohamad Hejazi, Xinya Li, Qiuhong Tang, Chris Vernon, Guoyong Leng, Yaling Liu, et al. “Reconstruction of Global Gridded Monthly Sectoral Water Withdrawals for 1971–2010 and Analysis of Their Spatiotemporal Patterns.” Hydrology and Earth System Sciences22, no. 4 (April 6, 2018): 2117–33. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2117-2018.
Iyer, Gokul, Katherine Calvin, Leon Clarke, James Edmonds, Nathan Hultman, Corinne Hartin, Haewon McJeon, Joseph Aldy, and William Pizer. “Implications of Sustainable Development Considerations for Comparability across Nationally Determined Contributions.” Nature Climate Change8, no. 2 (February 2018): 124–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0039-z.
Iyer, Gokul, and James Edmonds. “Interpreting Energy Scenarios.” Nature Energy3, no. 5 (May 2018): 357–58. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0145-9.
Iyer, Gokul, Catherine Ledna, Leon Clarke, James Edmonds, Haewon McJeon, Page Kyle, and James H Williams. “Measuring Progress from Nationally Determined Contributions to Mid-Century Strategies.” Nature Climate Change7, no. 12 (December 2017): 871–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0005-9.
Jones, Curtis D., Xuesong Zhang, Ashwan D. Reddy, G. Philip Robertson, and Roberto César Izaurralde. “The Greenhouse Gas Intensity and Potential Biofuel Production Capacity of Maize Stover Harvest in the US Midwest.” GCB Bioenergy9, no. 10 (October 2017): 1543–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12473.
Lamontagne, Jonathan R., Patrick M. Reed, Robert Link, Katherine V. Calvin, Leon E. Clarke, and James A. Edmonds. “Large Ensemble Analytic Framework for Consequence-Driven Discovery of Climate Change Scenarios.” Earth’s Future6, no. 3 (March 2018): 488–504. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000701.
Le Page, Yannick, Douglas Morton, Corinne Hartin, Ben Bond-Lamberty, José Miguel Cardoso Pereira, George Hurtt, and Ghassem Asrar. “Synergy between Land Use and Climate Change Increases Future Fire Risk in Amazon Forests.” Earth System Dynamics8, no. 4 (December 20, 2017): 1237–46. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-1237-2017.
Li, Fang, David M. Lawrence, and Ben Bond-Lamberty. “Human Impacts on 20th Century Fire Dynamics and Implications for Global Carbon and Water Trajectories.” Global and Planetary Change162 (March 2018): 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2018.01.002.
Li, Wenliang, Yuyu Zhou, Kristen Cetin, Jiyong Eom, Yu Wang, Gang Chen, and Xuesong Zhang. “Modeling Urban Building Energy Use: A Review of Modeling Approaches and Procedures.” Energy141 (December 2017): 2445–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.071.
Li, Wenliang, Yuyu Zhou, Kristen S. Cetin, Sha Yu, Yu Wang, and Bingqing Liang. “Developing a Landscape of Urban Building Energy Use with Improved Spatiotemporal Representations in a Cool-Humid Climate.” Building and Environment136 (May 2018): 107–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.03.036.
Li, Xia, Chandana Mitra, Li Dong, and Qichun Yang. “Understanding Land Use Change Impacts on Microclimate Using Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model.” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C103 (February 2018): 115–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2017.01.017.
Li, Xiaoma, Yuyu Zhou, Ghassem R. Asrar, Marc Imhoff, and Xuecao Li. “The Surface Urban Heat Island Response to Urban Expansion: A Panel Analysis for the Conterminous United States.” Science of The Total Environment605–606 (December 2017): 426–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.229.
Li, Xiaoma, Yuyu Zhou, Ghassem R. Asrar, and Zhengyuan Zhu. “Creating a Seamless 1 Km Resolution Daily Land Surface Temperature Dataset for Urban and Surrounding Areas in the Conterminous United States.” Remote Sensing of Environment206 (March 2018): 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.12.010.
———. “Developing a 1 Km Resolution Daily Air Temperature Dataset for Urban and Surrounding Areas in the Conterminous United States.” Remote Sensing of Environment215 (September 2018): 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.05.034.
Li, Xinya, Chris R. Vernon, Mohamad I. Hejazi, Robert P. Link, Zhongwei Huang, Lu Liu, and Leyang Feng. “Tethys – A Python Package for Spatial and Temporal Downscaling of Global Water Withdrawals.” Journal of Open Research Software6 (February 9, 2018). https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.197.
Li, Xuecao, Yuyu Zhou, Ghassem R. Asrar, and Lin Meng. “Characterizing Spatiotemporal Dynamics in Phenology of Urban Ecosystems Based on Landsat Data.” Science of The Total Environment605–606 (December 2017): 721–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.245.
Liu, Yaling, Mohamad Hejazi, Hongyi Li, Xuesong Zhang, and Guoyong Leng. “A Hydrological Emulator for Global Applications – HE v1.0.0.” Geoscientific Model Development11, no. 3 (March 23, 2018): 1077–92. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1077-2018.
Lu, Xiaoliang, Zhunqiao Liu, Shuqing An, Diego G. Miralles, Wouter Maes, Yaling Liu, and Jianwu Tang. “Potential of Solar-Induced Chlorophyll Fluorescence to Estimate Transpiration in a Temperate Forest.” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology252 (April 2018): 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.01.017.
Lu, Xiaoliang, Yuyu Zhou, Yaling Liu, and Yannick Le Page. “The Role of Protected Areas in Land Use/Land Cover Change and the Carbon Cycle in the Conterminous United States.” Global Change Biology24, no. 2 (February 2018): 617–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13816.
Lu, Xiaoliang, Yuyu Zhou, Qianlai Zhuang, Catherine Prigent, Yaling Liu, and Adriaan Teuling. “Increasing Methane Emissions From Natural Land Ecosystems Due to Sea-Level Rise.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences123, no. 5 (May 2018): 1756–68. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JG004273.
Luderer, Gunnar, Zoi Vrontisi, Christoph Bertram, Oreane Y. Edelenbosch, Robert C. Pietzcker, Joeri Rogelj, Harmen Sytze De Boer, et al. “Residual Fossil CO2 Emissions in 1.5–2 °C Pathways.” Nature Climate Change8, no. 7 (July 2018): 626–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0198-6.
Luo, Wei, Michael Steptoe, Zheng Chang, Robert Link, Leon Clarke, and Ross Maciejewski. “Impact of Spatial Scales on the Intercomparison of Climate Scenarios.” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications37, no. 5 (2017): 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2017.3621222.
Markandya, Anil, Jon Sampedro, Steven J Smith, Rita Van Dingenen, Cristina Pizarro-Irizar, Iñaki Arto, and Mikel González-Eguino. “Health Co-Benefits from Air Pollution and Mitigation Costs of the Paris Agreement: A Modelling Study.” The Lancet Planetary Health2, no. 3 (March 2018): e126–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30029-9.
McCollum, David L., Wenji Zhou, Christoph Bertram, Harmen-Sytze de Boer, Valentina Bosetti, Sebastian Busch, Jacques Després, et al. “Energy Investment Needs for Fulfilling the Paris Agreement and Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.” Nature Energy3, no. 7 (July 2018): 589–99. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0179-z.
Menzo, Zachary, Scott Elliott, Corinne Hartin, Forrest Hoffman, and Shanlin Wang. “Climate Change Impacts on Natural Sulfur Production: Ocean Acidification and Community Shifts.” Atmosphere9, no. 5 (May 1, 2018): 167. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9050167.
Mignone, Bryan K., Sharon Showalter, Frances Wood, Haewon McJeon, and Daniel Steinberg. “Sensitivity of Natural Gas Deployment in the US Power Sector to Future Carbon Policy Expectations.” Energy Policy110 (November 2017): 518–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.08.012.
Mouratiadou, I., M. Bevione, D. L. Bijl, L. Drouet, M. Hejazi, S. Mima, M. Pehl, and G. Luderer. “Water Demand for Electricity in Deep Decarbonisation Scenarios: A Multi-Model Assessment.” Climatic Change147, no. 1–2 (March 2018): 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2117-7.
Ou, Yang, Wenjing Shi, Steven J. Smith, Catherine M. Ledna, J. Jason West, Christopher G. Nolte, and Daniel H. Loughlin. “Estimating Environmental Co-Benefits of U.S. Low-Carbon Pathways Using an Integrated Assessment Model with State-Level Resolution.” Applied Energy216 (April 2018): 482–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.02.122.
Paladugula, Anantha Lakshmi, Nazar Kholod, Vaibhav Chaturvedi, Probal Pratap Ghosh, Sarbojit Pal, Leon Clarke, Meredydd Evans, et al. “A Multi-Model Assessment of Energy and Emissions for India’s Transportation Sector through 2050.” Energy Policy116 (May 2018): 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.037.
Peng, Bin, Kaiyu Guan, Min Chen, David M. Lawrence, Yadu Pokhrel, Andrew Suyker, Timothy Arkebauer, and Yaqiong Lu. “Improving Maize Growth Processes in the Community Land Model: Implementation and Evaluation.” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology250–251 (March 2018): 64–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.11.012.
Petrakis, Sandra, Josep Barba, Ben Bond-Lamberty, and Rodrigo Vargas. “Using Greenhouse Gas Fluxes to Define Soil Functional Types.” Plant and Soil423, no. 1–2 (February 2018): 285–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-017-3506-4.
Richardson, Andrew D., Koen Hufkens, Tom Milliman, Donald M. Aubrecht, Min Chen, Josh M. Gray, Miriam R. Johnston, et al. “Tracking Vegetation Phenology across Diverse North American Biomes Using PhenoCam Imagery.” Scientific Data5 (March 13, 2018): 180028. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.28.
Rogelj, Joeri, Alexander Popp, Katherine V. Calvin, Gunnar Luderer, Johannes Emmerling, David Gernaat, Shinichiro Fujimori, et al. “Scenarios towards Limiting Global Mean Temperature Increase below 1.5 °C.” Nature Climate Change8, no. 4 (April 2018): 325–32. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0091-3.
Roshchanka, Volha, Meredydd Evans, Felicia Ruiz, and Nazar Kholod. “A Strategic Approach to Selecting Policy Mechanisms for Addressing Coal Mine Methane Emissions: A Case Study on Kazakhstan.” Environmental Science & Policy78 (December 2017): 185–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.005.
Ruane, Alex C, Cynthia Rosenzweig, Senthold Asseng, Kenneth J Boote, Joshua Elliott, Frank Ewert, James W Jones, et al. “An AgMIP Framework for Improved Agricultural Representation in Integrated Assessment Models.” Environmental Research Letters12, no. 12 (December 1, 2017): 125003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8da6.
Seneviratne, Sonia I., Richard Wartenburger, Benoit P. Guillod, Annette L. Hirsch, Martha M. Vogel, Victor Brovkin, Detlef P. van Vuuren, et al. “Climate Extremes, Land–Climate Feedbacks and Land-Use Forcing at 1.5°C.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences376, no. 2119 (May 13, 2018): 20160450. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0450.
Shi, Wenjing, Yang Ou, Steven J. Smith, Catherine M. Ledna, Christopher G. Nolte, and Daniel H. Loughlin. “Projecting State-Level Air Pollutant Emissions Using an Integrated Assessment Model: GCAM-USA.” Applied Energy208 (December 2017): 511–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.122.
Sihi, Debjani, Eric A. Davidson, Min Chen, Kathleen E. Savage, Andrew D. Richardson, Trevor F. Keenan, and David Y. Hollinger. “Merging a Mechanistic Enzymatic Model of Soil Heterotrophic Respiration into an Ecosystem Model in Two AmeriFlux Sites of Northeastern USA.” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology252 (April 2018): 155–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.01.026.
Smith, A. Peyton, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Brian W. Benscoter, Malak M. Tfaily, C. Ross Hinkle, Chongxuan Liu, and Vanessa L. Bailey. “Shifts in Pore Connectivity from Precipitation versus Groundwater Rewetting Increases Soil Carbon Loss after Drought.” Nature Communications8, no. 1 (December 2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01320-x.
Snyder, Abigail C., Robert P. Link, and Katherine V. Calvin. “Evaluation of Integrated Assessment Model Hindcast Experiments: A Case Study of the GCAM 3.0 Land Use Module.” Geoscientific Model Development10, no. 12 (November 29, 2017): 4307–19. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4307-2017.
Srinivasan, Shweta, Nazar Kholod, Vaibhav Chaturvedi, Probal Pratap Ghosh, Ritu Mathur, Leon Clarke, Meredydd Evans, et al. “Water for Electricity in India: A Multi-Model Study of Future Challenges and Linkages to Climate Change Mitigation.” Applied Energy210 (January 2018): 673–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.04.079.
Tan, Zeli, L. Ruby Leung, Hongyi Li, Teklu Tesfa, Matthias Vanmaercke, Jean Poesen, Xuesong Zhang, Hui Lu, and Jens Hartmann. “A Global Data Analysis for Representing Sediment and Particulate Organic Carbon Yield in Earth System Models: A GLOBAL DATA ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT YIELD.” Water Resources Research53, no. 12 (December 2017): 10674–700. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020806.
Turner, Sean W.D., Mohamad Hejazi, Son H. Kim, Leon Clarke, and Jae Edmonds. “Climate Impacts on Hydropower and Consequences for Global Electricity Supply Investment Needs.” Energy141 (December 2017): 2081–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.089.
Vernon, Chris R., Yannick Le Page, Min Chen, Maoyi Huang, Katherine V. Calvin, Ian P. Kraucunas, and Caleb J. Braun. “Demeter – A Land Use and Land Cover Change Disaggregation Model.” Journal of Open Research Software6 (April 20, 2018). https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.208.
Vernon, Chris R., Nino Zuljevic, Jennie S. Rice, Timothy E. Seiple, Michael C. W. Kintner-Meyer, Nathalie Voisin, Ian P. Kraucunas, et al. “CERF – A Geospatial Model for Assessing Future Energy Production Technology Expansion Feasibility.” Journal of Open Research Software6 (August 6, 2018). https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.227.
Wan, Wenhua, Jianshi Zhao, Hong-Yi Li, Ashok Mishra, Mohamad Hejazi, Hui Lu, Yonas Demissie, and Hao Wang. “A Holistic View of Water Management Impacts on Future Droughts: A Global Multimodel Analysis.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres123, no. 11 (June 16, 2018): 5947–72. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD027825.
Wan, Wenhua, Jianshi Zhao, Hong-Yi Li, Ashok Mishra, L. Ruby Leung, Mohamad Hejazi, Wei Wang, et al. “Hydrological Drought in the Anthropocene: Impacts of Local Water Extraction and Reservoir Regulation in the U.S.: Hydrological Drought in the Anthropocene.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres122, no. 21 (November 16, 2017): 11,313-11,328. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026899.
Wang, Xingchang, Chuankuan Wang, and Ben Bond-Lamberty. “Quantifying and Reducing the Differences in Forest CO 2 -Fluxes Estimated by Eddy Covariance, Biometric and Chamber Methods: A Global Synthesis.” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology247 (December 2017): 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.07.023.
Yan, Zhifeng, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Katherine E. Todd-Brown, Vanessa L. Bailey, SiLiang Li, CongQiang Liu, and Chongxuan Liu. “A Moisture Function of Soil Heterotrophic Respiration That Incorporates Microscale Processes.” Nature Communications9, no. 1 (July 2, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04971-6.
Yang, Qichun, James E. Almendinger, Xuesong Zhang, Maoyi Huang, Xingyuan Chen, Guoyong Leng, Yuyu Zhou, et al. “Enhancing SWAT Simulation of Forest Ecosystems for Water Resource Assessment: A Case Study in the St. Croix River Basin.” Ecological Engineering120 (September 2018): 422–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.06.020.
Yang, Yang, Hailong Wang, Steven J. Smith, Richard C. Easter, and Philip J. Rasch. “Sulfate Aerosol in the Arctic: Source Attribution and Radiative Forcing.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres123, no. 3 (February 16, 2018): 1899–1918. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027298.
Yang, Yang, Hailong Wang, Steven J. Smith, Rudong Zhang, Sijia Lou, Yun Qian, Po-Lun Ma, and Philip J. Rasch. “Recent Intensification of Winter Haze in China Linked to Foreign Emissions and Meteorology.” Scientific Reports8, no. 1 (February 1, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20437-7.
Yang, Yang, Hailong Wang, Steven J. Smith, Rudong Zhang, Sijia Lou, Hongbin Yu, Can Li, and Philip J. Rasch. “Source Apportionments of Aerosols and Their Direct Radiative Forcing and Long-Term Trends Over Continental United States.” Earth’s Future6, no. 6 (June 2018): 793–808. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF000859.
Yu, Sha, Meredydd Evans, Page Kyle, Linh Vu, Qing Tan, Ashu Gupta, and Pralit Patel. “Implementing Nationally Determined Contributions: Building Energy Policies in India’s Mitigation Strategy.” Environmental Research Letters13, no. 3 (March 1, 2018): 034034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaad84.
Yu, Sha, Qing Tan, Meredydd Evans, Page Kyle, Linh Vu, and Pralit L. Patel. “Improving Building Energy Efficiency in India: State-Level Analysis of Building Energy Efficiency Policies.” Energy Policy110 (November 2017): 331–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.013.
Zhang, Liming, Yaling Liu, Xiaodi Li, Linbin Huang, Dongsheng Yu, Xuezheng Shi, Hanyue Chen, and Shihe Xing. “Effects of Soil Map Scales on Simulating Soil Organic Carbon Changes of Upland Soils in Eastern China.” Geoderma312 (February 2018): 159–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.10.017.
Zhang, Xiao, Hong-Yi Li, Zhiqun Daniel Deng, Claudia Ringler, Yang Gao, Mohamad I. Hejazi, and L. Ruby Leung. “Impacts of Climate Change, Policy and Water-Energy-Food Nexus on Hydropower Development.” Renewable Energy116 (February 2018): 827–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.10.030.
Zhang, Xuesong. “Simulating Eroded Soil Organic Carbon with the SWAT-C Model.” Environmental Modelling & Software102 (April 2018): 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.01.005.
Zhang, Yuqiang, Steven J Smith, Jared H Bowden, Zachariah Adelman, and J Jason West. “Co-Benefits of Global, Domestic, and Sectoral Greenhouse Gas Mitigation for US Air Quality and Human Health in 2050.” Environmental Research Letters12, no. 11 (November 1, 2017): 114033. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8f76.
Zhou, Qianqian, Guoyong Leng, and Maoyi Huang. “Impacts of Future Climate Change on Urban Flood Volumes in Hohhot in Northern China: Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptations.” Hydrology and Earth System Sciences22, no. 1 (January 15, 2018): 305–16. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-305-2018.
Zhou, Sheng, Yu Wang, Yuyu Zhou, Leon E. Clarke, and James A. Edmonds. “Roles of Wind and Solar Energy in China’s Power Sector: Implications of Intermittency Constraints.” Applied Energy213 (March 2018): 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.01.025.
Zhou, Tian, Nathalie Voisin, Guoyong Leng, Maoyi Huang, and Ian Kraucunas. “Sensitivity of Regulated Flow Regimes to Climate Change in the Western United States.” Journal of Hydrometeorology19, no. 3 (March 2018): 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-17-0095.1.
Zhu, Yuelu, Shengzhi Huang, Jianxia Chang, and Guoyong Leng. “Spatial–Temporal Changes in Potential Evaporation Patterns Based on the Cloud Model and Their Possible Causes.” Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment31, no. 8 (October 2017): 2147–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-016-1304-9.
Alonso, W. J., B. J. J. McCormick, M. A. Miller, C. Schuck-Paim, and G. R. Asrar (2015), Beyond crystal balls: crosscutting solutions in global health to prepare for an unpredictable future, BMC Public Health, 15(1), doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2285-1.
Arent, D. et al. (2015), A review of water and greenhouse gas impacts of unconventional natural gas development in the United States, MRS Energy & Sustainability, 2, doi:10.1557/mre.2015.5.
Barron, R., and H. McJeon (2015), The differential impact of low-carbon technologies on climate change mitigation cost under a range of socioeconomic and climate policy scenarios, Energy Policy, 80, 264–274, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.038.
Bauer, N. et al. (2015), CO2 emission mitigation and fossil fuel markets: Dynamic and international aspects of climate policies, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 243–256, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.009.
Beach, R. H. et al. (2015), Climate change impacts on US agriculture and forestry: benefits of global climate stabilization, Environmental Research Letters, 10(9), 95004, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/095004.
Bertram, C., N. Johnson, G. Luderer, K. Riahi, M. Isaac, and J. Eom (2015), Carbon lock-in through capital stock inertia associated with weak near-term climate policies, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 62–72, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.001.
Bond-Lamberty, B., K. Calvin, A. D. Jones, J. Mao, P. Patel, X. Y. Shi, A. Thomson, P. Thornton, and Y. Zhou (2014), On linking an Earth system model to the equilibrium carbon representation of an economically optimizing land use model, Geoscientific Model Development, 7(6), 2545–2555, doi:10.5194/gmd-7-2545-2014.
Bond-Lamberty, B., J. P. Fisk, J. A. Holm, V. Bailey, G. Bohrer, and C. M. Gough (2015), Moderate forest disturbance as a stringent test for gap and big-leaf models, Biogeosciences, 12(2), 513–526, doi:10.5194/bg-12-513-2015.
Bosetti, V., G. Marangoni, E. Borgonovo, L. Diaz Anadon, R. Barron, H. C. McJeon, S. Politis, and P. Friley (2015), Sensitivity to energy technology costs: A multi-model comparison analysis, Energy Policy, 80, 244–263, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.12.012.
Calvin, K., B. Bond-Lamberty, J. Edmonds, M. Hejazi, S. Waldhoff, M. Wise, and Y. Zhou (2015), The effects of climate sensitivity and carbon cycle interactions on mitigation policy stringency, Climatic Change, 131(1), 35–50, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-1026-7.
Campbell, J. E., M. E. Whelan, U. Seibt, S. J. Smith, J. A. Berry, and T. W. Hilton (2015), Atmospheric carbonyl sulfide sources from anthropogenic activity: Implications for carbon cycle constraints: Atmospheric OCS sources, Geophysical Research Letters, 42(8), 3004–3010, doi:10.1002/2015GL063445.
Chaturvedi, V., and S. H. Kim (2015), Long term energy and emission implications of a global shift to electricity-based public rail transportation system, Energy Policy, 81, 176–185, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.11.013.
Chaturvedi, V., M. Hejazi, J. Edmonds, L. Clarke, P. Kyle, E. Davies, and M. Wise (2015), Climate mitigation policy implications for global irrigation water demand, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 20(3), 389–407, doi:10.1007/s11027-013-9497-4.
Chen, J. M., J. W. Fung, G. Mo, F. Deng, and T. O. West (2015), Atmospheric inversion of surface carbon flux with consideration of the spatial distribution of US crop production and consumption, Biogeosciences, 12(2), 323–343, doi:10.5194/bg-12-323-2015.
Collins, W. D. et al. (2015), The integrated Earth system model version 1: formulation and functionality, Geoscientific Model Development, 8(7), 2203–2219, doi:10.5194/gmd-8-2203-2015.
Davidson, C. L., D. J. Watson, J. J. Dooley, and R. T. Dahowski (2014a), Benefits and Costs of Brine Extraction for Increasing Injection Efficiency In geologic CO2 Sequestration, Energy Procedia, 63, 4745–4749, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.504.
Davidson, C. L., R. T. Dahowski, J. J. Dooley, and B. P. McGrail (2014b), Modelling the Deployment of CO2 Storage in U.S. Gas-bearing Shales, Energy Procedia, 63, 7272–7279, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.763.
Di Vittorio, A. V. et al. (2014), From land use to land cover: restoring the afforestation signal in a coupled integrated assessment–earth system model and the implications for CMIP5 RCP simulations, Biogeosciences, 11(22), 6435–6450, doi:10.5194/bg-11-6435-2014.
Engle, N. L., A. de Bremond, E. L. Malone, and R. H. Moss (2014), Towards a resilience indicator framework for making climate-change adaptation decisions, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 19(8), 1295–1312, doi:10.1007/s11027-013-9475-x.
Eom, J., J. Edmonds, V. Krey, N. Johnson, T. Longden, G. Luderer, K. Riahi, and D. P. Van Vuuren (2015), The impact of near-term climate policy choices on technology and emission transition pathways, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 73–88, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.017.
Evans, M., N. Kholod, V. Malyshev, S. Tretyakova, E. Gusev, S. Yu, and A. Barinov (2015), Black carbon emissions from Russian diesel sources: case study of Murmansk, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 15(14), 8349–8359, doi:10.5194/acp-15-8349-2015.
Falster, D. S. et al. (2015), BAAD: a Biomass And Allometry Database for woody plants: Ecological Archives E096-128, Ecology, 96(5), 1445–1445, doi:10.1890/14-1889.1.
Gernaat, D. E. H. J., K. Calvin, P. L. Lucas, G. Luderer, S. A. C. Otto, S. Rao, J. Strefler, and D. P. van Vuuren (2015), Understanding the contribution of non-carbon dioxide gases in deep mitigation scenarios, Global Environmental Change, 33, 142–153, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.04.010.
Hartin, C. A., P. Patel, A. Schwarber, R. P. Link, and B. P. Bond-Lamberty (2015), A simple object-oriented and open-source model for scientific and policy analyses of the global climate system – Hector v1.0, Geoscientific Model Development, 8(4), 939–955, doi:10.5194/gmd-8-939-2015.
Hejazi, M. I. et al. (2015), 21st century United States emissions mitigation could increase water stress more than the climate change it is mitigating, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(34), 10635–10640, doi:10.1073/pnas.1421675112.
Iyer, G., N. Hultman, J. Eom, H. McJeon, P. Patel, and L. Clarke (2015a), Diffusion of low-carbon technologies and the feasibility of long-term climate targets, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 103–118, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.025.
Iyer, G. C., L. E. Clarke, J. A. Edmonds, B. P. Flannery, N. E. Hultman, H. C. McJeon, and D. G. Victor (2015b), Improved representation of investment decisions in assessments of CO2 mitigation, Nature Climate Change, 5(5), 436–440, doi:10.1038/nclimate2553.
Jones, A. D., K. V. Calvin, W. D. Collins, and J. Edmonds (2015), Accounting for radiative forcing from albedo change in future global land-use scenarios, Climatic Change, 131(4), 691–703, doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1411-5.
King, A. W. et al. (2015), North America’s net terrestrial CO<sub>2</sub> exchange with the atmosphere 1990–2009, Biogeosciences, 12(2), 399–414, doi:10.5194/bg-12-399-2015.
Kraucunas, I. et al. (2015), Investigating the nexus of climate, energy, water, and land at decision-relevant scales: the Platform for Regional Integrated Modeling and Analysis (PRIMA), Climatic Change, 129(3–4), 573–588, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1064-9.
Kriegler, E. et al. (2015), Diagnostic indicators for integrated assessment models of climate policy, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 45–61, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.020.
Le Page, Y., D. Morton, B. Bond-Lamberty, J. M. C. Pereira, and G. Hurtt (2015), HESFIRE: a global fire model to explore the role of anthropogenic and weather drivers, Biogeosciences, 12(3), 887–903, doi:10.5194/bg-12-887-2015.
Leng, G., Q. Tang, M. Huang, and L. R. Leung (2015a), A comparative analysis of the impacts of climate change and irrigation on land surface and subsurface hydrology in the North China Plain, Regional Environmental Change, 15(2), 251–263, doi:10.1007/s10113-014-0640-x.
Leng, G., M. Huang, Q. Tang, and L. R. Leung (2015b), A modeling study of irrigation effects on global surface water and groundwater resources under a changing climate: IRRIGATION EFFECTS ON WATER RESOURCES, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 7(3), 1285–1304, doi:10.1002/2015MS000437.
Leng, G., Q. Tang, M. Huang, Y. Hong, and L. L. Ruby (2015c), Projected changes in mean and interannual variability of surface water over continental China, Science China Earth Sciences, 58(5), 739–754, doi:10.1007/s11430-014-4987-0.
Liu, L., M. Hejazi, P. Patel, P. Kyle, E. Davies, Y. Zhou, L. Clarke, and J. Edmonds (2015a), Water demands for electricity generation in the U.S.: Modeling different scenarios for the water–energy nexus, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 94, 318–334, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2014.11.004.
Liu, Y. et al. (2015b), Agriculture intensifies soil moisture decline in Northern China, Scientific Reports, 5, 11261, doi:10.1038/srep11261.
Malone, E. L., and S. Kinnear (2015), How and why: complementary analyses of social network structures and cultural values: improving flood response networks in Queensland, Australia, Quality & Quantity, 49(1), 203–220, doi:10.1007/s11135-013-9982-6.
McFarland, J. et al. (2015), Impacts of rising air temperatures and emissions mitigation on electricity demand and supply in the United States: a multi-model comparison, Climatic Change, 131(1), 111–125, doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1380-8.
McJeon, H. et al. (2014), Limited impact on decadal-scale climate change from increased use of natural gas, Nature, 514(7523), 482–485, doi:10.1038/nature13837.
Moura, M. C. P., S. J. Smith, and D. B. Belzer (2015), 120 Years of U.S. Residential Housing Stock and Floor Space, edited by W.-X. Zhou, PLOS ONE, 10(8), e0134135, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134135.
Ogle, S. M. et al. (2015), An approach for verifying biogenic greenhouse gas emissions inventories with atmospheric CO 2 concentration data, Environmental Research Letters, 10(3), 34012, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/034012.
Pizer, W. et al. (2014), Using and improving the social cost of carbon, Science, 346(6214), 1189–1190, doi:10.1126/science.1259774.
Rafique, R., S. Kumar, Y. Luo, G. Kiely, and G. Asrar (2015a), An algorithmic calibration approach to identify globally optimal parameters for constraining the DayCent model, Ecological Modelling, 297, 196–200, doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.11.022.
Rafique, R., J. Xia, O. Hararuk, G. Asrar, Y. Wang, and Y. Luo (2015b), Divergent predictions of carbon storage between two global land models: attribution of the causes through traceability analysis, Earth System Dynamics Discussions, 6(2), 1579–1604, doi:10.5194/esdd-6-1579-2015.
Riahi, K. et al. (2015), Locked into Copenhagen pledges — Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 8–23, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.016.
Robertson, G. P., P. R. Grace, R. C. Izaurralde, W. P. Parton, and X. Zhang (2014), CO2 emissions from crop residue-derived biofuels, Nature Climate Change, 4(11), 933–934, doi:10.1038/nclimate2402.
Sahajpal, R., X. Zhang, R. C. Izaurralde, I. Gelfand, and G. C. Hurtt (2014), Identifying representative crop rotation patterns and grassland loss in the US Western Corn Belt, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 108, 173–182, doi:10.1016/j.compag.2014.08.005.
Sarofim, M. C., S. T. Waldhoff, and S. C. Anenberg (2015), Valuing the Ozone-Related Health Benefits of Methane Emission Controls, Environmental and Resource Economics, doi:10.1007/s10640-015-9937-6.
Schäfer, A., P. Kyle, and R. Pietzcker (2016), Exploring the use of dynamic linear panel data models for evaluating energy/economy/environment models — an application for the transportation sector, Climatic Change, 136(1), 141–154, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1293-y.
Sinistore, J. C., D. J. Reinemann, R. C. Izaurralde, K. R. Cronin, P. J. Meier, T. M. Runge, and X. Zhang (2015), Life Cycle Assessment of Switchgrass Cellulosic Ethanol Production in the Wisconsin and Michigan Agricultural Contexts, BioEnergy Research, 8(3), 897–909, doi:10.1007/s12155-015-9611-4.
Smith, S. J. et al. (2015a), Long history of IAM comparisons, Nature Climate Change, 5(5), 391–391, doi:10.1038/nclimate2576.
Smith, S. J., J. Edmonds, C. A. Hartin, A. Mundra, and K. Calvin (2015b), Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change, Nature Climate Change, 5(4), 333–336, doi:10.1038/nclimate2552.
Strzepek, K. et al. (2015), Benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation on the supply, management, and use of water resources in the United States, Climatic Change, 131(1), 127–141, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1279-9.
Tavoni, M. et al. (2014), Post-2020 climate agreements in the major economies assessed in the light of global models, Nature Climate Change, 5(2), 119–126, doi:10.1038/nclimate2475.
Tian, H. et al. (2015), Global patterns and controls of soil organic carbon dynamics as simulated by multiple terrestrial biosphere models: Current status and future directions: MODELING GLOBAL SOIL CARBON DYNAMICS, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 29(6), 775–792, doi:10.1002/2014GB005021.
Waldhoff, S., D. Anthoff, S. Rose, and R. S. J. Tol (2014), The Marginal Damage Costs of Different Greenhouse Gases: An Application of FUND, Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 8(2014–31), 1, doi:10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2014-31.
Waldhoff, S. T., J. Martinich, M. Sarofim, B. DeAngelo, J. McFarland, L. Jantarasami, K. Shouse, A. Crimmins, S. Ohrel, and J. Li (2015), Overview of the special issue: a multi-model framework to achieve consistent evaluation of climate change impacts in the United States, Climatic Change, 131(1), 1–20, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1206-0.
Yang, X., C. Liu, Y. Fang, R. Hinkle, H.-Y. Li, V. Bailey, and B. Bond-Lamberty (2015), Simulations of ecosystem hydrological processes using a unified multi-scale model, Ecological Modelling, 296, 93–101, doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.10.032.
Yin, X., W. Chen, J. Eom, L. E. Clarke, S. H. Kim, P. L. Patel, S. Yu, and G. P. Kyle (2015), China’s transportation energy consumption and CO2 emissions from a global perspective, Energy Policy, 82, 233–248, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.03.021.
Zeng, N., F. Zhao, G. J. Collatz, E. Kalnay, R. J. Salawitch, T. O. West, and L. Guanter (2014), Agricultural Green Revolution as a driver of increasing atmospheric CO2 seasonal amplitude, Nature, 515(7527), 394–397, doi:10.1038/nature13893.
Zhang, X., R. C. Izaurralde, D. H. Manowitz, R. Sahajpal, T. O. West, A. M. Thomson, M. Xu, K. Zhao, S. D. LeDuc, and J. R. Williams (2015), Regional scale cropland carbon budgets: Evaluating a geospatial agricultural modeling system using inventory data, Environmental Modelling & Software, 63, 199–216, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.10.005.
Zhao, N., Y. Zhou, and E. L. Samson (2015), Correcting Incompatible DN Values and Geometric Errors in Nighttime Lights Time-Series Images, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 53(4), 2039–2049, doi:10.1109/TGRS.2014.2352598.
Zhou, Y., M. Hejazi, S. Smith, J. Edmonds, H. Li, L. Clarke, K. Calvin, and A. Thomson (2015a), A comprehensive view of global potential for hydro-generated electricity, Energy Environ. Sci., 8(9), 2622–2633, doi:10.1039/C5EE00888C.
Zhou, Y., S. J. Smith, K. Zhao, M. Imhoff, A. Thomson, B. Bond-Lamberty, G. R. Asrar, X. Zhang, C. He, and C. D. Elvidge (2015b), A global map of urban extent from nightlights, Environmental Research Letters, 10(5), 54011, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054011.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


Chapter 74E - Company Police Act.
§ 74E-2. Policy and scope.
§ 74E-3. Liability insurance policy or certificate of self-insurance required; suspension of company police agency certification for failure to comply.
§ 74E-4. Powers of Attorney General.
§ 74E-6. Oaths, powers, and authority of company police officers.
§ 74E-7. Badges, uniforms, weapons, and vehicles.
§ 74E-8. Minimum standards for company police officers.
§ 74E-9. Compensation of company police officers.
§ 74E-10. Expiration, renewal, and termination of agency certification or officer commission.
§ 74E-13. Penalties and enforcement.


§ 57-3 Applicability of provisions; exception.
§ 57-4 Operation of refuse disposal areas.
§ 57-5 Maintenance of refuse disposal areas.
§ 57-6 Refuse collection, storage and disposal.
§ 57-8 Penalties for offenses.
By the adoption of this chapter, the Town Board declares its intent to regulate refuse collection, storage and disposal and to prohibit the dumping of refuse in other than the designated refuse disposal area.
The collection, storage and disposal of refuse without adherence to the regulations of this chapter will be deemed to constitute a threat to the public health, safety and welfare.
An individual, group of individuals, partnership, firm, public or private corporation, institution, association or other entity owning or occupying property within the Town.
All solid wastes, but not including body wastes, dead animals or parts thereof.
Land designated by the Town for the collection, storage and disposal of refuse and recyclables.
Each person within the Town shall be responsible for the sanitary condition of any premises owned or occupied by him/her or of which he/she has possession or control. It shall be unlawful for any person to collect, store or dispose of any refuse except as provided in this chapter.
Outdoor burning is regulated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and is not a provision of this chapter.
Auto salvage yards are excluded from this chapter.
Only the Town shall operate and regulate refuse disposal areas within the Town.
The Town Highway Superintendent and/or his/her designee shall inspect and supervise the disposal areas at all times. The Highway Superintendent shall make and file quarterly reports with the Town Board, containing a summary of man-hours, equipment time and cost.
No refuse originating outside the boundaries of the Town or collected outside such boundaries shall be deposited in or brought to the refuse disposal area.
Storage of refuse for collection.
Household refuse. Refuse stored outdoors shall be in containers with lids.
Institutional, business, industrial and multiple dwelling refuse. In addition to storage in conformance with provisions as put forth in § 57-6A(1), institutions, businesses, industrial uses and multiple dwellings may store refuse in portable waste-storage compactors, dumpsters or similar devices.
Waste-storage compactors, dumpsters or similar devices. Portable waste-storage compactors, dumpsters or similar devices used for the temporary storage of combustible waste shall be located at least 25 feet from the nearest structure or be adequately protected with automatic extinguishing systems.
Equipment for collection of refuse. All vehicles used for the collection or disposal of refuse shall have suitable provision for the covering of the refuse, which provisions will prevent the escape of refuse to prevent littering.
It shall be unlawful for any person to use the refuse disposal site within the Town unless such person shall first obtain a refuse ticket, which refuse ticket shall be issued by the Town Clerk. The duration of the tickets and the fees therefor shall be established by the Town Board by resolution, which shall be on file with the Town Clerk.
No person shall throw or deposit or cause to be thrown or deposited any garbage, rubbish or refuse in or upon any public highway or street within the Town.
No person shall throw or deposit or cause to be thrown or deposited any garbage, rubbish or refuse in or upon any place or area within said Town within 100 feet of the boundary line of a public highway or street.
No person shall throw or deposit litter in or upon any street, sidewalk or other public place or property within the Town, except in public receptacles and in authorized private receptacles for collection; provided, however, that said public receptacles shall not be used by persons owning or occupying property in the vicinity of said public receptacles for the deposit of domestic, commercial and industrial litter arising from the conduct of said daily activities.
No person, while a driver or passenger in a vehicle, shall throw or deposit litter upon any street or other public place within the Town.
No person shall drive or move any truck or other commercial vehicle unless the vehicle is to be constructed or loaded as to prevent any litter from being blown or deposited upon any street, alley or other public place or private premises.
No person shall throw or deposit litter in any park except in public receptacles and in such manner as to prevent such litter from being carried or deposited by the elements upon any part of the park or upon any street or other public place. Where public receptacles are not provided, all litter shall be carried from the park by the person responsible for its presence and shall be properly disposed of elsewhere.
No person shall throw or deposit litter in any lake, pond, stream, bay or any other body of water.
No person shall throw or deposit litter on any occupied private property, whether owned by him/her or not, except that the owner or person in control of private property shall maintain private receptacles for collection in such a manner that litter will not be carried or deposited by the elements upon any other public place or upon any private property.
The owner or person in control of any private property shall at all times maintain the premises free of litter. This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the storage of litter in private receptacles for collection.
No person shall throw or deposit litter on any open or vacant private property, whether owned by such person or not.
No person shall throw or deposit any commercial or noncommercial handbill in or upon any sidewalk, street or other public property within the Town.
No person shall throw or deposit any commercial or noncommercial handbill in or upon any private property which is temporarily or continuously unoccupied or vacant.
No person shall throw, deposit or distribute any commercial or noncommercial handbill in or upon private property within the Town unless the person distributing such handbill obtains the written consent of the person owning or occupying the property. However, this prohibition shall not apply to the distribution of advertising materials through the mail nor to the newspapers nor to the distribution of advertising material by any charitable organization and/or nonprofit organizations, including political organizations, except that these newspapers and all such advertising materials shall be placed on private property in such a manner as to prevent their being carried or deposited by the elements upon any street, sidewalk or other public property or upon private property.
Any person committing an offense against any provision of this chapter, except § 57-7.1, shall, upon conviction thereof, be guilty of a violation, punishable by a fine of not more than $250 or by imprisonment for not more than 15 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The continuation of an offense shall constitute, for each day the offense is continued, a separate and distinct violation hereunder.
Any person committing an offense against the provisions of § 57-7.1 of this chapter shall be guilty of an offense and shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 15 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The continuation of an offense shall constitute, for each day the offense is continued, a separate and distinct violation hereunder.