Found 3160 related files. Current in page 16
Human interference with the climate system is occurring,1 and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems (Figure SPM.1). The assessment of impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability in the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (WGII AR5) evaluates how patterns of risks and potential benefits are shifting due to climate change. It considers how impacts and risks related to climate change can be reduced and managed through adaptation and mitigation. The report assesses needs, options, opportunities, constraints, resilience, limits, and other aspects associated with adaptation. Climate change involves complex interactions and changing likelihoods of diverse impacts. A focus on risk, which is new in this report, supports decision-making in the context of climate change, and complements other elements of the report. People and societies may perceive or rank risks and potential benefits differently, given diverse values and goals. Compared to past WGII reports, the WGII AR5 assesses a substantially larger knowledge base of relevant scientific, technical, and socioeconomic literature. Increased literature has facilitated comprehensive assessment across a broader set of topics and sectors, with expanded coverage of human systems, adaptation, and the ocean. See Background Box SPM.1.2 Section A of this summary characterizes observed impacts, vulnerability and exposure, and adaptive responses to date. Section B examines future risks and potential benefits. Section C considers principles for effective adaptation and the broader interactions among adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. Background Box SPM.2 defines central concepts, and Background Box SPM.3 introduces terms used to convey the degree of certainty in key findings. Chapter references in brackets and in footnotes indicate support for findings, figures, and tables. Figure SPM.1: Illustration of the core concepts of the WGII AR5. Risk of climate-related impacts results from the interaction of climate-related hazards (including hazardous events and trends) with the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems. Changes in both the climate system (left) and socioeconomic processes including adaptation and mitigation (right) are drivers of hazards, exposure, and vulnerability. [19.2, Figure 19-1]...
The future climate change results assessed in this chapter are based on a hierarchy of models, ranging from AtmosphereOcean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) and Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs) to Simple Climate Models (SCMs). These models are forced with concentrations of greenhouse gases and other constituents derived from various emissions scenarios ranging from nonmitigation scenarios to idealised long-term scenarios. In general, we assess non-mitigated projections of future climate change at scales from global to hundreds of kilometres. Further assessments of regional and local climate changes are provided in Chapter 11. Due to an unprecedented, joint effort by many modelling groups worldwide, climate change projections are now based on multi-model means, differences between models can be assessed quantitatively and in some instances, estimates of the probability of change of important climate system parameters complement expert judgement. New results corroborate those given in the Third Assessment Report (TAR). Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates will cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century. Mean Temperature All models assessed here, for all the non-mitigation scenarios considered, project increases in global mean surface air temperature (SAT) continuing over the 21st century, driven mainly by increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, with the warming proportional to the associated radiative forcing. There is close agreement of globally averaged SAT multi-model mean warming for the early 21st century for concentrations derived from the three non-mitigated IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES: B1, A1B and A2) scenarios (including only anthropogenic forcing) run by the AOGCMs (warming averaged for 2011 to 2030 compared to 1980 to 1999 is between +0.64°C and +0.69°C, with a range of only 0.05°C). Thus, this warming rate is affected little by different scenario assumptions or different model sensitivities, and is consistent with that observed for the past few decades (see Chapter 3).
This report is based on findings from a bi-annual series of nationally representative survey studies – Climate Change in the American Mind – conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication (http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication) and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication (http://www.climatechangecommunication.org). The research was funded by the Energy Foundation, the 11th Hour Project, the Grantham Foundation, and the V.K. Rasmussen Foundation. Principal Investigators: Anthony Leiserowitz, PhD Yale Project on Climate Change Communication School of Forestry & Environmental Studies Yale University firstname.lastname@example.org Geoff Feinberg Yale Project on Climate Change Communication School of Forestry & Environmental Studies Yale University email@example.com Seth Rosenthal, PhD Yale Project on Climate Change Communication School of Forestry & Environmental Studies Yale University firstname.lastname@example.org Nicholas Smith, PhD Division of Psychology and Language Sciences University College London email@example.com Ashley Anderson, PhD Department of Journalism & Technical Communication Colorado State University firstname.lastname@example.org Connie Roser-Renouf, PhD Center for Climate Change Communication Department of Communication George Mason University email@example.com
Riley E. Dunlap Oklahoma State University We examine political polarization over climate change within the American public by analyzing data from 10 nationally representative Gallup Polls between 2001 and 2010. We ﬁnd that liberals and Democrats are more likely to report beliefs consistent with the scientiﬁc consensus and express personal concern about global warming than are conservatives and Republicans. Further, the effects of educational attainment and self-reported understanding on global warming beliefs and concern are positive for liberals and Democrats, but are weaker or negative for conservatives and Republicans. Last, signiﬁcant ideological and partisan polarization has occurred on the issue of climate change over the past decade. The Western experience of modernity—especially technological development, economic growth, material prosperity, urbanization, and democracy—has been built upon industrial capitalism, an economic system predicated on the accelerating extraction and consumption of fossil fuels for energy (Clark and York 2005). A major unintended consequence of the use of fossil fuels is anthropogenic global warming or climate change.1 Recognizing and responding to climate change, arguably the most challenging social problem of the modern era (Giddens 2009), thus poses a fundamental critique of continued modernization processes around the world (Antonio 2009). For two decades, European-based reﬂexive modernization theorists (e.g., Beck, Giddens, and Lash 1994; Mol 1996) have argued that forces of reﬂexivity, particularly science and environmentalism, compel us to confront threats to societal persistence such as climate change.2 In contrast, stimulated by the United States’s long-term, laggard response to climate change, a growing number of scholars have begun calling attention to forces of “anti-reﬂexivity” (McCright and Dunlap 2010)—particularly the industrial sector and the conservative movement—that defend the industrial capitalist order from critique by denying the signiﬁcance of problems such as climate change (also see, e.g., *Direct all correspondence to Aaron M. McCright, Lyman Briggs College, Michigan State University, E-185 Holmes Hall, East Lansing, MI 48825-1107; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org The Sociological Quarterly 52 (2011) 155–194 © 2011 Midwest Sociological Society
September 27, 2012 The Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute is pleased to transmit to you a major revision of the report Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The original document served as the principal source of information regarding the climate of the United States for the Environmental Protection Agency’s December 7, 2009, Endangerment Finding from carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This new document is titled ADDENDUM: Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. This effort grew out of the recognition that the original document was lacking in scope and relevant scientiﬁc detail. A Cato review of a draft noted that it was among the worst summary documents on climate change ever written, and that literally every paragraph was missing critical information from the refereed scientiﬁc literature. While that review was extensive, the restricted timeframe for commentary necessarily limited any effort. The following document completes that effort. It is telling that this commentary document contains more footnotes and references than the original; indeed, one could conclude that the original Global Climate Change Impacts ignored or purposefully omitted more primary-source science than it included. It is in that light that we present this document. May it serve as a primary reference and a guidepost for those who want to bring science back into environmental protection. Sincerely, Edward H. Crane President Cato Institute
Building on previous COMEST work on environmental ethics,1 this report was initiated in direct response to the request of the General Conference of UNESCO, addressed to the Director-General of UNESCO, to develop a UNESCO Strategy for Action on Climate Change that aims “to build and maintain the requisite knowledge base, and to adopt measures to adapt to the impacts of climate change, contribute to the mitigation of its causes, and strengthen sustainable development” (Executive Board Document 180 EX/16, p. 1).2 Without serious attention to the ethical implications of climate change, this Strategy for Action may be weaker than it could be. The aim of this report is to serve as a point of departure for further discussion and dialogue among members of the scientiﬁc community of UNESCO, the NGOs working with UNESCO, and Member States of UNESCO on the ethical challenges posed by climate change as a global phenomenon. In particular, the focus of this report falls on a clariﬁcation of: 1. The central ethical issues that are brought about by global climate change; and 2. The general and speciﬁc principles that could be adopted to form a basis for response to these issues. This report acknowledges and supports other work that is done on climate change within the network of United Nations organizations, for instance the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) formed in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).3 The ongoing work of the IPCC in establishing a scientiﬁc basis for discussions on climate change, and the ongoing negotiations between parties to the UNFCCC with a view to entering into binding international agreements on mechanisms and targets to address the challenges of climate change – these are all accepted as points of reference for the work of COMEST on the ethical implications of climate change.
Doc. Name: SBMPTN2013BIO999 Doc. Version : 2013-10 | 01. Contoh keberadaan satwa pada suatu habitat yang dijaga dengan baik sebagai upaya pelestarian ex situ adalah… (A) Orang utan di hutan Kalimantan. (B) Cendrawasih di hutan Papua. (C) Rusa di Kebun Raya Bogor. (D) Pesut diSungai Mahakam. (E) Anoa di Pulau Sulawesi 02. Komunitas mikroba yang melekat pada suatu substrat/benda sehingga dapat merusak substrat/benda tersebut disebut… (A) Biodegradator. (B) Bioaktivator. (C) Biokatalis. (D) Biodeposit. (E) Biofilm. 03. Bagian sistem pencernaan yang berperan dalam memecah polipeptida menjadi oligopeptida adalah… (A) Duodenum. (B) Usus besar. (C) Lambung. (D) Jejunum. (E) Ileum. 04. Asam absisat melindungi tanaman yang mengalami kekurangan air melalui mekanisme… (A) Peningkatan pembentukan kutikula. (B) Penurunan tekanan turgor sel penjaga. (C) Peningkatan kecepatan pembelahan sel. (D) Penurunan kecepatan pembentangan sel. (E) Penghambatan pemanjangan sel epidermis. halaman 1 05. Pernyataan yang salah mengenai fotofosforilisasi siklik dan non siklik adalah… (A) Pada fotofosforilisasi non siklik sumber elektron yang memasuki Fotosistem II adalah molekul air, pada fotofosforilisasi siklik, sumber dari elektron adalah Fotosistem I. (B) Pada fotofosforilisasi non siklik penerima elktron terakhir adalah NADP, pada fotofosforilisasi siklik, penerima elektron terakhir adalah Fotosistem I. (C) Hasil dari fotofosforilisasi non siklik adalah ATP, NADPH, dan O2, sedangkan hasil dari fotofosforilisasi siklikhanya ATP. (D) Fotofosforilisasi non siklik melibatkan Fotosistem I dan II, fotofosforilisasi siklik hanya melibatkan Fotosistem II. 06. Perhatikan diagram saluran kreb berikut! Tahap dimana berlangsung hidrasi adalah (A) 1 dan 4 (B) 1 dan 5 (C) 2 dan 6 (D) 3 dan 7 (E) 3 dan 8 Kunci dan pembahasan soal ini bisa dilihat di www.zenius.net dengan memasukkan kode 3117 ke menu search. Copyright © 2013 Zenius Education SBMPTN 2013 Biologi, Kode Soal doc. name: SBMPTN2013BIO999 halaman 2 doc. version : 2013-10 | 07. Perhatikan gambar tahapan mitosis berikut! 10. Grafik berikut menunjukan kinerja insulin sintetis. Tahap telofase, metaphase, anaphase dan profasen ditunjukan oleh urutan angka…
This report of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) on its safety assessment of the MetroNorth Commuter Railroad (Metro-North), called Operation Deep Dive, is provided to Congress pursuant to report language in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Metro-North is the second largest commuter railroad in the Nation, serving New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey, with an annual ridership of almost 83 million people. MetroNorth is a subsidiary agency of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), a New York State Authority. In 2013, four high-profile accidents occurred on Metro-North (Appendix 1). • On May 17, 2013, in Bridgeport, Connecticut, an accident occurred on Metro-North’s New Haven Line, when an eastbound Metro-North train of 8 cars, traveling 74 mph, derailed and came to rest on an adjacent track. Approximately 20 seconds later, a westbound Metro-North train on that adjacent track struck the derailed train. As a result of the accident, more than 50 people, some seriously injured, were hospitalized, rail operations were suspended, and millions in property damage occurred. • On May 28, 2013, a second accident occurred when a Metro-North train in West Haven, Connecticut, that was traveling 70 mph, struck and killed a Metro-North maintenance-ofway (MOW) employee who was part of a roadway work group performing railroad maintenance on a construction project. • On July 18, 2013, a third accident occurred when a CSX Transportation freight train derailed while traveling over Metro-North’s system. No one was injured, but property damage was significant. • On December 1, 2013, the fourth accident occurred when a Metro-North train of 7 cars traveling south from Poughkeepsie, New York, to Grand Central Terminal in New York City, derailed as it approached the Spuyten Duyvil Station. All cars derailed and the front cab came to rest close to the Harlem River. Four passengers were killed, and more than 70 were injured. Rail operations were suspended, and millions of dollars in property damage alone was sustained. On December 3, 2013, 2 days after the fourth and most serious of these accidents, FRA sent a letter to MTA expressing support for Governor Andrew Cuomo’s directive that MTA hold a safety stand-down, and directing Metro-North to implement a Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C3RS) (Appendix 2). Additionally, FRA issued Emergency Order 29 and Safety Advisory 2013-08. • Emergency Order 29, issued on December 6, 2013, required Metro-North to take immediate action to prevent excessive train speeds by identifying and prioritizing highrisk areas, modifying its existing signal system to ensure speed limits are obeyed, and 1 requiring a higher level of engagement and communication among operating crewmembers in areas in which major speed restrictions are in place. • Safety Advisory 2013-08, issued on December 10, 2013, urged railroads to provide additional training, increase the frequency of operational testing, and reinforced the importance of communication between crew members. The purpose was to ensure that all railroads adhere to Federal regulations and railroad operating rules regarding maximum authorized train speed limits.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Group Number: 94072 To Be Completed by Employee (You must review the important statements on page 2 and sign where indicated before completing this section of the form.) 1. Patient First Name Middle Last 2. Relationship to Employee 3. Sex 4. Married? 5. Patient Date of Birth 6. Report Number Mo. / Day / Year Ⅺ Self Ⅺ Spouse Ⅺ Child Ⅺ Male Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ Other Ⅺ Female Ⅺ No 7. If Full Time Student (Age 19 or Over) School City 8. EMPLOYEE Social Security / ID Number State 9. If Disabled (Age 19 or Over) 94075 10. Name of Group Dental Program MTA Consolidated Managerial Plan Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No 11. Employee First Name Middle Last 14. Employee Residence Mailing Address 15. City, State, Zip Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No 16. Are other Family Members Employed? 13. Office Phone (Area Code) 12. Employee Date of Birth Name 17. Date of Birth 18. Name and Address of Employer for Item 16 Social Security / ID Number. 19. Is Patient Covered by Another Dental Plan? Dental Plan Name Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No (If Yes, complete the following:) Name and Address of Carrier Group No. 20. I Authorize Release of any Information Relating to this Claim 21. I Certify that the Above Information is Correct. 22. I Authorize Payment Directly to the Below Named Dentist. ____________________________________ Employee Signature _______________________________________ (Signature of Patient or Signature of Authorized Representative if Minor) __________________________________ Employee Signature _______________ Date If Authorized Representative, Relationship to Minor __________________ Date __________________ Date To Be Completed by Dentist 23. Dentist Name 24. Mailing Address 25. Dentist Social Security Number or T.I.N. 28. First Visit Date Current Series City State Zip 27. Dentist Phone Number 26. Dentist License Number 29. Place of Treatment 30. Radiographs or Models Enclosed? Ⅺ Office Ⅺ Hospital Ⅺ ECF Ⅺ Other _______________________________________ Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No How Many?_____________ 31. Is Treatment Result of Occupational Illness or Injury? (If Yes, Enter Brief Description and Dates) Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No 33. Other Accident? Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No (If Yes, Enter Brief Description and Dates) 35. If Prosthesis, is this Initial Placement? 37. Is Treatment for Orthodontics?
The European Lecithin Market report explains and divides the Lecithin market in Europe with analysis and projection of revenue. The Lecithin Market in Europe is estimated to grow from around $241.7 million in 2012 to $315.9 million by 2019, at a CAGR of 3.2% from 2012 to 2019. To get PDF Brochure @ http://www.micromarketmonitor.com/contact/4640857301-download_pdf_brochure.html