Updated references in climate_change.bib

references/climate_change.bib

@@ -47,8 +47,8 @@ @pbl.nl
 }
 
 @ARTICLE{Friedlingstein2006-dc,
-  title     = "Climate--Carbon Cycle Feedback Analysis: Results from the {C4MIP}
-               Model Intercomparison",
+  title     = "{Climate–Carbon} Cycle Feedback Analysis: Results from the
+               {C4MIP} Model Intercomparison",
   author    = "Friedlingstein, P and Cox, P and Betts, R and Bopp, L and von
                Bloh, W and Brovkin, V and Cadule, P and Doney, S and Eby, M and
                Fung, I and Bala, G and John, J and Jones, C and Joos, F and
@@ -61,12 +61,12 @@ @ARTICLE{Friedlingstein2006-dc
   volume    =  19,
   number    =  14,
   pages     = "3337--3353",
-  abstract  = "AbstractEleven coupled climate--carbon cycle models used a common
+  abstract  = "AbstractEleven coupled climate–carbon cycle models used a common
                protocol to study the coupling between climate change and the
                carbon cycle. The models were forced by historical emissions and
                the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special
                Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A2 anthropogenic emissions
-               of CO2 for the 1850--2100 time period. For each model, two
+               of CO2 for the 1850–2100 time period. For each model, two
                simulations were performed in order to isolate the impact of
                climate change on the land and ocean carbon cycle, and therefore
                the climate feedback on the atmospheric CO2 concentration growth
@@ -78,16 +78,16 @@ @ARTICLE{Friedlingstein2006-dc
                additional CO2 varied between 20 and 200 ppm for the two extreme
                models, the majority of the models lying between 50 and 100 ppm.
                The higher CO2 levels led to an additional climate warming
-               ranging between 0.1\textdegree{} and 1.5\textdegree{}C.All models
-               simulated a negative sensitivity for both the land and the ocean
-               carbon cycle to future climate. However, there was still a large
-               uncertainty on the magnitude of these sensitivities. Eight models
-               attributed most of the changes to the land, while three
-               attributed it to the ocean. Also, a majority of the models
-               located the reduction of land carbon uptake in the Tropics.
-               However, the attribution of the land sensitivity to changes in
-               net primary productivity versus changes in respiration is still
-               subject to debate; no consensus emerged among the models.",
+               ranging between 0.1° and 1.5°C.All models simulated a negative
+               sensitivity for both the land and the ocean carbon cycle to
+               future climate. However, there was still a large uncertainty on
+               the magnitude of these sensitivities. Eight models attributed
+               most of the changes to the land, while three attributed it to the
+               ocean. Also, a majority of the models located the reduction of
+               land carbon uptake in the Tropics. However, the attribution of
+               the land sensitivity to changes in net primary productivity
+               versus changes in respiration is still subject to debate; no
+               consensus emerged among the models.",
   month     =  "15~" # jul,
   year      =  2006,
   url       = "https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/19/14/jcli3800.1.xml",
@@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ @essllc.org.
 @ARTICLE{Riahi2007-vi,
   title    = "Scenarios of long-term socio-economic and environmental
               development under climate stabilization",
-  author   = "Riahi, Keywan and Gr\"{u}bler, Arnulf and Nakicenovic, Nebojsa",
+  author   = "Riahi, Keywan and Grübler, Arnulf and Nakicenovic, Nebojsa",
   journal  = "Technological forecasting and social change",
   volume   =  74,
   number   =  7,
@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ @ARTICLE{Riahi2007-vi
               contributions to this Special Issue. We first describe the
               motivation behind this scenario exercise and introduce the main
               scenario features and characteristics, in both qualitative and
-              quantitative terms. Altogether, we analyze three `baseline'
+              quantitative terms. Altogether, we analyze three ‘baseline’
               scenarios of different socio-economic and technological
               developments that are assumed not to include any explicit climate
               policies. We then impose a range of climate stabilization targets
@@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ @ARTICLE{Riahi2007-vi
               Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The scenarios were
               developed by the IIASA Integrated Assessment Modeling Framework
               that encompasses detailed representations of the principal
-              GHG-emitting sectors--energy, industry, agriculture, and forestry.
+              GHG-emitting sectors—energy, industry, agriculture, and forestry.
               The main analytical findings from our analysis focus on the
               implications of salient uncertainties (associated with scenario
               baselines and stabilization targets), on feasibility and costs of