↓ Skip to main content

A Carbon Cycle Science Update Since IPCC AR-4

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, August 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
160 Mendeley
Title
A Carbon Cycle Science Update Since IPCC AR-4
Published in
Ambio, August 2010
DOI 10.1007/s13280-010-0083-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

A J Dolman, G R van der Werf, M K van der Molen, G Ganssen, J-W Erisman, B Strengers

Abstract

We review important advances in our understanding of the global carbon cycle since the publication of the IPCC AR4. We conclude that: the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 due to fossil fuel burning have increased up through 2008 at a rate near to the high end of the IPCC emission scenarios; there are contradictory analyses whether an increase in atmospheric fraction, that might indicate a declining sink strength of ocean and/or land, exists; methane emissions are increasing, possibly through enhanced natural emission from northern wetland, methane emissions from dry plants are negligible; old-growth forest take up more carbon than expected from ecological equilibrium reasoning; tropical forest also take up more carbon than previously thought, however, for the global budget to balance, this would imply a smaller uptake in the northern forest; the exchange fluxes between the atmosphere and ocean are increasingly better understood and bottom up and observation-based top down estimates are getting closer to each other; the North Atlantic and Southern ocean take up less CO2, but it is unclear whether this is part of the 'natural' decadal scale variability; large-scale fires and droughts, for instance in Amazonia, but also at Northern latitudes, have lead to significant decreases in carbon uptake on annual timescales; the extra uptake of CO2 stimulated by increased N-deposition is, from a greenhouse gas forcing perspective, counterbalanced by the related additional N2O emissions; the amount of carbon stored in permafrost areas appears much (two times) larger than previously thought; preservation of existing marine ecosystems could require a CO2 stabilization as low as 450 ppm; Dynamic Vegetation Models show a wide divergence for future carbon trajectories, uncertainty in the process description, lack of understanding of the CO2 fertilization effect and nitrogen-carbon interaction are major uncertainties.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
South Africa 2 1%
Japan 2 1%
Austria 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 143 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 50 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 19%
Student > Master 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Professor 8 5%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 13 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 62 39%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 37 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 2%
Arts and Humanities 2 1%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 19 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,643,739
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#507
of 1,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,932
of 108,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#7
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,981 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 108,243 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.