↓ Skip to main content

Modelling and the Nation: Institutionalising Climate Prediction in the UK, 1988–92

Overview of attention for article published in Minerva, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Modelling and the Nation: Institutionalising Climate Prediction in the UK, 1988–92
Published in
Minerva, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11024-016-9302-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Mahony, Mike Hulme

Abstract

How climate models came to gain and exercise epistemic authority has been a key concern of recent climate change historiography. Using newly released archival materials and recently conducted interviews with key actors, we reconstruct negotiations between UK climate scientists and policymakers which led to the opening of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in 1990. We historicize earlier arguments about the unique institutional culture of the Hadley Centre, and link this culture to broader characteristics of UK regulatory practice and environmental politics. A product of a particular time and place, the Hadley Centre was shaped not just by scientific ambition, but by a Conservative governmental preference for 'sound science' and high evidential standards in environmental policymaking. Civil servants sought a prediction programme which would appeal to such sensibilities, with transient and regional climate simulation techniques seemingly offering both scientific prestige and persuasive power. Beyond the national level, we also offer new insights into the early role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and an evolving international political context in the shaping of scientific practices and institutions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Professor 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 16 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 21%
Environmental Science 5 10%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 8%
Arts and Humanities 3 6%
Philosophy 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 19 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 July 2023.
All research outputs
#7,999,212
of 24,063,285 outputs
Outputs from Minerva
#182
of 409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,830
of 360,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Minerva
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,063,285 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 409 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.9. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 360,433 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.