You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
How do climate-related uncertainties influence 2 and 1.5 °C pathways?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sustainability Science, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11625-017-0525-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xuanming Su, Hideo Shiogama, Katsumasa Tanaka, Shinichiro Fujimori, Tomoko Hasegawa, Yasuaki Hijioka, Kiyoshi Takahashi, Jingyu Liu |
| Abstract |
We investigate how uncertainties in key parameters in the carbon cycle and climate system propagate to the costs of climate change mitigation and adaptation needed to achieve the 2 and 1.5 °C targets by 2100 using a stochastic version of the simple climate model for optimization (SCM4OPT), an integrated assessment model. For the 2 °C target, we find a difference in 2100 CO2 emission levels of 20.5 GtCO2 (- 1.2 GtCO2 to 19.4 GtCO2), whereas this difference is 12.0 GtCO2 (- 6.9 GtCO2 to 5.1 GtCO2) for the 1.5 °C target (17-83% range). Total radiative forcing in 2100 is estimated to be 3.3 (2.7-3.9) Wm-2 for the 2 °C case and 2.5 (2.0-3.0) Wm-2 for the 1.5 °C case. Carbon prices in 2100 are 482 (181-732) USD(2005)/tCO2 and 713 (498-1014) USD(2005)/tCO2 for the 2 and 1.5 °C targets, respectively. We estimate GDP losses in 2100 that correspond to 1.9 (1.2-2.5)% of total gross output for the 2 °C target and 2.0 (1.5-2.7)% for the 1.5 °C target. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 8 | 22% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 6 | 16% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 15 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 19 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,594,833
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Sustainability Science
#263
of 802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,166
of 443,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sustainability Science
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 443,107 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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.