↓ Skip to main content

Patterns and mechanisms of early Pliocene warmth

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
91 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
152 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
262 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Patterns and mechanisms of early Pliocene warmth
Published in
Nature, April 2013
DOI 10.1038/nature12003
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. V. Fedorov, C. M. Brierley, K. T. Lawrence, Z. Liu, P. S. Dekens, A. C. Ravelo

Abstract

About five to four million years ago, in the early Pliocene epoch, Earth had a warm, temperate climate. The gradual cooling that followed led to the establishment of modern temperature patterns, possibly in response to a decrease in atmospheric CO2 concentration, of the order of 100 parts per million, towards preindustrial values. Here we synthesize the available geochemical proxy records of sea surface temperature and show that, compared with that of today, the early Pliocene climate had substantially lower meridional and zonal temperature gradients but similar maximum ocean temperatures. Using an Earth system model, we show that none of the mechanisms currently proposed to explain Pliocene warmth can simultaneously reproduce all three crucial features. We suggest that a combination of several dynamical feedbacks underestimated in the models at present, such as those related to ocean mixing and cloud albedo, may have been responsible for these climate conditions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 91 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
Germany 5 2%
Japan 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 243 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 82 31%
Researcher 53 20%
Student > Master 28 11%
Student > Bachelor 28 11%
Unspecified 17 6%
Other 54 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 169 65%
Unspecified 28 11%
Environmental Science 24 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 9%
Chemistry 3 1%
Other 15 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 114. 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 02 June 2017.
All research outputs
#120,591
of 12,639,705 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#10,263
of 65,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,312
of 145,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#243
of 973 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,639,705 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 65,529 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 73.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 145,635 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 973 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.