↓ 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 (98th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

2 news outlets
5 blogs
1 policy source
86 tweeters
2 Facebook pages
1 video uploader


245 Dimensions

Readers on

365 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
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.
Patterns and mechanisms of early Pliocene warmth
Published in
Nature, April 2013
DOI 10.1038/nature12003
Pubmed ID

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


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 86 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 365 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 1%
United States 4 1%
France 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 349 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 106 29%
Researcher 74 20%
Student > Master 41 11%
Student > Bachelor 34 9%
Professor 18 5%
Other 54 15%
Unknown 38 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 215 59%
Environmental Science 32 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 8%
Social Sciences 5 1%
Physics and Astronomy 5 1%
Other 22 6%
Unknown 56 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 107. 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
of 21,468,720 outputs
Outputs from Nature
of 88,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 175,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
of 913 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,468,720 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 88,119 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 97.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 175,030 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 913 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 73% of its contemporaries.