↓ Skip to main content

Model evidence for a seasonal bias in Antarctic ice cores

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, April 2018
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 (88th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
19 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
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.
Title
Model evidence for a seasonal bias in Antarctic ice cores
Published in
Nature Communications, April 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41467-018-03800-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael P. Erb, Charles S. Jackson, Anthony J. Broccoli, David W. Lea, Paul J. Valdes, Michel Crucifix, Pedro N. DiNezio

Abstract

Much of the global annual mean temperature change over Quaternary glacial cycles can be attributed to slow ice sheet and greenhouse gas feedbacks, but analysis of the short-term response to orbital forcings has the potential to reveal key relationships in the climate system. In particular, obliquity and precession both produce highly seasonal temperature responses at high latitudes. Here, idealized single-forcing model experiments are used to quantify Earth's response to obliquity, precession, CO2, and ice sheets, and a linear reconstruction methodology is used to compare these responses to long proxy records around the globe. This comparison reveals mismatches between the annual mean response to obliquity and precession in models versus the signals within Antarctic ice cores. Weighting the model-based reconstruction toward austral winter or spring reduces these discrepancies, providing evidence for a seasonal bias in ice cores.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 20%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 19 54%
Environmental Science 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 28 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,709,680
of 23,381,576 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#22,238
of 48,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,303
of 330,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#611
of 1,206 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,381,576 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 48,411 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 330,251 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,206 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.