↓ Skip to main content

Reduced carbon emission estimates from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in China

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, August 2015
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
35 news outlets
blogs
9 blogs
policy
5 policy sources
twitter
137 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
522 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
434 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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.
Title
Reduced carbon emission estimates from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in China
Published in
Nature, August 2015
DOI 10.1038/nature14677
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhu Liu, Dabo Guan, Wei, Steven J. Davis, Philippe Ciais, Jin Bai, Shushi Peng, Qiang Zhang, Klaus Hubacek, Gregg Marland, Robert J. Andres, Douglas Crawford-Brown, Jintai Lin, Hongyan Zhao, Chaopeng Hong, Thomas A. Boden, Kuishuang Feng, Glen P. Peters, Fengming Xi, Junguo Liu, Yuan Li, Yu Zhao, Ning Zeng, Kebin He

Abstract

Nearly three-quarters of the growth in global carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement production between 2010 and 2012 occurred in China. Yet estimates of Chinese emissions remain subject to large uncertainty; inventories of China's total fossil fuel carbon emissions in 2008 differ by 0.3 gigatonnes of carbon, or 15 per cent. The primary sources of this uncertainty are conflicting estimates of energy consumption and emission factors, the latter being uncertain because of very few actual measurements representative of the mix of Chinese fuels. Here we re-evaluate China's carbon emissions using updated and harmonized energy consumption and clinker production data and two new and comprehensive sets of measured emission factors for Chinese coal. We find that total energy consumption in China was 10 per cent higher in 2000-2012 than the value reported by China's national statistics, that emission factors for Chinese coal are on average 40 per cent lower than the default values recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and that emissions from China's cement production are 45 per cent less than recent estimates. Altogether, our revised estimate of China's CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production is 2.49 gigatonnes of carbon (2 standard deviations = ±7.3 per cent) in 2013, which is 14 per cent lower than the emissions reported by other prominent inventories. Over the full period 2000 to 2013, our revised estimates are 2.9 gigatonnes of carbon less than previous estimates of China's cumulative carbon emissions. Our findings suggest that overestimation of China's emissions in 2000-2013 may be larger than China's estimated total forest sink in 1990-2007 (2.66 gigatonnes of carbon) or China's land carbon sink in 2000-2009 (2.6 gigatonnes of carbon).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 137 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 434 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 430 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 126 29%
Researcher 58 13%
Student > Master 57 13%
Student > Bachelor 27 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 5%
Other 72 17%
Unknown 71 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 89 21%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 51 12%
Engineering 38 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 28 6%
Energy 22 5%
Other 93 21%
Unknown 113 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 457. 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 24 January 2020.
All research outputs
#28,473
of 16,195,767 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#3,179
of 76,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#459
of 240,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#108
of 964 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,195,767 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 76,602 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 87.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 240,882 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 964 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.