↓ Skip to main content

Risk implications of long-term global climate goals: overall conclusions of the ICA-RUS project

Overview of attention for article published in Sustainability Science, January 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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Risk implications of long-term global climate goals: overall conclusions of the ICA-RUS project
Published in
Sustainability Science, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11625-018-0530-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seita Emori, Kiyoshi Takahashi, Yoshiki Yamagata, Shinjiro Kanae, Shunsuke Mori, Yuko Fujigaki

Abstract

We have assessed the risks associated with setting 1.5, 2.0, or 2.5 °C temperature goals and ways to manage them in a systematic manner and discussed their implications. The results suggest that, given the uncertainties in climate sensitivity, "net zero emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the second half of this century" is a more actionable goal for society than the 2 or 1.5 °C temperature goals themselves. If the climate sensitivity is proven to be relatively high and the temperature goals are not met even when the net zero emission goal is achieved, the options left are: (A) accepting/adapting to a warmer world, (B) boosting mitigation, and (C) climate geoengineering, or any combination of these. This decision should be made based on a deeper discussion of risks associated with each option. We also suggest the need to consider a wider range of policies: not only climate policies, but also broader "sustainability policies", and to envisage more innovative solutions than what integrated assessment models can currently illustrate. Finally, based on a consideration of social aspects of risk decisions, we recommend the establishment of a panel of "intermediate layer" experts, who support decision-making by citizens as well as social and ethical thinking by policy makers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 23%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 5 16%
Social Sciences 4 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 10%
Engineering 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 21 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,677,043
of 23,885,338 outputs
Outputs from Sustainability Science
#146
of 836 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,789
of 447,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sustainability Science
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,885,338 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 836 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 447,664 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.