Professor Kerry Emanuel has been known for his “Show me the data!” approach to climate science. In this talk, he will present a long term, evidence-driven view of Earth’s climate change, culminating in a discussion of current risks and implications. An extensive audience Q&A will follow the presentation.

Professor Emanuel is an award-winning meteorologist and climate scientist and the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. His research focuses on tropical meteorology and climate, with a specialty in hurricane physics. Emanuel has a PhD from MIT, has been a faculty member since 1981 and has served as the Director of the Center for Meteorology and Physical Oceanography and the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate. He is co-founder of the MIT Lorenz Center, which fosters creative approaches to fundamental science devoted to understanding how climate works.

He was named one of Time Magazine’s 100 Influential People who Shape Our World in 2006. In 2007, he was elected as a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. He is an author of over 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers and two books, including What We Know about Climate Change, recently hailed by the NY Times as “… the single best thing written about climate change for a general audience.”



  • @ravenken

    This is a very interesting presentation to listen to in 2024. A lot of the graphs would look comical in how conservative they were. Anyway, I wish Professor Emanuel had presented some of the info based on CO2e.
    Well, this was a pretty good presentation save the 'solutions'.

  • @micsca

    Why don’t people his multiple lies? He is funded to keep promoting scare tactics. He leaves out the evidence that co2 does not drive climate change

  • @SolvingTornadoes

    This is silly propaganda. There is no such thing as a "greenhouse" gas. All gasses are part of atmospheric warming/cooling.

  • @TrueNorth333

    this is not proper research – Research the works of any of the professors Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Don Easterbrook, Andy Knoll, John Christy, William Happer, Patrick Moore, Richard Muller, Murray Salsby, Richard Lindzen, Robert Carter, Ivar Giæver, John Clauser and 20 000 others with PhD and engineering degrees in relevant sciences ( and any of the more than 20 Norwegian professors PhD doctors and professionals in all the relevant fields – ( people that I have either met, read or conversed with online.)

  • @johnpeterson7264

    You know you’re at a climate conference not a science conference when:
    -they introduce the speaker mentioning his political party affiliation
    -the only experimental (as opposed to correlational) data that the speaker has to show is hard proof that all of his fellow climatologists agree with him
    -the speaker thinks that physics and physicists have nothing to contribute to the study of a physical system like climate.

  • @Daguerreotypiste

    According to the measures taken by Exxon Mobile and other companies, CO2 emissions have fallen dramatically but temperature is still rising. It's the sun that's causing global warming!

  • @justinsnelling8053

    Excellent overview of the basics of the science – well done and well presented. He gets the main point across that the underlying Maths and Physics is really incredibly simple and easily understood while the detailed modelling of all the more nuanced regional complexity patterns are so incredibly complex and challenging – but in a manner that really does little to change the simplistic overview of the problems. He did not get into the weeds of the Red Herring whataboutisms so artfully used by the paid propagandists who keep trying to hoodwink the general populae into believing it is all a nothingburger – other to suggest that it is a problem of posychology and neuroscience (one of beliefs) and not one of actual climate science or the models. I notice some comments still trying to push the arguments made and the basics outlined off into the weeds – but I hope few people get dstracted by such easily debunked "complexification and obscurantist" myths? The CO2 is good for you thingy being one of the tricks being used and trying to devallue the simple Greenhouse Gas effect results merely another attempt to distract and displace attention. Professor Kerry did a good kob stating quite simply that increasing CO2 – from a crop yield perspective – is a rather mixed blessing. Yes – increased atmospheric CO@ leads to greening – unfortunately greening alone is a mixed bag as it comes with hugely amplifying the growth and spread of noxious and invasive weeds as well as hugely amplifying the severity and ubiquity of toxic algal blooms in rivers, lakes and estuaries globally leading to eutrophication of our most productive hydrological ecosystems – which I really do not need to point out as a huge detrimental effect on ecosystem health. There are pluses and minuses in all things that change – but no one is served when the Machiavellian only point to the few pluses while ignoring the many serious minuses… He did a great job here however i feel the perennial unbelievers out there will be reluctant to let go of their Magical Thinking (consciously adopted of subconsciously acquired?) even when such a bright flashlight has been shone on the simple basics and fundamentals.

  • @walkerhospitality9692

    Interestingly, for all that talk about CO2, throughout history CO2 has never been the driver of climate what's always followed temperature changes

  • @walkerhospitality9692

    LOL! Climate science is not a real science, it's a soft pseudoscience

  • @user-dd2hi4kw7q

    Ice ages repeat roughly every 20,000 years.
    The last glaciation was ~20,000 years ago. We will soon enter the next ice age. Not maybe, but with 100% likelihood. The "maybe" only pertains to how soon: maybe in 200 years, maybe in 1,000 years.

    When the next ice age hits, the impact on our civilization will be enormous. The entire Europe, Canada, Russia, Korea, Japan,, Central Asia, much of China – will become a frozen tundra. Billions of people will have to move towards the equator – and it is debatable whether the non-frozen parts of Earth will be able to feed all of them. There were only a few million people on Earth during the last ice age.

    But there were no ice ages 10 and more million years ago. They only started occurring in the past few million years. Not because the Earth's trajectory had not been wobbly before – it had been just as it is now. There had been no ice ages because of the much higher CO2 levels at the time. Like 10x the current level. And no, Earth was not a scorched desert back then. In fact, that was the age of lush rainforests and gigantic animals we call the dinosaurs.

    So, why are we so obsessed with the (factual, and indeed man-made) increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels, while we are not worried about the next ice age? Why is having to move away from e.g., Boston preferable to living under a mile-thick layer of ice and snow (which covered Boston during the last ice age)? Yes, with the CO2 increase the sea levels will rise, and people will have to move away from the current coastlines. But the increased average temperature will make enormous areas of Canada, Scandinavia, and Russia very pleasant to live – so there will be more room for everyone.

    To summarize, the climate will radically change in either case – whether we continue to increase the CO2 levels, or if we manage to halt the trend. Many people will HAVE to move to other areas of Earth no matter what. But that huge migration will be more manageable if the climate is more like the Jurassic age than like Siberia.

  • @DrMichael-T-7777

    The validity of the models assessed vs actual measurements :

  • @DrMichael-T-7777

    The models at 48:48' have been shown to be inaccurate as they have not predicted the actual temperatures by a factor of 2+.

  • @StephenSmith-pu5hg

    Did not show the Roman Warm Period And the Hockey stick has been proven to be a lie Re Climate Gate

  • @brianbrecknock9625

    What about Spain which has diverted it's water to the coast, which has caused the interior turning into desert how many of these, water diversion schemes have changed the climate? not to even mention urban growth which prevents plants and trees, using C02 etc.

  • @Marcello1b

    @53:53… "Taking out the co2 of the atmosphere"….
    Right now, the global part of co2 in the whole atmosphere is 0.04%…. "if we're taking all co2%…" -> Under 0.02%, in the irreversible way, we definitively changenthe earth atmosphere on a slowly but surely dying earth; why? Because plants need co2. In the prehistoric era, it is said that co2% was higher and plants were bigger also.
    But now, if we really want to reduce co2, when this scientist says that it is expensive, I don't know if he considered what other scientists know already -> "feeding the ocean plancton" with minerals (just on our ocean costs), and in less than 2 years, the plancton will absorb the excess of co2, getting healthier and feeding back the ocean fishes that eat plancton.
    I'm poly sure, natural causes such as volcanos are worst than any human activities

  • @luciosibilia7167

    A number of points leave me skeptical.

  • @ryszardrzepecki4966

    Very funny interpretatuin of acuence data. The major contrubutor to warmig has been always ignored in any calculations because so not fit?
    The thesus of halflife is irrelevant it has been just highly dynamic vapor/droplets/clouds.
    Secondly, it's been published that the level of cosmic particles correlates with ice period cycles.
    Increase in temperature preceds increase in carbon dioxide by about 800 years.
    Last hundred years do not show correlation between cabon dioxide and temleratures.
    The last remark, as scientit i know that modela can predict whateve one wants just by changing readjustin asaumptios – vide see level preditons

  • @ashgall8118

    Anyone ever think of asking these environmentalists/climatologists exactly what % of CO2 do they want in the atmosphere?They are always saying there is too much CO2 and it must be reduced to stop the world from overheating, but they never say by how much. Do they prefer an ice age? The world has a CO@ level of about 400 ppm today, has been as high as 1700ppm before, and plant life will die if the level goes below 150ppm. There is no evidence that CO2 causes temperatures to rise but there is evidence that high temperatures cause CO2 to rise hundreds to thousands of years after the high temperatures have passed. The burning of fossil fuels may cause rises in CO2 levels but this helps feed plant life and would be good for crops etc. Humans prosper when weather is warmer. The Chinese, Africans and Indians are not going to give up burning fossil fuels such as coal and wood. Western societies once burned those fuels until gas, electricity and nuclear means were invented or discovered. Are we foolish enough to think these other countries are going to give up their chance at being as prosperous and comfortable because we say so? I don't think so.

  • @2bittesla

    About the consensus thing, 100 top physicists wrote a book stating Einstein was an idiot. Turns out he was the BOMB.

  • @bobleclair5665

    The charts and grafts don’t take in the color of rooftops, concrete buildings, black roads and the cutting down and clearing of forests . No doubt ,touching off a few nuclear bombs, dumping of heated water from nuclear power plants into the oceans and rivers must add to the warming of the planet, their cooling stacks put plenty of water vapor directly into the atmosphere, and nothing is said about HARRP, the heating of the upper atmosphere, using microwaves,

  • @Sabotage_Labs

    41:41 can't believe he just used those two studies that have been totally shown to be pure fabrications from propagandists. I was hanging in there giving him credit for at least appears to admit that CO2 alone isn't soley responsible for heating but…he just blew all credibility. At least he'll keep getting his grant money.
    That's another thing that always bothers me. He takes swipes at these physicists and people cliaming to be climate scientists (none of them do and clearly say so) but…none that I've listened to are getting paid by anyone. This is why I like the retired ones. They don't have to care about the politics and propaganda. The one sent to "climate scientists"…over 3000 of the 2 question questiinares were sent out with less than 400 returned.
    The question…do humans have an effect on the climate is a stupid question in the first place. All life has an effect. It's the degree that matters. We humans do a hell of a lot more than emit CO2. We destroy forests and prevent them from naturally burning. We change the course of rivers and create cities that hold heat like batteries during the day and release it all night. We also exploded more than 2000 nuclear devices. But,mine thing we also did until recently here in the west is put much worse stuff in the atmosphere like sulfer and soot. Chemicals in our rivers and much worse. We have cleaned up most all of that and are improving all the time. Places like London don't have the London fog like a hundred years ago when the city was covered in soot from everyone burning coal in their homes and factories. What a farce! The same old chicken little the sky is falling….the end is Nye upon us thats been used for thousands of years. Is it any wonder why one political party and movement is the most aggressive in this subject? The same caught in so many lies and failures. Sadly, their opponents are feckless cowards only slightly as dim and corrupt.
    I have yet to be convinced after spending thousands of hours over the last 25 years to believe that warming is anything more than a net benefit for not only humans but all life in the planet. History in the last 10 years show this as well as the geological and fossil records. Life flourishes when the planet is warmer and life dies when it's cooler. CO2 levels have been magnitudes higher when life has been abundant and healthy. Iced caps is not the norm. Ancient coral reefs can be found hundreds of feet above current sea levels when the oceans were warmer and more "acidic". Plants, our primary food source, becomes more drought resistant with higher CO2 levels and grow with higher yields.
    Even if we accept that hurricanes are stronger now (the last IPCC report couldn't even claim that) less people die as a result because of predictions and human mobility. We actually leave the area for a few days. More people dies by cold events than warm. And…that is going to increase as less people will be able to hear their homes!!!
    Just push all of that aside and look at the predictions of the "experts" and see just how far off they have been in the last 30 years. Even the IPCC is acknowledging the "Pause" because they have too.
    Just ask yourselves. If they are so confident why must they destroy people who question them?
    Why is energy production under such serious attack? The modern world, the science they have been able to develop could only have been produced by cheap and accessible energy.
    Who benefits the most from controlling energy production? Today in the west. Energy production is basically a free market. If govts are the ones subsidizing and passing laws and regulations that controls who and how energy can be produced, who controls the economy. Didn't we learn anything from the last century what happens when govts control the economy? Even China learned the lesson and adopted free market elements and things like private property.
    Most importantly of all…where is the rare earth elements and metals needed to power this renewable energy sceme going to come from? I don't even mean geographically. I mean…how are we going to mine and process it? We won't. Above all else…that is the lynch pin.
    Personally, from all of my studies and research, is suspect well likely cool a bit over then next century. But, I hope I'm wrong. I think 2-4°C may just be the best thing to happen to this planet and humans. Just so long as the morons running this world don't screw it up any worse than they are now.

  • @Sabotage_Labs

    29:29 yes…when the planet warms the oceans release more CO2. When it cools, it absorbs more. That's pretty clear. So, as the planet came out of the last glacial period more CO2 was released.

  • @Sabotage_Labs

    23:52 and C02 levels are still at the one of lowest levels in the history of the planet.

  • @Sabotage_Labs

    19:45 yup… And interestingly enough, the models don't use and can't figure out how to use clouds or account for them. Maybe this is why they still haven't been able to model condition we believe existed in the past.
    I have serious problems with "rock solid"… It sounds a lot like "settled".
    Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse gas effects. 70!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sign In


Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.