Climate alarmist Kerry Manuel on Live feed 12:30PM EST – “Hurricanes, Climate Change, and Society”

From the University of South Florida (document)

h/t to WUWT reader Mumbles McGirk

Dr. Kerry Emanuel
Lorenz Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Boston, MA)

“Hurricanes, Climate Change, and Society”

Hurricanes are among both the most lethal and the most damaging of natural phenomena, globally. In this short talk, I will review what is known about the climatology and physics of hurricanes as well as the toll they take on civilization, and go on to describe the astonishing progress that has been made in detecting, measuring, and forecasting these storms. The talk will conclude with a presentation of evidence that global climate change is increasing the incidence of high‐intensity hurricanes and hurricane rainfall; coupled with rising sea levels, this presents a threat of increased flooding of coastal cities.



All speakers will be giving their talks remotely through Skype for Business. Below are instructions for joining these meetings, followed by links to each speaker’s respective talk.

How to join the Skype Meeting:


  • To join the skype meeting remotely, each event has a custom link (included at the end of this document). This link will take you to a portal where you can download the Skype Meetings Web App.
  • Once here, click on the Install and join with Skype Meetings App (web) link. It will download a file about 112MB in size – click run/install.  The Window then prompts for a name for the meeting and then allows entry to the Skype meeting.
  • After this downloads, you should be able to access the meeting, and you will be listed as a guest. If this does not work on the first try, you may have to reinstall the Web App (located under “Trouble with the app”).
  • The skype portal will open at 12:00 PM EDT and each speaker will begin their presentation at 12:30 PM EDT.


If you experience any difficulties please email Michelle Saunders ( or Lauren Carter ( and they will get back to you ASAP.



Question and Answer Session:

At the end of the presentation we will take questions from both the in-person audience and from any remote participants. We will not be able to get to every question but we will select a few to ask the speaker.


  • If you have a question, please type it into the texting window (making sure your full name appears). Please specify if you have a microphone/audio so that we can hear you speak if necessary.
  • If you do have audio, we will unmute you so that you can read your question.
  • If you do not have audio, we will read your question to the speaker and audience for you (remember to specify that you do not have access to audio when you type your question).



Individual Speaker Skype Links:

Use the following links to join each talk.

Kerry Emanuel


Rebecca Morss


Maureen Fordham


Michael Mann

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joe - the non climate scientists
June 13, 2018 9:17 am

explain why the hurricane trend Accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has been flat (aafter adjusting for observational limitations) since the end of the little ice age while the sea surface temps have been trending upward since the end of the little ice, yet the climate models predict that the ACE will take a increase as the SST increase (whereas the ACE trend has been flat for during the last 150+ years)

Reply to  Joe - the non climate scientists
June 13, 2018 9:44 am

Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if they have forgotten to adjust for satellites being able to pick up small hurricanes that wouldn’t have been detected in the past.

June 13, 2018 9:37 am

Watching and listening to the PowerPoint presentation now.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 13, 2018 10:03 am

Please share your thoughts. I was stuck in training and missed the presentation.

Nigel in Santa Barbara
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
June 13, 2018 11:08 am

His technical descriptions were somewhat interesting, but his conclusions were just more of the same ‘it looks not too bad, but trust us it’s getting worse according to models’.

Similarly, some of his answers to posted questions were just arm-waving non-answers. I asked why he used RCP 8.5. His answer was basically ‘Yeah, people have mentioned that before…but, it gave us conditions/numbers that our models could understand!’

Remember the story of the guy who lost his wallet at night, and decided to look for it around the lamp post…because that’s where he could see!

Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 13, 2018 10:24 am

Mumbles ==> Emanuel stuck pretty much to the facts in his introductory statements about hurricanes, what they are, how they form, eye walls, heat engines, etc.

In his hurricane numbers, he admitted that early records probably missed many of the storms that didn’t touch land or intersect with shipping of the time. For hurricane speed, he allowed that early satellite data may have not really been up to it early on so might skew the graph. Admits that more damage is caused by more exposure not more hurricanes.

His opinions on the ability of climate models to predict future hurricanes etc is stock AGW talking points: higher temperatures == more hurricanes, higher surface water temperatures == more intense hurricanes, bases all on model runs based on RCP 8.5 disaster mode.

Repeats the misleading “hurricanes are moving slower now” meme (maybe statistically true since 1980, but speeding up since the turn of the century).

Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 13, 2018 10:40 am

I asked a few questions – one was about use of the models, how accurate they were as opposed to observations and the other was about the ACE index. He basically said to contact him about the models (kind of shied away from answering that question). Re the ACE index – it was flat and a bit of hand waving about it missing some recent large events…
Actually sounded a bit sheepish at one point.
EDIT: My impression was that despite all the climate doom pron he basically admitted that it is a political/cultural problem and all their attempts at estimating future impacts were just blowing smoke.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 13, 2018 10:40 am

Thanks for the report, he still hasn’t improved.

Jim Clarke
Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 13, 2018 11:15 am

Thanks, Kip. Your recap was much more palatable than Mr. Emanuel’s presentation, I am sure.

I am very tired of the assertion that warmer water temperatures will lead to more and stronger hurricanes. It is just lazy science! The water temperature in the tropical Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico is warm enough every season to support more and stronger tropical cyclones than we have ever seen. It is the atmosphere that is the limiting factor.

Compared to general global circulations, tropical cyclones are surprisingly fragile beasts. Atmospheric conditions must be just right for TCs to form and must stay that way for them to persist. The real trend, if any, in tropical cyclone numbers and intensity will be determined by changes in the atmosphere, not water temperature.

Whenever I hear some scientist or activist or activist scientist say that warmer water will lead to more and stronger hurricanes, I know right away that they don’t have a good grasp on tropical meteorology. It is just no where near that simple.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 13, 2018 1:42 pm

Thanks, Mr. Hansen, and everyone who listened in, asked questions, and supplied a summary. Dr. Emanuel is usually very good at explaining hurricanes and present methods of monitoring them. Where he always ‘falls down’ is fixating on them being ‘Carnot engines’. Thinking in those simplistic terms gets one stuck in thinking ‘more energy in, more energy out’ and not on the complicating factors such as dry air, wind shear, etc.

Paul Penrose
June 13, 2018 9:50 am

Let me know if they use the “ever recorded” phrase a lot. Usually this means “since the mid 1970’s when satellite observations began”, but they don’t point that out because it then becomes obvious that we don’t have enough good data to be making the claims they do.

Go Home
June 13, 2018 10:04 am

At least number of tornadoes for a year through today’s date is at an unprecedented level.

Reply to  Go Home
June 13, 2018 10:39 am

comment image?dl=0

Unprecedented? Another refusal to accept natural fluctuations of weather?

Roger Knights
Reply to  ATheoK
June 13, 2018 1:06 pm

He was being sarcastic!

Reply to  Go Home
June 13, 2018 10:42 am

Your unsupported hilarious claim is false!

Prove that I am wrong………

Go Home
Reply to  Go Home
June 13, 2018 10:53 am

Whats the matter, did i spell unprecedented wrong? Or should i have said as of yesterdays date? Or unprecedented over the last 14 years? All I know is that it is way low. How low can you go? (Well low unless you are one of those hit by an unprecedented low number tornado.)

June 13, 2018 10:21 am

Watch for the ‘cost ‘ trick is a function of an people having more stuff and there being more people not of hurricane strength or frequency.

June 13, 2018 11:30 am
Kurt in Switzerland
June 13, 2018 11:57 am

Quick, fix the title: his surname is Emmanuel, not Manuel.

Ivan Kinsman
June 13, 2018 12:27 pm

This is chicken feed to what is happening in Antarctica losing 3 trillion tonnes of ice in the last 25 years. SLR is going to affect coastal cities big time and the double whammy will be more intense hurricanes. All sceptics should move to the coastal cities if they think everything is hunky dory – but of course they won’t put their money where their mouth is:

Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
June 13, 2018 12:42 pm

Well, IPCC says it is gaining. NASA Goddard says it is gaining. But the BBC says is is loosing. Who to believe?

Kurt in Switzerland
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
June 13, 2018 1:01 pm

Hilarious. Your Prof. Shepherd appears to be cut from the same cloth as Emmanuel: when in doubt, highlight the “H” word (Hyperbole), making sure to leave out discussion of any inconsistencies, mitigating circumstances, etc.

It is this type of behavior which gives Climate Scientists a poor reputation among the general public. You appear totally unaware.

In closing, I find it precious how Antarctica experts wax concerned about ‘excessive warmth’ on the Antarctic Peninsula, while making regular taxpayer-funded visits to the AP every Summer, courtesy of fossil fuels, eschewing E. Antarctica (which is unfortunately not cooperating with the models) and foregoing the Winter period, which is, well, rather boringly “unwarm” (i.e., effing freezing) and not very much of a picnic. Far more enjoyable to travel to Climate Conferences (TM) throughout the year, again – courtesy of Fossil Fuels, being celebrated as heroes while wining and dining with the sycophantic and clueless press, some of whom are veritable babes.

By all means, keep the Climate Gravy Train moving!

Joe Civis
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
June 13, 2018 1:14 pm

dang I would love to live by the ocean… are you offering affordable homes for sale??? The reason I don’t live by the ocean it is too expensive to buy a home and live. Though I guess your best bud big Al putting his money where his mouth is by buying that expensive ocean front property is a convincing factor for you that he believes it is a bad investment sure to crash into the ocean any day now!!

sheesh what a maroon!



Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
June 13, 2018 1:15 pm

And how much did it gain, hmmm? Please, SLR is poking along at the same pace it has been all along. Or is the SLR hiding at the bottom of the seas now, like the “hidden heat”? ROFL!

Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
June 13, 2018 1:23 pm

I did. Houston.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
June 13, 2018 1:50 pm

I live in Miami, and if I spit off my condo balcony I can almost hit Biscayne Bay. So my money is where my beliefs are, unlike Algore. We’re just hoping that collapsing Antarctic ice sheet gives us some nice waves, dude.

Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
June 13, 2018 1:55 pm

When you decide to make up numbers, you go whole hog don’t you.

Go Home
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
June 13, 2018 9:29 pm

No thanks, I will just wait for the ocean to move in next to me.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
June 13, 2018 11:11 pm

From the linked Nature article at your linked BBC article;

“We find large variations in and among model estimates of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment for East Antarctica, with its average rate of mass gain over the period 1992–2017 (5 ± 46 billion tonnes per year) being the least certain.”

Model estimates?! Oh lordy!

Reply to  Patrick MJD
June 14, 2018 3:02 pm

(5 ± 46 billion tonnes per year)

Wait. Was that 5 plus or minus 46? That’s an uncertainty almost 20 TIMES the measurement. That can’t be right.

Snarling Dolphin
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
June 14, 2018 1:54 pm Oh sure. Like THAT sounds credible. I’d be happy to move to a coastal city – closer to my people and all. But first, all the c____ a__ liberals gots to go!

Reply to  Snarling Dolphin
June 14, 2018 2:33 pm

He links to his own site in order to give himself a small shred of credibility.

Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
June 14, 2018 2:32 pm

3 trillion tons is only about 0.011% of the total Antarctic ice mass, and that’s over 25 years.
If that’s enough to get your panties in a wad then you are as pathetic as your posts make you seem.

Regardless, anyone who thinks they can measure ice levels to that level over decades with who knows how many different satellites and no knowledge of what the magma under Antarctica is doing is a total fool.

Reply to  MarkW
June 14, 2018 7:02 pm

So the total ice mass is somewhere in the neighborhood of 33 quadrillion tons, give or take a few hundred trillion.

So a loss of 3 trillion is like knocking the cherry off a sundae. No, not even that. Cutting the stem off the cherry. No, half the stem. 😐

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
June 14, 2018 3:55 am

I published an article “Role of climate change on recent weather disasters”, in Volume 2 Issue 4 (page No. 22-29) April 2018, in Acta Scientific Agriculture (ASAG).

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Verified by MonsterInsights