Global Warming Expected to Intensify Hurricanes 589
DoraLives writes "Think this hurricane season was bad? Well according to the New York Times, a study was published online on Tuesday by The Journal of Climate indicating that warming ocean temperatures are going to make for stronger, wetter hurricanes in the coming years and decades. An abstract of the article concludes cheerfully enough that 'greenhouse gas-induced warming may lead to a gradually increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms.' Oh joy."
Whoa (Score:2, Funny)
you mean Look Out East Coast! (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, come on... (Score:3)
Re:you mean Look Out East Coast! (Score:3, Informative)
As a former Floridian I can tell you that they don't, at least not in the major Hurricane areas. Wood houses are much more common in the rest of the country, and I might add that a properly built wood house can be pretty tough. There are areas of the Atlantic coast with more wood construction, but they are in places where a hurricane hasn't landed in recorded history. It could happen though, and would probably spawn new building codes.
I forget the exac
Re:you mean Look Out East Coast! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whoa : Florida has very little to worry about. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hurricanes do NOT kill people. The supply strong winds and lots of rain but people actually die from pore planning, stupid choices, ineffective government and most importantly large scale poverty.
I.e. Florida lost less than 40 people in Hurricanes this year. They were directly hammered by 3 big ones (Category 3 to 5). A single category 4 passed 30 miles south of Jamaica and killed 16 people (.jm is small, 2.7 million). Meanwhile, Haiti was grazed by a tropical storm (not strong enough to be called a hurricane) and around 2000 people have died with another 100000 or so left homeless and starving (I.e. Likely to die if massive amounts of help isn't forthcoming).
PS: I am writing from Jamaica. In case that matters.
Re:Whoa : Florida has very little to worry about. (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of this has to do with the rampant deforestation in Haiti. Notice that the Dominican Republic, which is on the same island, did not suffer nearly as badly, as it still has much of its forest remaining. There's a picture [nasa.gov] where you can pretty clearly see the border of Haiti and the DR -- DR is green, and Haiti is not.
Re:Whoa : Florida has very little to worry about. (Score:3)
So are you going to pay my mortgage when I lose my job due to the devestated economy?
There's a lot to worry about besiced a direct threat to life. Florida will basically become Wyoming with coastline and warm weather if we have seasons like this one for the next 10 years.
Nature's way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nature's way... (Score:5, Insightful)
If this doesn't do it nothing will. It is the equivilant of being hit on the back of the head and not bothering to turn round to stop whatever hit you from hitting you again.
Re:Nature's way... (Score:3, Insightful)
If so, nature needs to speak up. A few hurricanes don't mean much to the US which has experienced seasons like this before. I suspect instead that you are projecting your psychoses on the weather.
Second, by "world's biggest polluter", you of course ignore China which pollutes more in certain very substantial categories (eg, heavy metals, particulate matter, human fecal material) and wou
See, there's a problem here. (Score:4, Funny)
Besides which you read the article. That's cheating.
Pork! Re:See, there's a problem here. (Score:3, Informative)
help you while he helps himself to some more pork.
http://www.okpork.org/ [okpork.org]
Re:Nature's way... (Score:5, Insightful)
The ULEV vehicles you trash actually eliminate far worse greenhouse gases. Methane, for example, is 100x as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2, and the advanced catalysts do eliminate almost all the hydrocarbons (like methane) from the exhaust.
These hurricanes are really Nature's way of suggesting to Floridians that their vote really matters.
Thad
Re:Nature's way... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd also like to point out that carbon dioxide emissions should not be confused with traditional pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO) and surphur dioxide (SO2). The irony is that continued advances in catal
Re:Nature's way... (Score:5, Interesting)
CO2 concent rations in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 percent in the last 50 years, with most of the increase happening in the last few decades.
The actual growth of CO2 varies from year to year [noaa.gov], but has averaged about 0.5% per year for the last 15 years, with about 0.9% per year rates in the last four years (but these are probably related to El Nino cycles).
China's rapid industrialization (fuelled mostly by coal---the fuel richest in carbon emissions) threatens to accelerate this growth rate for the next several decades, so 1% annual growth is quite a reasonable estimate.
Re:Nature's way... (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the seriousness of the disasters we're talking about if we're right, I think its important that we do whhat we can to eliminate it until we're sure global warming is not our doing. You wait till you're 100% sure your house is on fire before buying fire extinguishers, do you? If a fe
Re:Nature's way... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nature's way... (Score:3, Insightful)
There's really no other way to study the effect of global warming without using some sort of simulation, aside from waiting until the warming occurs and then measuring the result. At which point, if the predictions of this study bear out, it'll be a little too late for anything more than "shit, they were right".
It describes what could happen were CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to increase by 1% annually.
I think the point of the study was to describe what would
Problem Solved (Score:2, Interesting)
See Here [slashdot.org]
Re:Problem Solved (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Problem Solved (Score:2)
OK, but that's my point improved... they aren't the same thing -- ozone depletion actually reduces global warming, if that's true.
Re:Problem Solved (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think so. Ozone reflects radiation. Near the earth's surface, that's a bad thing because it keeps heat down. In the upper atmosphere, it's a good thing because it keeps far more heat out.
"Ozone reflects light in the upper part of the stratosphere, and thereby has a cooling effect. However, ozone in the troposphere acts as a greenhouse gas, and has a direct warming effect."
http://www.grida.no/inf/kurs/themes/ozon/ozon4.ht m
Weather is complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Weather is complicated (Score:5, Interesting)
The key point is that they are less than 50% accurate for short term forcasts. The same rule applies to psychology for diagnosing a single patient (meaning that it isn't always particularly effective).
This rule does not apply for large sums. Psychology, for example, is an extremely predictable science for sample sizes greater than 1000 or so. The same will apply to weather forcasts. And it makes complete sense since hurricanes are fueled by thermal energy. Increasing the overall thermal energy of the planet can only make them more probable.
Of course predicting when one will occur is very difficult.
CLIMATE is much less complicated than weather (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Weather is complicated (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Weather is complicated (Score:5, Interesting)
I have seen some other alternate theories to cover possible issues with global warming. Increases in geothermal activity under Greenland, for example, causing increased movement of the glaciers there. There's been the suggestion that increased energy output by the sun (a fraction of a percent, but at the level of the sun's output, that adds up pretty quickly) may be more at fault than man-made atmospheric releases. I don't mind research into man-made effects -- I'm all for getting off of oil dependency, and tech innovations are Very Good Things(TM) in general -- but alternate ideas do need to be suggested, considered, and explored.
Re:Weather is complicated (Score:4, Informative)
The 30ish year hurricane cycle is well established, but global warming cuts across that -- if the sea is generally warmer there will be more hurricanes compared to the same point in the 30 year cycle when the sea is cooler.
Re:Weather is complicated (Score:3, Informative)
As you say hurricane records are pretty spotty, but the basic connection -- warmer sea surfaces leads ot more and bigger hurricanes globally is pretty clear. Some places might end up with fewer and smaller because of some weird feedback effect, but overall, that heat energy needs to be moved and a hurricane mov
Thanks Bush! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Thanks Bush! (Score:2, Informative)
Great (Score:5, Funny)
The only way to motivate (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The only way to motivate (Score:2, Interesting)
Again, I'm sure that humans don't help the problem and can do a lot better than we currently do, but I'm not convinced that if we immediately stopped all the "bad stuff" that the warming tre
Re:The only way to motivate (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now we're running into a dark cave and hoping there isn't a bear in it. Not a very good strategy for survival.
Re:The only way to motivate (Score:5, Insightful)
If we stop pushing out green house gases, we stop agravating the situation. We do not improve the current situation. The pollution already released will remain. The issue is not about improving the situation, but stoping its deterioration.
Haiti (Score:5, Informative)
The estimates are one or two thousand dead these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Haiti (Score:2)
WTF? Your being paranoid. Noone accused USA of being the fault of this.
A little more money to aid the Haitians wouldn't hurt, though.
Re:Blame China (Score:4, Interesting)
I keep seeing this theory hopped up in every discussion about global warming. How cold water runoff (from melting ice sheets) from the North Pole and Greenland will mix with the North Atlantic and cause the Gulf Stream to suddenly stop. Then there's all these horrible scenarios about ice ages and such.
Perhaps someone can answer this for me, but isn't the only reason there is a Gulf Steam/strong current in the Atlantic Ocean anyway is because of the Coriolis Effect [wikipedia.org]? So technically, unless the Earth stops rotating, the "Deep Atlantic Conveyer Belt" should still work (albeit, the northern latitudes may be colder because of the melting ice sheets, but you'd still have the current there).
Re:Blame China (Score:3, Informative)
Remember, convection isn't a true zero sum game by itself.
Haiti + deforestation = many dead and more to come (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, no one in Haiti is going to do much about it. They will just continue to chop down what trees remain for charcoal, etc.. They are digging their own graves. This is not a troll, this is reality.
more info [indybay.org]
Once again... (Score:5, Funny)
If we had access to the source code for the weather module, we wouldn't have to wait for god to fix the bug, do some sort of mediocre quality control, and then release it after 6 months.
Re:Once again... (Score:3, Funny)
Kyoto (Score:3, Interesting)
(Kerry voted against the Kyoto agreement in the Senate in 1998)
Re:Kyoto (Score:5, Informative)
(Kerry voted against the Kyoto agreement in the Senate in 1998)
You know, I've seen so many Republican talking points that come in the form of "Kerry voted against X", that turn out to be based on procedural details and similar bullshit. So I did some Googling and found this article from December 1997 [washingtonpost.com] (smothered in an avalanche of right wing blogs essentially parroting what you said). In January 1998 the Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto because the exemptions for developing countries were widely viewed as unfair.
Re:Kyoto (Score:5, Informative)
KERRY (AND CHAFEE) AMENDMENT NO. 987 (Senate - July 24, 1997)
[Page: S8101] GPO's PDF
(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Chafee) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them to the resolution (S. Res. 98) expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; as follows:
On page 4, line 13, after `period,' insert the following:
`(ii) provides countries with incentives and flexibility in reducing emissions cost-effectively by using the market-oriented approaches of emissions budgets, emissions trading, and appropriate joint implementation with all Parties,
`(iii) includes credible compliance mechanisms, and
`(iv) provides appropriate recognition for countries that undertake emissions reductions prior to the start of the mandated reductions;'.
Kerry and global warming (Score:3, Informative)
Kerry had some problems with that version of the protocol but he definitely recognizes that we have to do something about global warming. That's why he has authored legislation to cut down on greenhouse gases.
Here's a quote from him on Kyoto:
"Bush's abrupt and unilateral decision to abandon discussions with the world community on climate change was early evidence of th
Two problems with your reply (Score:4, Informative)
Hurricanes in Florida (Score:3, Insightful)
This year our damages are estimated at $18 billion because of the hurricanes (that's $3 billion more then Andrew). I can only imagine how much we will loose if we get stronger and more frequent hurricanes.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not a conclusion. That's a hypothesis. When they conclude 'greenhouse gas-induced warming probably lead to a gradually increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms' or something equally as strong, let me know.
I mean, anyone with the slightest knowledge of the subject could have you told that this _may_ happen. What's needed is someone to get a good idea of how likely it is to be true.
Reminds me of a book. (Score:3, Informative)
Forseen 18 years ago (Score:5, Interesting)
"Hotter summers, colder winters, and more intense hurricanes. But we can't rule out a sudden (say, within a century) plunge into a little ice age, if the ice caps at the poles melt, causing the earth to lose too much albedo from the loss of the reflective ice caps. Also, glacial runoff from Greenland could stop the warming North Atlantic current and make northern Europe uninhabitable, like in the last big ice age, which ended 11,000 years ago."
So far he's been right. Not that that's a good thing.
Re:Forseen 18 years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because the evidence clearly shows that the rate of change has been accelerating since the industrial revolution. But don't let the facts get in the way of your nice comfortable lifestyle.
Re:Forseen 18 years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey num-nuts. There is a difference between 5 degree change over 100,000 years and 5 degree change of 10 years.
"Was bad"? (Score:5, Informative)
The atmosphere is a heat engine... (Score:5, Informative)
This (more hurricanes) comes as a surprise to anyone? The atmosphere is a heat engine. You put more heat energy in, you get more wind energy out. It's as simple as that. Of course you're going to get more high wind events. In the Carribean, you call those Hurricanes.
What's bemusing to a European eye is that it seems to be the places which are most likely to be devastated by global warming that are most likely to vote for Bush.
Re:The atmosphere is a heat engine... (Score:5, Informative)
"Dr. Emanuel and the study's authors cautioned that it was too soon to know whether hurricanes would form more or less frequently in a warmer world. Even as seas warm, for example, accelerating high-level winds can shred the towering cloud formations of a tropical storm."
The important take-away is that the models predict a higher proportion of severe hurricanes, but no one knows yet whether there would be more or less hurricanes.
Ironically, we could wind up with both drought and more severe hurricanes. If the total number of hurricanes diminishes, large areas of the South could experience drought. Yet, when a hurricane does form, it could be more severe than has been usual so far. Worst of both effects...
Emoticon (Score:2)
What make you think it was cheerfully concluded? Did they end the paper with a smiley?
-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]
Global Warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Global Warming (Score:5, Insightful)
The question isn't what the planet can handle but what WE can handle.
Pros and Cons (Score:2)
Re:Pros and Cons (Score:2)
Can't happen?
Do you think it makes sense for us to help trigger this process?
"Oh joy." - Karma in action? (Score:2)
I don't live anywhere near Florida, so I don't see any reason not to continue driving the Landrover.
Re:"Oh joy." - Karma in action? (Score:2)
You can't even blame Mr. Bush Junior for this (Score:2)
And yes, for people in Germany (that's me) and France etc, it will be a very tough life, when the Gulf stream changes route and maybe leaves us with a climate like Hudson Bay or so.
What you can blame Bush of course is that he refused to acknowledge these effects even now (or back when he didn't want to sign the Kyoto Treaty)!
But then, it's hard to say what he really decides and what is pr
look at the other side of the arguement (Score:2, Interesting)
History (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:History (Score:3, Insightful)
Hurricane severity may be cyclical, but it doesn't mean global warming is not involved.
Federal Insurance and FEMA (Score:3, Insightful)
I have thought that a lot of money gets wasted by the USA government by always coming to the fiscal salvage of disaster. I am really a beliver that the feds should quit paying out for reoccuring natural damage. IOW, if something happens every 10 years or less, it is natural. Good example is Hurricanes in Florida. While we should help with rescue, we should not be paying for the rebuilding of a home, a business, etc. Yet we do. In fact, I think that every state and/or locale should be evaluated for what is naturally occuring and make locals pay the insurance and/or increase the building codes. Some example
Ecosystem (Score:5, Interesting)
- Polution produces greenhouse gasses and puts holes in the ozone layer. Atmosphere allows more radiation in and traps more of it as heat.
- Planet warms up.
- Ocean tempatures rise.
- Tropical storms, including hurricanes and typhoons become more severe.
- Increased lightning activity means more ozone is generated, patching the ozone hole.
- Wetter inland weather means more plant life is active to use some greenhouse gasses, thus reducing their atmospheric amounts
- Things cool off a bit and then the cycle starts again, leaving the world not a whole lot different than it started.
It could run deeper and somehow the warming of the earth is what is starting volcanos to trigger again, producing carbon monoxide which in turn eventually helps form ozone, but I can't think of a way those two events could be directly related.Scientists don't know EVERYTHING=lets do NOTHING? (Score:5, Insightful)
But the models all disagree exactly how much. And there are other sources of C02 (although there is no evidence any of them are responsible for the increases since the industial age). And since models always have to take a few shortcuts (instead of modelling every atom) they may have ignored something that could affect climate. Unfortunately, there are things we don't understand; our computer models don't explain all historical climate changes (even though every model has more C02 = climate change). And who knows, maybe the sun is hotter (even though the evidence for this is sketchier than any of the other data).
Some people turn these little bits of uncertainty into a complete lack of action. They argue that climate change is
natural", ignoring the fact that it's catastrophic and we might be able to do something about it. They choose to do nothing, and rush us ever faster into the abyss in our giant, wasteful SUVS.
A large climate change is bad news for humans, and we have some evidence that we are responsible for some of it, and we have some evidence that we might be able to slow or reverse it. Do we need more evidence? Hell yes. But if we wait for the climate experiment known as "the earth's atmosphere" to finish, we'll be doomed. I believe that human ingenuity will be able make the world a place where humans can continue to thrive.
P.S. I don't understand why "less pollution, less waste" is seen as more as a burden and not an opportunity for business.
Could they get together and settle on one story? (Score:4, Interesting)
Lots of hurricanes, global warming. No hurricanes, global warming.
Big hurricanes, global warming. Small hurricanes, global warming.
Drought, global warming. Flooding, global warming.
Hot weather, global warming. Cold weather, global warming.
Different weather, global warming. Same weather, global warming.
Obviously the planet is warmer than it was 50,000 years ago and at least he in California it has been wetter and cooler in the last several thousand years than it has been before that. One super volcano or asteroid and we may be trying to warm the planet up or it will be very, very cold.
Hm. A lot of denial around here. . . (Score:3, Informative)
Denial of unpleasant truths seems to be a big part of living in Western culture.
Every fifth post through this whole thread is, "The Sky is NOT falling!" and "There is NO link between global warming and strange weather!" Essentially, "NOTHING IS ABNORMAL! LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
Ahem. .
First Ever South Atlantic Hurricane Hits Brazil [about.com]. (March of 2004)
South American Glaciers Melting Faster, Changing Sea Level [nasa.gov].
Alaskan Glaciers Melting Faster [cbsnews.com].
desertification in China [din.net.cn].
desertification in Africa [fsu.edu].
.
Heck, even the rest of the solar system is acting funny. Remember the. .
Blue Band on Jupiter [abc.net.au] this past March of 2004?
and
the Huge X-class solar flares of last year? [bbc.co.uk]
Interestingly, the evidence of past hurricanes categorized by decade [noaa.gov] suggests that there have been big hurricanes to make US landfall before. Indeed, the worst decade, from 1950-1959 saw a total of nine storms between category 3 and 4, (though none of category 5) during that ten year period. Sure. But we've just had four in just one summer. Nobody can say that this is par for any course.
Now, I am not claiming that this has anything to do with global warming. But anybody who tells me that everything is normal probably swore up and down that The Phantom Menace was a good film for a whole year after it came out.
-FL
Re:What? We didnt blame Bush for it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What? We didnt blame Bush for it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Kyoto agreement (Score:2)
Re:Bush said! (Score:3, Informative)
Even the Bush administration has issued reports saying that global temperatures should rise about 4 degrees over the next century (independent studies say it's more like 10). Global warming is technically a theory, but it's one of the best supported and widely believed in the scientific community. Whether or not humans have played a part in it is up for debate, though. Quick side note: since the last ice age, 1 degree/100 year increase is generally regarde
It's complicated and there are 2 compelling sides (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Kyoto to the rescue (Score:3, Informative)
98 out of 100. Two senators did not vote.
So even John Kerry voted not to ratify Kyoto. Hell, even fathead Ted Kennedy did. Because it's not about "the environment", it's about shackling the economies of the west. And if you look deeper, you will see the huge trade concessions made to Russia (by EU member states) in order for them to sign.
Apparently, 98 senators who are normally split along party lines figured that one out. There's 1+1=2 fo
Re:Kyoto to the rescue (Score:2, Interesting)
What if the U.S. had signed, but Russia hadn't? Would the hurricanes be Russia's fault?
Your mastery of simple addition is impressive, but I don't think you have any understanding of how the weather works.
Nice burn on SUVs, though! So at least your post wasn't a total failure.
Re:Kyoto to the rescue (Score:2, Troll)
See more problems chugging along, in europe we have felt the impact of global warming almost since 1985 when the winters from one year to the next suddenly had much less snow. These things dont usually become worse gradually and slowly but basically from one year to the next, then things seddle for a while and then wham, the next smack.
Well I see it as a real sign of god (not the
Re:Kyoto to the rescue (Score:2)
Kerry voted against the Kyoto treaty. oh, I'm sorry, you actually expect either the Green or Independant party candidates to be serious contenders for the Office of President of the United states.
By the way, SUVs aren't the problem, combustion engines that burn fossil fuels are. SUVs that run off Biodeisel are every bit as eco-friendly as little "roller skates" tha
Common Misconceptions on Kerry and Kyoto (Score:2)
Bzzzzt. Wrong. (unless you're not referring to John Kerry being Bush's replacement)
As reported in the IHT [iht.com] and other [grandforks.com] news sources, John Kerry has made a point that he will not be getting the US back into Kyoto. This should come as no surprise. As a senator, he voted against [senate.gov] allowing the department of the interior to fund implementation of the Kyoto protocols. On the cam
Re:Common Misconceptions on Kerry and Kyoto (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:one problem ... (Score:2)
Other than a general increasing trend in recorded temperatures over recent years. Sure, it isn't conclusive evidence (we don't know that this wouldn't be happening naturally without our intervention), but it is evidence.
Re:one problem ... (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact there is much much evidence, that perhaps you have chosen not to see.
Funny how Dubya can invade Iraq, killing 10's of thousands of innocent civilians, and over a 1000 americans on NO ACCURATE EVIDENCE of there ever being ANY WMD's in Iraq
yet at the same time, he can totally ignore the decades of research that show the world is getting warmer (whether or not its by our own hand).
hmmm coincedentally, Dubya is an Oil man
damn I dont know why you Bushies can't see the damage Bush has done for his own personal greed. Instead you blindly follow him, ignorantly thinking he's saving you.
Re:This is just the beginning! (Score:2)
Re:Lomborg's gambit (Score:2)
Re:Lomborg's gambit (Score:2)
Re:I thought (Score:2)
Re:Thanks Bush! (Score:2)
So much for "no child left behind [whitehouse.gov]". It's truly [reference.com].
I hate the spelling police, but this one was too tempting.
Re:The Cause of Global Warming (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually thousands of scientists have come out and stated our CO2 emissions ARE a significant factor. You've chosen to ignore them.
I guess you are ignoring that we've nearly doubled atmostpheric CO2 since our industrial revolution. (I bet you didnt even know that)
I guess you are ignoring the huge greenhouse effect of methane, which we spew into the air in tremendous amounts through Oil/gas production and through the raising of Billions of cattle each year. (I bet you thought that burnt oil just disappeared, that it didn't make CO2)
I guess you have chosen to ignore the large percentage of the planet where we have eliminated trees and other plants, removing a huge carbon sink. (did you even know that plants absorb CO2 as part of their metabolism?)
dumbass.
Re:The Cause of Global Warming (Score:5, Informative)
Since the industrial age has begun, the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from around 280ppmv to 380ppmv [nasa.gov]. You can argue about the effects of that carbon dioxide, but this does not strike me as a "miniscule" change; we've modified the carbon dioxide in the entire planet's atmosphere by almost a third!
The fact that humans can have such a drastic effect on an entire planet is pretty amazing.
Re:The Cause of Global Warming (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not making an argument; I'm presenting evidence, gathered by NASA, measured several different ways, all of which agree.
You, on the other hand, are an anonymous coward making some unsuppored claims that disagree with all published data I've ever seen. Very convincing of you...
In any case, look for the phrase "Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities." on this USGS page [usgs.gov]. Or you can choose any of the other pages you find on volcanic CO2. If you're too lazy to read it, let me summarize it: humans add about 100x the CO2 to the atmosphere than volcanos do.
Re:CLIMATE CHANGE! Not "Global Warming" (Score:2)
It is still happening.
Increased storm activity and severity is just one symptom.
Re:going out on a limb here... (Score:4, Insightful)
A: the planet is warming faster than it has done for millions of years
B: human releases of CO2 is almost certainly the main cause
and I would observe that B actually doesn't matter. If the planet is warming, we should release less CO2, to try and cool it, regardless of the reason.