Climate change is reshaping the landscape of Britain as rising temperatures allow orchids and ferns to flourish in the north, while other species retreat to cooler conditions on high land and mountainsides.
This was revealed in a comprehensive survey of the nation's flora, which suggests that the changing climate has already brought about a rapid and dramatic shift in the country's plantlife, a trend researchers say will be exacerbated by future warming.

Another warnging for those who stil think that climate is not changing.

The Garden of Eden is returning and you are complaining? The Earth is either frozen over (ice ages) or a giant humid luxurious garden (60 million years of Carbonferous Period). Everythign else is transition up or down. Uncle Al votes for the Garden.

Now I'm going to rub your big stupid face in it using your govnerment's own numbers. Compare the total documented annual anthropogenic carbon contribution to that of summed natural sources - vulcanism, wetlands, tundra, jungle, forest litter, wildfires, etc. The uncertainty in natural emissions is much larger than the total exquisitely well-documented human contribution. Look it up.

The human contribution is utterly lost in natural noise. The human contribution doesn't matter at all Let's run one small number all by itself: "Alaska fires during 2004 burned over 6.38 million acres."

http://www.nifc.gov/stats/historicalstats.html
Would the government lie?

Let's say the burn averaged 5 grams of fuel/cm^2 - one short small twig. That is way underestimated, but we'll try it out. Through Google, 6.38 million acres = 2.5818944 ? 10^14 square centimeters giving 1.3x10^15 grams of fuel. Say 50% carbon by weight to give about 2.4x10^15 grams of CO2 or 2.4 billion metric tonnes of CO2. From one fire. ONE FIRE.

CO2 emission from burning a gallon of gasoline is 19.4 pounds or 8800 grams,

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm
Would the government lie?

That single Alaska fire - one fire in one year - was equivalent to burning 270 billion gallons of gasoline. The world's total petroleum consumption was 1.1 million bbl/d in 2005,

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html
Would the government lie?

or (42 gallons/bbl)(1.1x10^6 bbl/day)(365 days) or 17 billion gallons. One single Alaska fire put out more CO2 than the whole world burning petroleum for 15 years.

Human production of CO2 doesn't even show up in the noise of natural CO2 sources. Go ahead, run the numbers yourself. The human contribution is totally invisible

THEY ARE LYING TO YOU It isn't even a good lie. It is crap at face value to anybody who can do arithmetic.

Natural emission was there and will be there..that maintains a healthy environmnet and also maintains the climate cycle..But lately the forest fires have increased that is not natural..when we talk about global warming..we also talk about human activities that accelerate CO2 emission...

lmao,
In what way are forest fires unnatural?

some little fire bug running around and causing them all?
only unnatural thing about a forest fire is mankind trying to put them out.

in times of drought, those fire would have burned for months, now they go for days, occasionally for a few weeks. man did not cause this, the earth, and sun did.

Forest fires are natural..there is no confision..But in recent times, according to a latest report, about 70 percent of the forest fires were human induced.

and they all had human intervention to stop them, as did the ones caused by lightning. the true reason the fires have been so bad is that humans HAVE intervened. before the last century, when a fire ravaged an areas, it would burn of the undergrowth, allowing more growth and getting rid of that undergrowth. no man stops the fire, so the undergrowth increases, and when a fire does start it has a entirely new range of fuel: old undergrowth.

The human contribution in co2 may be(maybe not) lost in the big picture, but the devastation indusrialization is having on waterways, and in general to the entire environment is not natural. And that reshaping is effecting the health of not only the people, but thousands of untold species of life. So while your warming your feet and gloating over 1 statistic, try taking the blinders off for a minute and take in a bigger piece of the puzzle my friend. Cause when you start shutting down entire regions of an essential food chain, your askingf for more than you can chew. Believe it.

as i've said before, we are guilty of doing a lot of damage chemically to other species of life, but that is not what the debate is over. no one has or can argue that polutions has damaged many eco systems. its the effect man has had on the global warming that is debateable.

I don't know about your math but the total CO2 released through savanna, forest fires is thought to be only 1.6 billion metric tonnes compared to the purely anthropic output sitting at 7.1 billion metric tonnes (Houghton et al. 1995).

What you don't add is that land undergoing forest fire quickly becomes much more efficient at removing CO2 from the atmosphere - 50 tonnes per hectare more than an established forest.

Total global consumption of fossil fuels releases 20 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere (currently increasing at .5% per year).

Are you sure the human contribution is invisible?

Blacknad.

The human contribution to global warming is only invisible if one buries their head in the sands of irrationality.

The planet has proven many many times that it can tip from one climate to another with amazing agility.

Those that favour corporate profits over the welfare of the common people, while proclaiming themselves, "conservatives" are either ignorant or liars or both.

The manifesto of a true conservative.
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
~ Thomas Jefferson

k, lets look at one of the indicators that you are so high on how it proves man is responsible: water lvls rising.

i posted a link on one of these threads that got ignored afterwords. it showed the ups and down of the water lvls over several million years. it also showed that the water lvl dropped to 120 meters below what it currently is, and then shot up in a matter of a couple of milinia to just below current lvls. this happened before man learned to do much. at that time all he could do was chase animals with spears and rocks. since that time there has been a gradual increase (with a few decrease) of about half to 1 meter a century. now you claim that its the corporate man, and his cars thats causing the increase of 1 meter a century. if the increase was a about 1 meter a century before corporate man and its 1 meter a century now, where is the effect man has had.