When it is cold and dry in the northern U.S. it doesn't snow at all. Enjoy your moisture from the warm oceans.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031106052121.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/443...rming-say-scientists.html


Snow is consistent with global warming, say scientists
Britain may be in the grip of the coldest winter for 30 years and grappling with up to a foot of snow in some places but the extreme weather is entirely consistent with global warming, claim scientists.

This video-clip from scientists explain how earth Magnetic field is the ONLY source that is responsible for current (or any other) Global Warming process:


http://www.youtube.com/user/BjarneLorenzen

I still believe humans influence in a significant way the Climate, at least in a way that it shortens the time to warming period generated by Earth's the magnetic field.

Below couple of example when humans helped mess this planet further:

Extreme weather: Dust Bowl created by drought and human harvesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl

Deforestation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation

Aral Sea almost gone because of irrigation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

Also, the main factor in human influence over Climate or at least Biosphere (global sum of all ecosystems) is the sheer magnitude of Anthroposphere (global sum of human activities) presence on Earth. Our cities and crop fields took a huge chunk from the old forests and lakes of the world (we took the good land not the bad stuff like deserts which we cannot manage to change in good land). Think about how much we took in terms of space or resources. And now think about how much we will take in the next 100 to 200 years from now when the population will get 4-7 times bigger.
Do you think WE HAVE PROBLEMS? Think about people leaving 100 years from now. What resources or space they will require versus what they will have:

Human population year 1900: 1,650 millions
Human population year 2008: 6,707 millions

Based on the equation above (when despite 2 World Wars plus lots of small wars, lots of disease, genocides, car/train/airplane/boat accidents, etc. population increased 4 times) we can expect around 15-25 billion people by 2100. After (unless civil unrest provokes total annihilation) you can see increases to over 50 billion by 2150-2200. These people will take space and resources. Already we decimated almost all the significant wild species of this entire planet. We produce food in absolute enormous quantities and it is still not enough.
When it will end? How it will end?

damir1978, I do believe too that human activity influences our planet and in may ways. Cutting down up forests, changing the equilibrium of atmospheric components, polluting sea and rivers, drying lakes, eroding the soil, changing the reflective property of the earth's surface by our activities etc. etc. will have or has already an effect no doubt. How big, how fast, for sure I do not know, but doing nothing will not help.

Now regarding your projections in terms of demographic population I would be much more cautious.

Today we are much less then what was predicted 40 years ago. Nobody had included in the model the fact that with the increasing of the living standards, after a certain level the birth rate goes abruptly down.

So today all demographers are trying to see how to include this effect which will be at various stages in various countries. What seems sure is that we have to review the numbers on the lower side.

Today demographic predictions models between the minimum and the maximum for 2100 can variate by a factor of ten. Clearly there is a problem.

For me this means that we must do everything to help under developed countries reach the development level were the birth rate goes down to a renewal rate of their population.

Then there is some hope that we could reach an acceptable equilibrium with our planet renewable and sustainable technologies helping.

It is also interesting to note that when a very high level of development and living standards is reached the birth rate starts slightly to increase again.

Most of the wikipedia entries have been tampered with:

"A new report reveals a British scientist and Wikipedia administrator rewrote climate history, editing more than 5,000 unique articles in the online encyclopedia to cover traces of a medieval warming period – something Climategate scientists saw as a major roadblock in the effort to spread the global warming message.

Recently hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit expose a plot to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period, a 400-year era that began around A.D. 1000, the Financial Post's Lawrence Solomon reports."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119745

William Connolley's wikipedia editing privelages have been revoked.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/more-on...-as-a-wiki-administrator/ We can no longer pretend that these "Scienthologists" are practicing anytihng remotely resembling Science. As I was taught - if the data does not support your hypothesis, it should be rejected and a new hypothesis formed. More simply if Plan A fails you don't try Plan A recycled.